Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	14	33
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	2	4	6
RfD	0	0	22	50	72
AfD	0	0	0	5	5

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (26 out of 7750 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Talk:Nagyal 2024-05-16 04:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Neil Hartigan 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Tad Jude 2024-05-15 17:16 2025-05-15 17:16 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Minneapolis 2024-05-15 17:15 2025-05-15 17:15 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work RoySmith Draft:CaseOh 2024-05-15 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dennis Brown Poot 2024-05-15 00:14 2025-05-15 00:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Spore (2008 video game) 2024-05-14 23:39 2024-11-14 23:39 edit,move Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Jewish Institute for National Security of America 2024-05-14 06:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Doug Weller Nava Mau 2024-05-14 03:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Andrey Belousov 2024-05-14 03:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Category:Hamas 2024-05-13 23:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno Sde Teiman detention camp 2024-05-13 20:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Çankaya Mansion 2024-05-13 14:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:GS/AA Rosguill Second Battle of Latakia 2024-05-13 13:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Alien 2024-05-13 13:23 indefinite move lower to semi, time heals; requested at WP:RfPP The Night Watch Shays' Rebellion 2024-05-13 08:08 2025-05-13 08:08 move dang it. Not used to move protection, I guess.... Dennis Brown Chuck Buchanan Jr. 2024-05-13 02:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse 2024-05-13 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Michael Ealy 2024-05-13 01:22 2025-05-13 01:22 edit,move Persistent vandalism: racist swinery Drmies Template:Nelson, New Zealand 2024-05-13 00:51 indefinite move Highly visible template that is vulnerable to macron vandalism Schwede66 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2024-05-12 21:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Interracial marriage 2024-05-12 19:14 2024-11-12 19:14 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry RoySmith Template:FAQ/FAQ 2024-05-12 10:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers User:Arjayay/Rang HD 2024-05-12 10:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rang HD -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Rangiya 2024-05-12 09:27 2024-10-16 06:56 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: confirmed socks edit the article Ymblanter Vaush 2024-05-12 07:35 indefinite edit,move per WP:CT/BLP Primefac

Requesting RfC be re-closed

An RfC recently asked how to summarize a section at People's Mujahedin of Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (SB) and I (VR) offered competing versions. @Chetsford: closed as consensus for SB's version, but graciously encouraged me to seek review here; I'm asking the RfC be re-opened re-closed.

• The RfC was closed Nov 29‎. Yet there was active discussion on Nov 27-28 on whether the proposals violated WP:DUE([1][2]) or MOS:WEASEL ([3]). But wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE.

• Secondly, the SB proposal mass removes longstanding content. Major divergences from the status quo require a strong consensus (as pointed out by El_C). Although the RfC was closed as "seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed", I count 10 supports for SB and 7 for VR. The closer felt the opposition to SB's version was ambiguous; I disagree and have provided the exact comments (see below "Vote counts"). Given this, the policy considerations below and closer finding both sides' arguments "equally compelling", the result leans to "no consensus". Re-opening the RfC might change that. Also, there is recent indication that RfCs on that page are voted on without being read, so result should be based on policy not votes.

• Lastly, there were serious policy issues with SB proposal that no one responded to. This version's weasel wording ("various sources...while other sources...") implies a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Academic sources overwhelming say that MEK is a cult (list of sources provided here and here). Even SB acknowledged that no source actually dismisses the cult claims. Yet SB's version balances the opinion of peer-reviewed books and journal articles against those in newspaper op-eds. The argument that high-quality RS can't be counterbalanced with low quality ones was made repeatedly ([4][5]) but never got a response.

• • It was pointed out (but never responded to) that SB's version inaccurately implies that MEK barring children from a military camp was the only or main reason for the cult designation, but the sources instead give different, multiple reasons for the cult designation. This is worded as a strawman and misrepresents what one of the sources SB cited says (see below "What the BBC source says").

• • By contrast, most objections against VR proposal aren't policy-based. This policy-based objection was promptly corrected ([6][7]). I repeatedly asked for clarification of objections ([8][9]) but no one responded except Bahar1397 (and our discussion was cutoff by the closure).

Vote counts

Stefka Bulgaria's proposal was supported by MA Javadi, Idealigic, Adoring nanny, Nika2020, Bahar1397, Alex-h, Ypatch, Barca and HistoryofIran (only said "Yes per Stefka.") Vice regent's proposal was supported by Mhhossein, Pahlevun, Sa.vakilian, Ali Ahwazi, Jushyosaha604 and Ameen Akbar. The closer felt opposition to SB's proposal was ambiguous, but I disagree and providing the statements below. Mhhossein said "No, for multiple reasons..." Ali Ahwazi said "No... The proposed text doesn't represent the reliable-sources based on WP:DUE." Pahlevun said "...I strongly reject the proposal on the grounds that it contradicts with WP:RS" @Jushyosaha604:, said " The OP who started the RFC removed too much information" (only pinging because the closer felt their position was ambiguous) Sa.vakilian said "No...this RFC is not acceptable per DUE" Vice regent, said "Stefka's proposed version gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to both views".

What the BBC source says

SB's version says The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish". This wording makes it seem that children are simply barred from MEK headquarters, a strawman argument, even though one of the sources cited makes it clear that this is decades' long child displacement. It says, Not only was the MEK heavily armed and designated as terrorist by the US government, it also had some very striking internal social policies. For example, it required its members in Iraq to divorce. Why? Because love was distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran. And the trouble is that people love their children too. So the MEK leadership asked its members to send their children away to foster families in Europe. Europe would be safer, the group explained. Some parents have not seen their children for 20 years and more. And just to add to the mix, former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies. You might think that would set alarm bells ringing - and for some US officers it did. One colonel I spoke to, who had daily contact with the MEK leadership for six months in 2004, said that the organisation was a cult, and that some of the members who wanted to get out had to run away. The source also mentions that "no children rule" as being only one of many reasons (mandatory divorce, members not allowed to leave) for MEK's cultishness.

VR _talk 15:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing to request to re-close.VR _talk 19:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was opened on 2 October 2020, and there had been absence of new participation towards the time Chetsford closed it. As Chetsford explained to VR, the RfC process "is a finite discursive arena designed to achieve a specific purpose and not an infinite chat room for open-ended dialog." Also involved editor Mhhossein requested for the RfC to be closed by an experienced admin, and that's what happened here. After the close, VR was advised to continue discussion on either the article Talk page or personal Talk pages, but both Mhhossein and VR have a tendency to instead complain each time a RfC in this article doesn't close in their favor, making it exhausting for everyone involved. The RfC was opened for two months, and was closed by an experienced admin who gave a thorough and policy-based rational for their close. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• That RFC ran for way too long. VR constantly commented on votes that didn't support his proposal, so when he says "there was active discussion", that's basically him disagreeing with opposite votes. Secondly, the consensus was not to mass remove longstanding content, but to condense a lot of POV. Chestford's vote count was accurate and his closing remarks carefully followed guidelines. Stefka's proposal was more neutral, that's why it won consensus. Lastly, there weren't any "serious policy issues with Stefka's proposal that no one responded to." VR and Mhhossein have been arguing WP:FALSEBALANCE to keep in the article multiple quotes repeating "Democratic Iranian opposition political party = cult" while Mhhossein is removing multiple sources about a misinformation campaign that the Iran’s theocratic regim is running to characterize this political party a cult. Alex-h (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. Clearly the correct close.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• • The closer said he has counted the votes. There are 9 supports and 7 opposes which use policies in their comments. Moreover, this page is under CONSENSUS REQUIRED restriction, and the admin who himself has proposed Wikipedia:Consensus required and has the most experience regarding page said earlier this restriction should be taken into account, given the fact that "key longstanding text" is condensed by ~60%. Such a mass change requires a strong consensus. Not to mention that VR has raised quite fair concerns which are not responded to. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this is what the closing admin said in their closing comment:

"By head counting, seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed. Looking more closely at the arguments there was an unambiguous consensus that the text in question needs to be shortened, which is consistent with past discussions. Insofar as to whether or not the proposed alternative text should be the text used to shorten the article, "yes" !votes argued the current text was WP:UNDUE and the proposal accurately and duely represented all content in a more succinct and readable form. The "no" !votes stated that the sources used to support the current weighting of perspectives were not entirely drawn from WP:RS and that the proposed alternative text was, therefore, not DUE. The "no" !votes also stated that, while "cult" was a contentious label, there was an abundance of RS that used this term to refer to the Mujahedin. In rebuttal, "yes" !voters said that the word "cult" remained in the article but was reduced in redundancy by the proposal which was not inconsistent with the closing decision in a previous RfC on this topic, or the policy aspect of the objection raised by the "no" !votes. Arguments advanced by both "yes" and "no" editors were equally compelling and virtually every comment cited a relevant policy and made a logical argument as to why policy supported their position. In these cases, our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". There is a consensus to adopt both the shortening proposal, and the specific text advanced in that proposal by Stefka Bulgaria. An alternate proposal by VK did not achieve a consensus, however, a number of persons who registered a "yes" opinion in that proposal did not express any opinion at all in the original proposal. Given that, it would be okay to open a new and more focused discussion as to whether or not the just-adopted shortened form should be modified in the way suggested by VK, however, keeping this entire RfC open for that reason alone isn't justified and would be unnecessarily confusing."

And here is the conversation that followed on the closer's talk page after this close. All concerns were addressed (in the RfC process and after by the closing admin). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't bludgeon the process, please. Thanks.--Mhhossein ^talk 05:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I added the closing admins' evaluation (which was needed after your comment). Please do not edit my comments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You could simply put the diff and everyone could see what you are talking about. That's clearly bludgeoning to unnecessarily put the whole text wall here and would like to ask you avoid doing that in future.--Mhhossein ^talk 14:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure what the specific disagreement is about as I haven't followed the discussion too closely, but I'd be happy to clarify and add more details to my comments in case the RFC was reopened. Apologies for the ambiguity. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening): I closed the RfC in question and addressed some of the concerns the OP (and others) raised above at my Talk page here. However, as I said there, I think this was an exceptionally close decision. The OP is an outstanding editor who makes strong points in favor of reopening that are based on a GF interpretation of policy. While I don't agree with them and didn't, therefore, believe I could unilaterally reopen the RfC I would have no objection if the community decided to reopen it. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Re-open Re-close. Jeez, what a mess. This reminds me of what happened when the last RfC on the cult designation was closed/amended back in September (by L235). Same thing now in November (December)? Nothing learned? Yes, there remains a strong consensus to trim. But my sense is that there's only a strong consensus to trim within reason. In the last RfC, the proposal was to trim 800 words down to 40 words. This RfC proposes to trim it down to 80 words. Now, I realize it's double the word count, but whether one is cutting down the material to 1/20th of its former size or to 1/10th of it — either one of these still amounts to an enormous reduction. So, in either case, I would submit that there would need to be a strong consensus to trim that much sourced content. Whereas, if one were to propose trimming much less, a rough consensus ought to do. Anyway, having a cult designation super-trim RfC every 3 months is too much. Had I still been active as an admin in the article (with thanks to Vanamonde93 for picking up the torch), I probably would have barred this latest RfC from even proceeding (as such). It just isn't a sensible way to engage the problem at hand. It seems like a one-sided approach and a timesink. So, Stefka Bulgaria, maybe it's time someone else had go at it...? Because, coupled with your rather perplexing SPI (to word it gently) involving Mhhossein earlier in the week, it doesn't look like it's heading anywhere good. At any rate, maybe a pre-RfC consultation period wouldn't be the worse idea. Instead of submitting one super-trim RfC after another, why not work together toward a proposal that both sides could find palatable. Or am I just howling at the moon? El_C 09:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly support work[-ing] together toward a proposal that is both concise but also contains all the major points. We can use the two proposals in the RfC already (SB's and VR's) as starting points.VR _talk 11:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose re-opening the rfc since it received concensus and was closed properly. If some editors want to shape the final outcome, then they should start a new rfc and see if that receives consensus, so I support working together in a new rfc. Idealigic (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your use of the word "consensus" is too vague, Idealigic. Because what I am saying above (and have said in the prior RfC), is that one would need a strong consensus to reduce sourced material to 1/20th (prior RfC) to 1/10th (current RfC) of its former size. Rough consensus just isn't good enough for changes of that magnitude. El_C 17:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The head count was 10 editors in favor of the proposal and 4 against it (and even some of votes that were against the OP’s proposal agreed the text needed shortening so it could be more neutral, so there was an unambiguous consensus that the text needs to be shortened, something also consistent with past discussions).In cases where arguments on both sides are equally compelling citing relevant policies our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it".

The text was requested to be summarized because there a section in the article with the violating title “designation as a cult” (it violates WP:V and WP:OR) with exuberant number of quotes calling the democratic political opposition to Iran’s theocracy a "cult". The OP provided many sources about the Iranian regime running a disinformation campaign to label this political group a “cult” and other discrediting things:

• "A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

• "disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult."

  ”

• "To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications."

• "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."

• "Teheran’s efforts to undermine the opposition People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK) in the Netherlands continued unabated in 2011. In a campaign co-ordinated and financed by the Iranian intelligence services, the media and a number of politicians and other public servants were approached with a view to portraying the MEK in a highly negative light."

• "The intensification of the MOIS research efforts already described for 2015 against the opposition "People's Modjahedin Iran Organization" (MEK) or theirs political arm, the “National Council of Resistance of Iran” (NCRI), was also found in 2016. The Iranian intelligence service continued to adhere to the strategy that the MEK targeted through Discredit propaganda."

• "“The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support,” Rafizadeh, an Arab News columnist, added."

• "The campaign to suppress and demonize the opposition, most notably the MEK, has been launched since the Islamic regime usurped power in Iran. In fact, the Iranian intelligence and security apparatus has been actively pursuing various activities against the MEK such as monitoring, assassinating and, more importantly during recent years, demonizing the opposition group in media. For instance, in 2015 and 16, the regime produced at least 30 films, TV series and documentaries to spread false allegations and lies against the opposition in Iran’s society. This is apart from hundreds of websites and exhibitions across Iran to pursue the same goal."

These are just some of the reasons mentioned in that discussion why this needed shortening, cleaning that section and preserving the main points. If new information needs to be added, then a proposition can be made explaining why it is needed and how they are in accordance to a summary style editing. That would be a fresh approach of building the article instead of the other way around (which has already proven not to work). Idealigic (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you guys think bludgeoning the discussion with such a text wall can be helpful? As I told you, you did exactly the same thing at the talk page of MEK but it just made the whole talk page into a real mess. As a friendly note, this is not really helpful. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Idealigic's count of "10 vs 4" is wrong. There were two proposals: 10 chose SB's, 7 chose VR's (see collapsed section Vote counts for diffs and details) - this is not consensus.VR _talk 15:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The main problem with a situation like this is that while everyone is in agreement it needed to be changed, there wasnt a particularly strong consensus for one version over another. Usually the argument is 'do we change it to this or not'. The standard wiki response in a non-consensus situation is revert to the status quo, that was clearly not an option here, as no one wanted that. Given the weight of arguments were roughly equal, it then does come to a numbers game. The alternatives are: extending the RFC to gain more input, by advertising a bit more widely, or just reclosing it as no-consensus and taking it back to the default state. The issue with leaving it open is there are not (from reading it) many more decent arguments that could be made on either side. Re-opening a discussion for the purpose of just hoping more people up the numbers on one side or another is just an invitation to canvassing. Just to be clear I Endorse the close as valid given the discussion there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Only in death, you raise an important point about how re-opening the RfC discussion itself is a questionable proposition, though I think you also overlook some of the points I raised about the background behind the cult designation RfCs (plural). Especially, how WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS may be at odds with super-trimming content down to like 1/10th to 1/20th of its former size in an article as fraught as this. Again, I, for one, feel that the two sides giving a go to a collaboration in a pre-RfC brainstorming session could prove to be a worthwhile pursuit. We keep having the same side (and the same editor, in fact) in effect dominating the RfC platform when it comes to this matter. But, as for a mere re-open, it would, indeed, be folly. Procedurally, what I would favour (and I suppose what I originally had in mind) is an immediate re-closing, as opposed to relisting. And if it is re-closed affirming the result of the first closure, then that is what it is. Anyway, I have amended my original comment accordingly. El_C 17:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Only in death and El_C for input. Reason for re-opening was to get responses to two policy issues with SB version:

• SB's version misrepresenting the sources that say MEK is a cult (concern raised during RfC)
• SB's weasel wording equating scholarly sources to newspaper op-eds (raised during RfC[10]). Academic consensus is clear that MEK is a cult. Even SB admitted that no source dismisses the cult claim.

Neither concern was responded to during the RfC. I'm fine with a re-close as long as closer evaluates the merits of these two arguments.VR _talk 17:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A "consensus to reduce but no consensus on exact wording" can be a good thing. This finding on the previous RfC actually spawned proposals and counter-proposals. That is exactly what is needed: less !voting and more WP:NEGOTIATION.VR _talk 18:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion had been going on for months and a RFC was the only solution left for getting things somewhat fixed in the article, so in spite that there is not an overwhelming majority of votes for one version over another (although I also count 10-4 in favor of Stefka's proposal, and 6-7 in favor of VR's propoal), I agree with editor Onlyindeath that the close is valid considering the alternatives. Alex-h (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

See Vote counts, 10 chose SB's version, 7 chose VR's version.VR _talk 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with the first close. Ypatch (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Source restriction is what's needed at People's Mujahedin of Iran (and similar super-contentious articles). The sources being used on all sides (popular press) are not good enough for this topic. If we try to source a topic like MEK to popular press like BBC and arabnews.com, what we'll find is that the sources are all over the map and say all kinds of radically different things, depending entirely on who is publishing, who the journalist is, and who the journalist's sources are. We'll never get to any neutral truth about a complex topic like MEK relying on journalists. There are hundreds of academic sources about MEK. Those should be the only ones considered. The picture becomes much clearer when we rely on political scientists and other types of scholars, instead of journalists and activists, as sources. I think Chet did a fine job closing this complex RFC; sure, a no consensus close would also have been in discretion; sure, it could have run longer; Chet kind of split-the-baby with a close that addressed part of the issue and with no prejudice to further discussion of a remaining part of the issue; but without a source restriction, the MEK content disputes will never, ever be resolved. So I think step 1 is impose a source restriction, and then have whatever RFCs. But everyone's arguments would need to be re-evaluated once the source restriction is in place, and I think that will lead us to seeing that what's in dispute isn't quite as disputed by the sources as we thought it was (scholars agree about much more than journalists do). Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich I fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources - this is exactly what I said above and was repeatedly said during the RfC[11][12] by those who opposed SB version.VR _talk 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I remember months ago El_C said scholarly sources had to be the core part of our discussions (@El C: Do you remember this? I can't find the diff). I want to say that ignoring the journalistic sources may be wrong, instead I suggest to give much more weight to the scholarly works. Btw, I would say inappropriate weighing of the arguments, is the most dominant issue here. Probably I will explain it in details later. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, sorry, nothing comes to mind. I mean, beyond the MEK, I generally favour citations which are grounded in the scholarship rather than in the mainstream media. As a maxim, the greater social-scientific detail a source provides, the better. But you work with whatever sources you got, I suppose... El_C 22:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome El_C. As a user involved in most, if not all, of the core discussions of the MEK page, although I believe sometimes journalistic works may frame a sociopolitical picture of the subject, I completely agree with favoring scholarly works over the ones from the mainstream media. Let's see what Vice regent and Levivich think? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome — what? I think you meant to say "thank you" and I was meant to say "you're welcome." Stop the Steal! Anyway, unless it's news, which is the domain of the media rather than that of academia. But after the fact, it's always a plus to have a reputable scholar emphasize and reaffirm (or qualify or whatever) this or that news piece alongside any other evidence. El_C 16:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In my view, once serious scholarship becomes available, it should replace news media as a source in our articles. By "serious scholarship" I mean written by bona-fide scholars, published by real, peer-reviewed academic journals or in books (often edited by bona-fide scholars) published by university publishers (like Oxford University Press). Second-tier is non-peer-reviewed but still serious scholarly articles, in academic periodicals like Foreign Affairs, but in that case one must be careful to look at who the author is: an article by a politician in a periodical like Foreign Affairs is probably not going to make a good source; an article by a university professor published in the same magazine would be fine (but still not peer-reviewed, and may need attribution). Third-tier is top-rated news media, like BBC or The Economist or The New York Times. These should only be used when there is nothing available in the first or second tier. That will happen, of course, for any current or recent events. So as events unfold and are written into our articles, they should start with top-rated news media as sources, but then those sources should be gradually replaced as better ones (from scholarly publications) become available.

With a topic like "Is MEK a terrorist cult?", well, we don't need to go to news media. MEK has been around for decades now; a lot of scholarship has been written about it. It's possible to look at the scholarly works (books by university publishers, academic journals) and see if they describe MEK as a terrorist cult. For that question, we shouldn't even bother looking at news media, because news media will pay a lot of attention to, say, what the gov't of Iran or the US said about it recently, without filtering that "recentist" information through the sober lens of scholarship. So I wouldn't consider news media for that question, except I guess if someone is making the argument that "terrorist cult" is a recently-significant viewpoint, too new for scholarship but nevertheless significant enough to include in our article, in which case our article should cover that by making it clear it's recent, and likely by attributing it.

So basically I think I agree with Mhhossein about weight. While I said "source restriction", I certainly think that there is a place for news media to have a limited role (e.g., for recent events), but that scholarly sources should, as Mhhossein said, be favored or weighed stronger than news media sources. Ultimately as time goes on and scholarly sources are written, they should be replacing news media sources as sources in our articles. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In a sense, it's an approach that aims at drawing a parallel between the natural and social sciences. The mainstream media is fine for news, but beyond the contemporaneous, it is more encyclopedic to refer to the scholarship. Of course, the influence of political ideology tends to be far more pronounced in the social sciences than it is in the natural ones — but the principle is more or less the same. And, indeed, in the case of the MEK, there is no shortage of scholarly input on... pretty much anything. El_C 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

El_C: Hahaha, "I'm sorry (you're welcome)". I meant to say sth in response to your "sorry" (which I now see was not an appropriate reaction towards you). Thank you anyway. I think you raised this important issue of using the scholarly sources long ago and the outcome of ignoring that is showing itself just now. Also, thanks for your time Levivich. The explanation was quite comprehensive and reasonable. I agree with your points. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at that YouTube comment section (in general, a nexus of wisdom and grace), I echo what Clever and Original Username. (full stop in the original!) said 5 years ago: the idea of Gene belcher saying fuckscape still makes me really uncomfortable. Amen to that. El_C 15:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, would there be broad agreement between El_C, Levivich, Mhhossein and myself that the RfC should be re-closed (not re-opened), where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments based on Levivich's proposed "source weighting" (giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources)?VR _talk 19:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There are several editors here agreeing that there was nothing wrong with the first close. If the issue is instead "source restriction"/"source weighting" of third-tier media, then that is something that needs to be applied to the whole article and not to one particular section (like Alex pointed out below, which has been completely ignored for some reason). I will start a talk page discussion on the MEK page to see if we can first agree on applying "source restriction" to the article as a whole. If that passes, then that would answer a lot of questions about what should or shouldn't be in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the MEK talk page to see if we can first come to an agreement of applying source restriction on the MEK page as a whole. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think we should STOP everything until YOUR discussion is coming to a desired end? If you have something to say, simply add it here.--Mhhossein ^talk 11:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have added it here, as well as on the MEK's talk page. Levivich suggested that one way to make RFCs more straight-forward at the MEK page could be to first implement a source restriction there, AND THEN have whatever RFCs. So if a source restriction is to be implemented to the MEK article, then we first need to evaluate if this should/will come into effect, and if it does, then we need to determine how this will affect the vast number of media sources used in this article (and not only the ones pertaining to this RFC). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop changing Levivich's words. I don't think he meant we should wait and experimentally see if this approach works. My understanding of his words is that the RFCs would have different outcomes with source restriction in place. This stonewalling will not stop this RFC from reaching a conclusion. @Levivich: Would you please elaborate on this?--Mhhossein ^talk 17:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria and Mhhossein: TBH when I wrote my comment, I had in mind a source restriction for the entire article at least, if not the entire topic area (WP:GS/IRANPOL), because I think that will help future content disputes as well as the present one (as Alex-h points out, a source restriction would affect much more content in the article than just what's at issue in this RFC; it could significantly change what we say about the topic in wikivoice). I'll say generally that by "source restriction", I don't mean source removal so much as source replacement, i.e., replace a BBC cite with an academic journal cite when one is available; I don't mean someone should delete everything cited to the BBC. In some cases, something cited to news media can't be replaced with academic sourcing, and in those cases, perhaps removal is the correct choice, but it's really a case-by-case analysis.

With regard to this RFC, I don't think a future source restriction could be applied retroactively. That said, we do have global consensus about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP (where applicable), etc. So whether a closer of this RFC should weigh !votes based on the quality of sources... I think generally yes, it's OK for a closer to discount a !vote based on, for example, a deprecated source. Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources? (Which is, I think, what the current disagreement is about?) I have no what the answer to this question is. To be honest I don't think I've ever encountered it before.

If a source restriction is put in place, for the article or the topic area, it will result in changes to articles as it is enforced. And those changes might make this RFC moot anyway, or it might give justification to re-visiting the RFC. I really don't know, it sort of depends on whether there's a source restriction, what kind of restriction exactly, and what the sources that "pass" the restriction say about the topic.

I get Mhhossein's point about not holding up this RFC close while the community discusses a potential source restriction. Maybe the best thing is for a closer to close the RFC now but recognize that the issue may be revisited in the future if, for example, the content changes because of a source restriction being enforced.

But it's probably best to get more outside opinions, esp. from admins, as this is AN and a contentious RFC. Merry Christmas if you celebrate it, or Merry Clausmas if you celebrate a secular Christmas like I do :-) (Non-administrator comment) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It was a clear and comprehensive explanation Levivich. The fact that issues should be investigated case by case is an important thing in your words, I guess. Also, let me repeat your "Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources?" (I also believe this should be taken really more seriously now). --Mhhossein ^talk 19:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of third-tier (and fourth-tier) journalism in the MEK article. This for example:

• ”Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.”

• "The Intercept published that Bob Menendez, John McCain, Judy Chu, Dana Rohrabacher and Robert Torricelli received campaign contributions from MEK supporters.

• "According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site up until President Barack Obama took office in 2009."

• "According to the Intercept, one of Alavi's articles published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran."

• "Karim Sadjadpour believes the MEK is a "fringe group with mysterious benefactors that garners scant support in its home country", and that the population of its supporters in Iran "hovers between negligible and nill"."

The list goes on and on... Alex-h (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Besides El_C and Levivich, 2 other uninvolved users commented here. @S Marshall: and @Only in death: what do you think of the above proposal to re-close (not re-open) the RfC where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments by giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources? This was already stated twice during the RfC ([13][14]) by those opposed to SB version but never responded to during the RfC. WP:NEWSORG says Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics.VR _talk 12:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

See this discussion: the news sources are not contradicting the scholarly sources, they are just adding a different POV (that isn't in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, cherry-picking when source restriction should be implemented is the equivalent of cherry-picking our preferred sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

VR, you are overlooking the main argument here. Are we executing source restriction to the entire MEK article? We cannot execute source restriction to one sentence and not the rest of the article. Alex-h (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• In response to Vice regent's ping: No, I don't think there are good grounds to re-close. I should disclose that on 8 February 2019, I closed an RfC about the lede of this article myself, and while I was evaluating that debate, I formed the view that this article is edited by people with a strong and active interest in the topic area who are very motivated to affect what it says. I think that in that environment, a closer needs to exercise a lot of judgment; and I think that because he needs to, he's therefore, necessarily, authorised to. He's within discretion and it ill behoves us to undermine him.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall I appreciate your view, thanks for giving it. Do you have any comment on my (and others') view that the RfC proposal violates WP:V by misquoting a source, and violates WP:DUE and WP:NEWSORG by giving news sources similar weight as scholarly sources?VR _talk 04:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent in response to your poins:

1) The RfC proposal does not violate WP:V:

"Over the years, Tehran’s terror campaign at home and abroad has been augmented by a massive, well-orchestrated, well-financed demonization and disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”

International Policy Digest

"To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications... And yet, over the past several years, Iran’s state-run media has produced a total of nineteen movies, series, and documentaries—some of them consisting of up to twenty-eight segments of thirty to forty-five minutes each—that demonize the MEK. In 2018 alone, eighteen major books were published by the regime against the MEK. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei excoriated the MEK by name at least four times. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has directly blamed the MEK for organizing public protests."

National Interest

"Of late, the blather has gone from a wave to a barrage. A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

Arab News

All three sources support "while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult", so WP:V has not been violated. If you think the text could be quoted better, then just provide a suggestion on the article's talk page and we'll get others to weigh in.

2) This does also does not violate neither WP:DUE nor WP:NEWSORG. One POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so more weigh has been given to the POV with more sources. Also see the other sources provided here by Idealigic (there are plenty of sources supporting that there is a disinformation campaign by the Iranian regime against the MEK), so this content is clearly WP:DUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to what you said, this version is truely violating NPOV (explained mutliple times). Anyway, this long wall of text does not discredit the important points raised by experienced users here. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

the close was clearly done correctly. Mhhossein, if you are really interested in making the article (topic) better and not just changing the outcome of this individual RFC, then propose something on the article's talk page that can be implemented to the whole subject instead to just the line you want to remove from the article. Barca (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope, the admin having the most experience with this page says it's not! Even the closer admin said he is OK with re-opening. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Chet stood by his close, and S Marshall and Only in death also endorsed the close. Levivich proposed some kind of "Source restriction" to be implemented in the article or subject area as a whole, and I have since been trying to generate input on the article's talk page about this. About the RfC, it's been over a month since it was closed, and there was a general agreement by most (if not all) editors that the text needed to be reduced. Also I pointed out how the outcome didn't violate neither WP:V, nor WP:DUE, nor WP:NEWSORG, nor WP:NPOV (one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented). The RFC had been open for over a month, with little to none new input in the days before its closure. Moving on, if there is some kind of source restriction to be implemented in IRANPOL, then ideally an admin who deems this necessary will assist in setting this up so that we can apply it to the whole subject as well as future discussions and not exclusively to certain texts that some editors want changed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The closing admin starts his comment by "Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening)". By the way, "(one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented". LOL! Is it what you understand from NPOV? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have asked the discussion get closed. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Since the Arab News was used as a source for the text proposed in this RfC, users might be interested in discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Arab_News_reliable_on_the_People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran?.VR _talk 14:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Kiki Camarena RfC

I'm requesting that this RfC at Talk:Kiki Camarena be re-closed. S Marshall's close stated that this text [15] did not have consensus for inclusion at Kiki Camarena; the close ignored available reliable sources and directly contradicted a clear RfC consensus:

1. . WP:CONSENSUS - 6 out of 9 editors argued that the text should be included in the article body and lead, and 5 out of 6 non-involved editors argued the same.
2. . Editors arguing for inclusion noted that WP:SECONDARY and tertiary WP:RS treat the allegations "extremely seriously" (e.g. [16][17][18][19]), and that arguments against inclusion were based on WP:OR.

S Marshall ignored both media and academic sources, and the consensus of editor arguments, in his close, effectively using the close as a supervote. He has acknowledged that his close opposed the editorial judgement of the community contributing to the RfC on his talk page: "I live in hope that the community's editorial judgment has improved" [20]. -Darouet (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse Close The closer ruled, in several cases in question 2, lack of a consensus in support of an edit which is qualitatively different than a consensus against said edit; it seems consistent with the flow of discussion, and consideration of some include !votes which were more or less WP:VAGUEWAVEs. The closer's Talk page comment is ambiguous and could be interpreted in several ways; I don't think it's a smoking gun of supervoting. (Also, on the matter of question #3 I'm not getting the same numbers as the challenger; by my count, only three of nine editors explicitly supported adding text to the lead.) That said, the closer's judgment on Q4 seems to be on a question that wasn't asked in the RfC and didn't naturally emerge in discussion. However, it appears simply to be the editor's personal advice for next steps. Finally, the editor's decision on Question 1 doesn't appear to be in dispute by the challenger. Chetsford (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC); edited 04:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. This is at least the third time a close by S Marshall has been brought here for review since June. Both previous reviews resulted in overturns (see here and here) after consensus developed that SM supervoted in his close. Based on my initial reading of this new discussion, that appears to be the case once again. -- Calidum 04:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• In fact, if you examine User:S Marshall/RfC close log and its archives, you'll see that my closes have been reviewed many times on the admininistrator's noticeboard since 2014, and on the vast majority of occasions, I've been resoundingly endorsed.—S Marshall T/C 18:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Closer: Darouet misrepresents what I said on my talk page, he misrepresents my close, and he totally misrepresents the arithmetic. Chetsford has it right.—S Marshall T/C 18:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The RfC was a simple one: "Should we include a section on possible CIA participation in Camarena's interrogation, and his case more broadly, using this text at least, [21] and based on these sources?" The link that explains "this text at least" includes lead text that summarizes the issue. Fully six editors asked to "include" the text, and only a tortured distortion of their comments can argue that these "include" votes implied inclusion of some of the text, but not other parts.
  • As I already stated, 5 out of 6 non-involved editors endorsed inclusion.
  • S Marshall, as to your own comment on your talk page - what did you mean when you wrote "I live in hope that the community's editorial judgment has improved", other than that you disagreed with the editorial judgements of editors commenting on the RfC? At best Chetsford states your comment "is ambiguous," and you've offered no other interpretation. -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It's not the numbers at all, Darouet. Don't count the words in bold: read. In fact that was a near-unanimous consensus to include the disputed information. When closing I observed that all the editors who said "include" were talking about the principle of including it. None of the editors who said "Oppose as written" were opposed to including it -- their objections were to your specific wording. And that's why my first finding was to include the disputed information.
      However, in that whole discussion, the only editor who supported your exact wording was you, and there was substantial and well-argued opposition to it. For this reason, in my finding #2, you are required to engage with the opposing editors and find a wording that includes the disputed information while respecting their well-founded concerns.
      And what I meant by my other remark is that I hope editors in this close review display better editorial judgment than in other recent disputes. I don't mind being overturned by the community: it's happened to everyone who's got any business closing discussions of this kind. But I dislike being overturned by people who've !voted without reading, understanding and reflecting on the disputed discussion, as has happened to me several times of late.—S Marshall T/C 00:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

      So in your view, the editors who wrote "oppose as written" supported including the section but not as written by the proposer, and the editors who wrote "include" also supported including the section but not as written by the proposer? Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

      • Levivich summarizes the absurdity of the close perfectly - editors supporting inclusion by a 2:1 margin are worse than ignored - their comments and reasoning are reversed. It’s a catch-22. -Darouet (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Let me break down my reasoning in more detail for you, Levivich.

1. Darouet writes an RfC in which he proposes to include six (6) paragraphs about alleged CIA complicity in the torture and murder of an American citizen.
2. Half a dozen editors support him.
3. Three editors pop up to oppose the specific wording that Darouet proposes. The concerns about wording are generally expressed late in the debate.
4. A large discussion ensues, with Darouet participating very heavily indeed, but little input from his previous supporters.

So I arrive and ask myself how to close it. Noting point (1), I decide to close it with utmost caution. Noting point (2), I close it in favour of including the disputed information. Noting points (3) and (4), I decide that although the disputed information may be included, the specific wording Darouet proposes doesn't enjoy consensus support and must be tweaked in consultation with the opposers, so as to take account of their concerns. Then I write this up as an RfC close and supply a few ancillary directions which are meant to enable Darouet to add the disputed information without having to go to a second RfC about exact wording.—S Marshall T/C 12:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks a lot simpler to me: an edit was proposed, and six editors were in favor of the edit while three were in favor of including the content in some form but not as written. There was no policy-based reason to discount the !votes of those who supported making the edit. That's consensus to include. Overturn to "include". Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I am one of the non-involved editors brought to the RfC by RS/N. The closing editor makes several clear policy errors, and is egregiously partial:

1. Suitability as closer.

In their closing, the editor states The claim that the CIA was somehow involved or connected with Camarena's murder is of course an extraordinary one, and it requires in-text attribution to a specific source as well as an inline citation that directly supports the claim. The proposed addition is also long enough to raise concerns that it might give undue prominence to what may well be no more than a conspiracy theory. The notion that the claim, supported by multiple peer-reviewed academic sources, is of course an extraordinary one, is either based on an unsourced assertion by one involved editor, or a view that the closing editor brings to the discussion. Neither is appropriate. Similarly, the notion that it may well be no more than a conspiracy theory is either based on an unsourced assertion by one involved editor, or a view that closing editor brings to the discussion. Using assertions not based on policy, made by a single editor, as the basis for summarising consensus suggests a level of preconception, conscious or not, which disqualifies the editor as suitable for closing the RfC.

2. Misrepresenting !votes

The RfC question was not ambiguous: Should we include a section [...] using this text at least, and based on these sources? [my emphasis]. Those putting the case for inclusion were voting for the inclusion of the text by Darouet. The closing editor seeks to confuse the issue by creating four questions, where one was asked. They double down on this in the discussion above stating When closing I observed that all the editors who said "include" were talking about the principle of including it. The editor did not in fact make this observation, an astute choice on their part, given that any reasonable person can see it is obviously incorrect: they were talking about inclusion of Darouet’s text.

3. If the 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, not personally select which is the better policy.

Of the 5 non-involved editors supporting the inclusion of Darouet's text, all of them mention adequate reliable sources as the relevant policy, with 3 mentioning the prohibition on original research negating the extensive unsourced arguments against inclusion. All of which is ignored in the close. A disinclination to get involved in arguments amounting to attempts to disparage scholarly work, through amateur original research and attacks on the concept of scholarship (!) is surely understandable. Yet the closer claims here that they used this to infer a lack of consensus. The closing editor has not fulfilled what is expected as per the above.

Given that RfC closes are not binding, and the open bias in this instance, I don't see that the close has any relevance to the discussion about this disputed content. Cambial foliage❧ 15:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• –A content RfC is binding, unless and until consensus emerges that it's been superseded. That's why we have them at all: they're a way to resolve intractable content disputes. It's also the only reason why we need to have a mechanism for challenging and reviewing RfC closes. And closers are expected to show good judgment. Anyone who couldn't see that the allegation of CIA involvement in the torture and murder of a US citizen is an extraordinary one requiring extraordinary evidence, has no business closing an RfC of any kind whatsoever.—S Marshall T/C 19:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  No-one could accuse you of being shy in demonstrating your bias. Large parts of the English-speaking world would consider the possibility of such an occurrence as practically a truism, both in and out of scholarship. Yet you presume to know better, and pretend it is disinterested. As I said, totally unsuitable as a closer, something you ought to have taken the time to consider before seeking to make what has understandably been referred to as a "supervote". Cambial foliage❧ 00:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• A content RfC is binding, unless and until consensus emerges that it's been superseded. I mean, what that means is that a content RfC is binding until it isn't. Obviously we always have to go by consensus, but even the most uncontroversial RfC with the most clear and obvious outcome provides only a single snapshot onto consensus at a single moment in time. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• • Saying this is largely supported by academic sources is a stretch. One of the sources is a book published by an unknown author with only 1 piece published. One is a book review, another is a passing comment. The “RS” cited, that I checked, barely make any such and instead attribute it to one lawyer and a bunch of unnamed alleged witnesses and then pose a question. There is no evidence of any kind, rather pure speculation. This has all the hallmarks, and the distinct smell, of being a conspiracy theory. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  This is not the place to "relitigate" the RfC, but to discuss the various ways in which the close did not follow policy. If you have further comments on the sources proposed, use the article talk page. Making grossly misleading, and flatly wrong, characterisations of the book (professor emeritus of history at the University of Wisconsin ≠ unknown author) and other sources (two book reviews published in well-established peer-reviewed journals) will be equally unhelpful and pointless there. Cambial foliage❧ 15:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would argue that based on the closing rationale above, another RFC should be run immediately. Holding another RFC immediately after a previous one is unusual, but there are situations where it is appropriate, especially if a previous RFC plainly left key aspects unexamined, failed to resolve the core question, or if there were later developments that need consideration. And in this case the rationale for the close is Three editors pop up to oppose the specific wording that Darouet proposes. The concerns about wording are generally expressed late in the debate. A large discussion ensues, with Darouet participating very heavily indeed, but little input from his previous supporters. In other words, the reasoning is that there was a late development that most of the RFC didn't consider - but that means that the concerns used to decide it were only discussed at the RFC by four people at most and only for a very brief time; an RFC that barely considered something the closer identified as a key aspect is a weak consensus at best and can't reasonably be said to have resolved the underlying dispute. The appropriate thing to do in that case is to have a second RFC, running longer and with more participation, focusing on those concerns specifically. People above and below are warning against relitigating the RFC in a request to overturn it, which is valid, but the main reason those points are getting "re"-litigated here is because, due to being raised so late in the RFC, they were never properly litigated in the RFC itself, which indicates further discussion is needed. Also, I would argue that in situations like this (where an RFC has a point that seems significant raised late in its runtime), the best way to handle it is to relist it in order to get more discussion on that aspect rather than closing it in a way that disregards earlier opinions and basically decides it based only on the last handful - there is no rush. --Aquillion (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: 4 out of 6 editors who favor including the text as written address the some or all concerns of the 3 editors who oppose it. I think we can accept a 2:1 RfC outcome while still refining the text in question, since the question posed by the RfC, Should we include a section on possible CIA participation in Camarena's interrogation, and his case more broadly, using this text at least (diff), and based on these sources?, does not preclude refinement. -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean I was one of the editors who advocated inclusion, and I don't think my own arguments were weak, so obviously (if we're counting noses) I'm all for overturning this. But directly overturning an RFC is often difficult; whereas a second RFC some four months after the first is quite easy to obtain given that the first one clearly hasn't brought the matter to a conclusion and part of the rationale for its disputed closure was that there were questions that the closer felt had mostly not been considered. Regardless of the propriety of the closure, I don't think anyone can reasonably look at that RFC or the ensuing discussion and call the consensus backing it strong or conclusive, and I don't see how S Marshell could argue against a second RFC after stating in his rationale that the first one lacked sufficient discussion of key points. So rather than turning this into a personal dispute with S Marshall, it might be simpler to just call for a second RfC that unambiguously asks things like "should this be in the lead", "is the sourcing broadly sufficient", and "should we use Darouet's text as a basis" - this has been going on for two years already, after all; another month to obtain a bit more certainty in terms of a conclusion won't kill anyone. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn, obviously, after looking more closely. As Cambial said above, S Marshall did not, by my reading, make any attempt to argue in his closing statement that the made by people arguing for inclusion were stronger. The closest thing to it is an obvious WP:SUPERVOTE where he states The claim that the CIA was somehow involved or connected with Camarena's murder is of course an extraordinary one, and it requires in-text attribution to a specific source as well as an inline citation that directly supports the claim. The proposed addition is also long enough to raise concerns that it might give undue prominence to what may well be no more than a conspiracy theory. The kind of addition that could gain consensus would need to be succinct as well as specific in order to circumvent this concern. The majority of respondents stated (often with detailed, policy-based explanations of why) that they felt sourcing was sufficient, and S Marshall makes no effort to even acknowledge that, let alone explain how their arguments were flawed. Worse, the final sentence imposes requirements that were raised nowhere in the discussion - it is pure WP:SUPERVOTE. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Endorse Close: This looks like a good summary of the arguments made. It appears that question #2 was the contentious one. While I understand why some may have read that as "consensus against", I read it as "no consensus" with an understanding that it is an extraordinary claim and thus evidence in favor would have to be strong. Springee (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: why do you think the arguments of 6 editors supporting inclusion of the text as written don't amount to a consensus, when only 3 editors, by comparison, oppose inclusion? Is a 2:1 margin not enough to determine consensus? Furthermore, from the perspective of consensus, don't you think it's significant that non-involved editors supported inclusion by a 5:1 margin? Especially with a number of them stating in their arguments that they have reviewed oppose votes and find them unpersuasive, since they attempt to impeach reliable sources through OR? -Darouet (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

In cases where a simple vote count is appropriate, which this isn't, the convention is that below 65% in favour fails, above 75% passes, and 65%-75% is the closer's discretionary zone.—S Marshall T/C 15:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This aligns with my understanding. My feeling has been that, in pure numbers terms, 2/3rds is the consensus line (for or against) with less than 2/3rds being no-consensus. That line shifts or even is irrelvant if there is not a balance of arguments. Springee (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• This "convention", which you have apparently manufactured for the purpose of attempting to defend your actions in this close, appears nowhere in the guidance around RfCs or general discussion closure. Five questions remain, which you continue to make no attempt to answer:

1. If you have strong opinions about the subject, which you double down on above (Anyone who [doesn't share my preconceptions] has no business closing an RfC of any kind whatsoever), why did you seek to make a supervote by closing? You are totally unsuited to close this RfC.

2. Why do you misrepresent the !votes for inclusion of Darouet's text by imagining additional questions for the RfC? The question was unambiguous, and the text can and will be refined in mainspace.

3. Why do you seek to make prescriptions on future development by imagining other additional questions, which experienced editors will ignore?

4. Why do you totally ignore multiple uninvolved editors collective views on which are the controlling policies (WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:NOR), but pick up on certain views each expressed by a single editor?

5. When WP:Discard indicates that only irrelevant arguments should be discarded 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, why do you give no reasons whatsoever for discarding the views of the majority of editors? Cambial foliage❧ 09:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• I won't attempt to answer those questions at this stage. The only uninvolved sysops who've participated in this thread so far are Chetsford and Barkeep49, which means my close is mainly being reviewed by those who voted, and now the thread's sheer length defends it against being read. I will answer your questions if a single uninvolved sysop suggests overturning; otherwise I would prefer to encourage review of my decisions by keeping the thread as short as possible.—S Marshall T/C 10:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  I haven't reviewed the merits of the close so I have no idea there - I've only weighed in on what, in the abstract, I think makes a good close. However, and I admit to being a bit surprised I'm having to mention this to you of all people this, but any uninvolved editor (sysop or not) should have their voice considered when weighing consensus here about whether or not it was a good close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  The Arbcom election has taught me that meaningful engagement with your critics is optional.—S Marshall T/C 21:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  ANRFC is clear that Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale. So if, as you state, you see discussing what you claim is a "rationale" as optional, then you are not to try to make any RfC closures at all. Cambial foliage❧ 14:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  I've discussed and justified it a lot, though, haven't I. I'm not required to answer your specific questions.—S Marshall T/C 15:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, you haven't. You haven't justified it at all, and you haven't tried to. You've largely expended text pretending editors made different arguments to those in the discussion. The substantive issues are that you ignored policy and did as you please to make a supervote. That's what the points above reflect. You haven't addressed those; you claim you're unwilling to. Don't try to close RfCs. Cambial foliage❧ 15:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'm required to explain my close, and I've done so. The rules don't say I have to engage with trap questions from vexatious questioners, nor am I required to stop closing RfCs on the request of aggrieved participants. You could seek consensus here to bar me from such closures, if you like.—S Marshall T/C 16:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  You're required to justify your closing rationale, not merely explain [your] close. No explanation of your pseudo-close/supervote was required: you had a strong opinion and felt it would be more effective formatted as a close rather than another vote. But your rationale – which based on your current contributions to this discussion we are forced to assume is non-existent – is required. The fact you desperately resort to characterising questions as "traps" suggests an inability to seriously answer them. Cambial foliage❧ 17:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think S Marshall has been quite diligent in meeting their obligation for accountability as a closer of this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  User:Barkeep49 Based on what, precisely? There are five questions around policy errors above with no attempt at an answer. Even the most salient, the lack of any reason given for discarding the views of a majority of editors, has received no attempt at justification or explanation. The only attempt at justification of any aspect of the close is here, where they argue to Darouet: the only editor who supported your exact wording was you which is just flatly, obviously not true; and there was substantial and well-argued opposition to it. This "well-argued opposition" contains not one single reference to any source refuting the claims in the scholarly sources. Zero. And that fact is picked up on by multiple uninvolved editors.

  It is astonishing that I need to draw attention, to a supposedly experienced "closer" and to an Arbcom member, to what User:Darouet already stated during the discussion in no uncertain terms: The evaluation of historians and journalists is worth more than the speculations of editors here. Closing editor considers that unsourced speculation well-argued; arguments reiterating WP:NOR are discarded. No attempt at explaining this decision is made, and the editor claims that engagement with your critics is optional, yet you argue that WP:ADMINACCT is diligently observed. Are we reading different policies? Cambial foliage❧ 19:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  I have stated several times that I have not, nor do I plan to, evaluate this close challenge on the merits. Here are among the edits where I see S Marshall fulfilling their responsibility to be accountable [22] [23]. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse largely per Chetsford and ProcrastinatingReader. The crux of the debate was WP:RS (and possibly WP:FRINGE), and specifically whether the provided sourcing was of sufficient quality to support the claims in the proposed edit. Early comments were yes, but then the quality of the sourcing was challenged. Following the challenge, other editors opined that it should be included but with due weight given to the claim's refutation and weaknesses. Marshall's close accurately reflects this in its conclusion (paraphrased as) "include, but not this specific wording". As for the "don't work on it in article space": while it's not binding, common sense tells us that it's probably good advice. A lot of the "next steps" parts of the close could have been more clearly delineated from the "summary/binding" parts, but this isn't an exercise in copyediting so I'll refrain from rewriting it. In sum, there's consensus to include, but certainly no consensus to implement OP's proposed wording. Essentially, that's S Marshall's close, so I see no reason to overturn. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: by a 2:1 margin, editors rejected the concept of including WP:OR text devoted to refutation and weaknesses of newspaper articles and academic publications. In the RfC, just one blog post was offered as a source to support that refutation [24]; another was proposed earlier on the talk page [25]. Are those the sources you have in mind, or are there others we've missed here? I don't even know how to begin drafting "refutation" text not based in sources: so far academics have only weighed in to support the allegations. As it is, it seems that attributing the allegations to the academics in question seems the best option, and that's exactly what most editors supported. -Darouet (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTAVOTE I don't really care what the margin is, and bludgeoning this discussion with the same unpersuasive claims isn't going to win me over. As you'll see at WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it's not original research to qualify or question the reliability of minor sources--in fact, qualifying or attributing suspicious or fringe claims is our policy. While you attempt to impugn it here, this source was written by Elaine Shannon, correspondent and investigative journalist for Newsweek and Time, who Harper Collins refers to as an expert in terrorism, crime, and espionage ([26]), and who has covered these topics for almost 50 years. Meanwhile, ProcrastinatingReader analyzes the provenance of your sources above, saying: One of the sources is a book published by an unknown author with only 1 piece published. One is a book review, another is a passing comment. The “RS” cited, that I checked, barely make any such [claim] and instead attribute it to one lawyer and a bunch of unnamed alleged witnesses and then pose a question. There is no evidence of any kind, rather pure speculation. This has all the hallmarks, and the distinct smell, of being a conspiracy theory. As Location says below, WP:RS states that context matters, not simply the author and the publisher; however, there seems to be an argument above to ignore an evaluation of this context claiming do so is "original research". So yeah, I'm not drinking the kool-aid on this one, and it's quite obvious that you're trying to play up the quality of your sources to try and get your preferred text into the article. That you "don't even know how to begin drafting refutation text" is not my problem. If you seriously can't do it, then don't--other editors will get on just fine without you. But misrepresenting sources on the admin noticeboard isn't going to win you fans. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not "analyzing" the provenance of the sources to simply lie about them, as is done above and which you repeat. Not an unknown author, that's a lie: Professor Emeritus of History at University of Wisconsin. Not 1 book review, that's a lie: two reviews of the book published in well-established peer-reviewed journals, both of which endorse the book's author's findings on this exact point. The claim made in the sources is exactly that which Darouet specifies in his proposed text. Repeating another editor's lies about the sourcing won't make them any less flimsy or demonstrably inaccurate. What you say about misrepresenting sources on the admin noticeboard is entirely correct – advice you would be wise to follow. It's true that it's not original research to qualify or question the reliability of minor sources. But in this instance, the attempts to question the reliability were made through original research, as was pointed out by multiple uninvolved editors. Furthermore, university presses and well-established journals are not "minor sources" simply because you deem them so on the basis of nothing in particular. Cambial foliage❧ 11:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

First, I suggest you be careful about throwing the word "lie" around, especially when making a point as silly as this one: Not an unknown author, that's a lie: Professor Emeritus of History at University of Wisconsin. Contrary to your assertion, a person can be both unknown and a professor emeritus. You don't suddenly become known because you retired, and there are plenty of unknown professors. If, however, you can name every emeritus professor from memory I would be quite impressed. Second, stop arguing against positions no one has taken in this discussion. For example, you bring up that The claim made in the sources is exactly that which Darouet specifies in his proposed text. Well yeah, obviously. No one is claiming Darouet's text was made up as a hoax. The point I understand PR to be making, and which I agree with, is that you both are being hyperbolic about the quality of sourcing. Third, while you admit that It's true that it's not original research to qualify or question the reliability of minor sources, you then immediately start trying to back track and explain why we should make an exception for you this time. It seems that your problem is that in this instance, the attempts to question the reliability were made through original research. Let's compare that with what WP:NOR actually says: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources". So either you don't understand the original research policy or you are willfully misrepresenting it; I'll assume you just didn't read that part of the policy.

Finally, and to get to the heart of your comment, you are correct to say university presses and well-established journals are not "minor sources" but only because they aren't sources at all. They are publishers of sources. While the publisher is helpful in evaluating the reliability of sources, you cannot simply point to the publisher and claim a source is beyond question. To wit, you are making claims about the quality of your sources that show you either do not know about academic publishing or are misrepresenting the sources (and again, I'll assume you just don't know). You say two reviews of the book published in well-established peer-reviewed journals which sounds impressive if you don't know anything about book reviews. In fact, book reviews are not peer reviewed, so including that descriptor is misleading---sure the journal articles are peer reviewed but the things you want to cite are plainly not peer reviewed. As you'll see in the Chronicle of Higher Education article I just linked you to, book reviews are not held in particularly high regard by academics, and while they are certainly reliable sources, waving them around like a talisman to ward of criticism just isn't going to get you far with people who understand the academic publishing process. They are in fact minor, and as PR rightly points out, they do little more than repeat the book's hypothesis without significant evaluation. And certainly neither book review claims that the CIA assassination hypothesis is an unassailable fact. To quote Freije (2016) "The evidence for US involvement is compelling but, as Bartley and Bartley acknowledge, circumstantial". That evaluation doesn't get you as far as you seem to think it does, and it's certainly not an "endorsement" in any meaningful sense of the word. Circumstantial evidence is that which requires inference to come to a particular conclusion, and so scholars in the field---even the authors of the book themselves---note that the claims are not supported by any direct evidence or strong enough to preclude reasonable doubt. And that's what we see: reasonable doubt from not only our editors but from experts in the field like Elaine Shannon. As participants in the discussion argue and as S Marshall rightly concludes in his close, in this situation WP:DUE forbids us from offering only one side of this debate as if it is fact. As others have told you, this isn't the place to reargue the RfC, and so I'm not going to spend more time offering source analysis because if I cared about this topic I would have commented in the RfC. To head off further assumptions: I have read the discussion, I have skimmed the sources (I even have online access to the book through my university), and I have read Wikipedia's policies. Given all that, I maintain that S Marshall's close reaches the correct conclusion that the allegations of CIA assassination should be included alongside skepticism of that claim given both the discussion and project-wide consensus at WP:DUE. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much as you say, Wug; exaggerated sourcing. Some more examples: this book review mentions the CIA once. It is being used to verify: Some journalists and historians have concluded that the killings of Buendía and Camarena were linked, since both discovered that the US Central Intelligence Agency was using Mexican and Central American drug traffickers to import "cocaine into the U.S. and [facilitate] the movement of arms to the contras." yet the source does not appear to do so. Further, as with this book review by the same author, it relies upon the Wisconsin professor's book (the first listed source). So 2 of the listed sources are book reviews of the first listed source, both reviews written by the same person. They're being used to fluff up the importance of the first, not as independent sourcing.

As for CF, if you really believe your sourcing is so convincing what you had to do was quite simple: rather than dump a bunch of links to sources, use {{tq}} and quote from each source the text which supports what you're trying to say with it. The people who are on the side of the sources don't need to spend paragraphs explaining their opinion; all they need to do is cite the source, provide a quote, and let the source speak for itself. That generally helps, although probably not in this case since the sources themselves are dubious. The entire argument rests upon a source by Bartley, pretty much. As some opposers in the RfC said, it would best be used with attribution. In my experience, almost every time people WP:CITEBOMB on a controversial point without specific quotes, or without links that easily verify the text, it's very suspicious and makes me even more inclined to check each source. Whenever I close an RfC I am very skeptical of low quality/non-evidence-based votes, and give far more weight to votes which analyse the sourcing in either direction. If only those refuting the sourcing choose to do so, as TheTimesAreAChanging did, then so be it; WP:NOTAVOTE applies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Per your comment, I've quoted from the sources below. I have seen editors use "citebombing" to conceal weak sources, but if you actually take the time to read the sources, you'll notice that the text proposed in the RfC does little more than quote them, with attribution, and with a denial by the CIA. Adding a further denial by a journalist writing in her own blog doesn't change any of this. -Darouet (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That was a huge amount of text expended Wug to buttress your argument against a point which literally no-one here or anywhere was arguing for: offering only one side of this debate as if it is fact. The text which was the subject of the RfC certainly does not do so. I'll assume you just failed to understand this when you read the discussion, but can't help but wonder if a sense of injury lead you to forget your own admonishment to stop arguing against positions no one has taken in this discussion.

With regard to there are plenty of unknown professors; I made the assumption, which I maintain is a fair one, that when ProReader and you used the word "unknown" in the context of this discussion, and in the phrase unknown author with only 1 piece published, it was meant to mean "unknown in the field" or "unknown academically", rather than "not famous". In the field, the author has been published in multiple journals from the 1970s to today (e.g. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]) and has authored or co-authored a number of monographs published by other university presses (e.g. [33] [34] [35]) as well as editing conference volumes, so in that sense is not "unknown". He is however, certainly not famous, so you are correct on that point: that is – in the sense of the word that is totally irrelevant to the point at hand.

This sentence you then immediately start trying to back track and explain why we should make an exception for you this time is simply manufactured out of whole cloth. There was no "back track". You made a general point about questioning or qualifying sources. It's not applicable here. No, WP:NOR is not applicable to talk pages. But none of the unsourced assertions in the extensive discussion, which amount to "I don't trust X" or "Y is a liar", can be added to the text in mainspace as a counterweight to Darouet's text. As the closing editor points out, those discussions were about the specific wording. So discussing claims that cannot appear in mainspace at exhaustive length is not questioning or qualifying sources or "well-argued opposition", but rather speculation, on about the same level as saying "Russell and Sylvia Bartley are GRU agents infiltrating academic publishing" and then expecting to be taken seriously. I suggested to the editors making these claims more than once during the discussion that they provide a relevant source. None did so.

"Well-established peer-reviewed" was included to distinguish the publications from e.g. the current sorry state of journal publishing. "Highly reputable and established" would have been more concise and can be inserted in its place. While it's true that book reviews are not peer-reviewed, you yourself point out that they are held to a certain standard, and are reliable sources. Your source analysis offers the notion that we should be too sceptical of these sources – written by professional historians – to include the claims with attribution as in Darouet's text, but nevertheless pay close attention to a blog post by a journalist (unmentioned in the RfC and first brought up here). This ventures too far into the ridiculous to merit extensive counterargument. Suffice to say that "The evidence for US involvement is compelling but, as Bartley and Bartley acknowledge, circumstantial", is certainly an endorsement insofar as the word "compelling" means either "Not able to be refuted; inspiring conviction" or "convincing".

What you say about circumstantial evidence was already raised during the discussion, by me. This you would surely have noted, rather than repeating it and wikilinking it ("waving it around like a talisman") as though it was a damning refutation (it isn't), if you had read and understood the discussion to the degree which you claim.

No "others" have told me this is not the place to reargue the RfC. That was something I pointed out in response to the comment that you quoted at length...in attempting to reargue the RfC. You say you have skimmed the sources and read the discussion. I don't doubt it, but I do question whether you have understood the relevant detail in a meaningful way.

As to stop arguing against positions no one has taken in this discussion...No one is claiming Darouet's text was made up, I'll simply leave what I wrote: The claim made in the sources is exactly that which Darouet specifies in his proposed text and the text you quoted: The “RS” cited, that I checked, barely make any such [claim], and will make no further comment, out of politeness. Cambial foliage❧ 10:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been indirectly referenced here by other participants in the RfC. The idea that that I am an "involved editor" who has "already spent years arguing against various versions of the text in question" is overstated in that I had only one minor edit to the article in 2015 prior to responding to a discussion regarding the reliability of a book that Darouet suggested shortly before the RfC. The material from that book that Darouet wants to insert into the article relies upon a number of dubious sources to makes a WP:REDFLAG claim that most recently has been embraced by QAnon supporters; it propagates the conspiracy theory that the CIA was involved in the 1985 murder of DEA agent Kiki Camarena to cover-up a drug smuggling operation to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. For what it's worth, various federal investigations long ago rejected the CIA drug smuggling claims, the largest homicide investigation ever conducted by the DEA identified Mexican drug traffickers as Camarena's murderers, and the head of the DEA rejected the involvement of the CIA in Camarena's murder as a "fable" that "has no basis in fact". WP:RS states that context matters, not simply the author and the publisher; however, there seems to be an argument above to ignore an evaluation of this context claiming do so is "original research".

Darouet's RfC was poorly phrased without any recommendation for specific text to be included. Per WP:BRD, S Marshall enjoined us to draft the additions and discuss them, but no one has even tried this. - Location (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The RfC proposed specific text [36]. As to the QAnon link - doesn't this claim come from a single blog post [37], referencing a comment the author found on facebook? Historians and journalists have been covering the allegations of CIA involvement in Camarena's death for many years before QAnon even existed. Linking this to QAnon is deeply confused at best, and dishonest at worst. -Darouet (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "specific text", only five of the 12 sources you listed in the RfC were actually in the linked material, so I thought you had plans to use them. My apologies for misunderstanding your position on using them.

What is dishonest is the continuous puffery of conspiracy sources as "academic historians" or "professional historians" and diminishing those who have actually expertise as merely blog writers. Jeff Stein's SpyTalk column started in Congressional Quarterly in 2005, then made its way to Newsweek and The Washington Post before it was revived in its current incarnation as an online newsletter. The editors and contributors are a combination of veteran journalists, award-winning writers, and foreign policy wonks with loads of expertise. As noted in her Wikipedia article, Elaine Shannon has nearly 50 years of expertise related investigating and writing about organized crime, drug trafficking, etc. and she is still an active journalist. On the other hand, no one recognizes RH Bartley (who has published works on a variety of topics) or SE Bartley (currently a volunteer archivist for the Fort Bragg-Mendocino Coast Historical Society) as experts in this particular area.

Now you may have missed the gist of that part of my post, but it is a fact that far-right supporters, like QAnon, are increasingly embracing conspiracy theories (e.g. chemtrails, water fluoridation, anti-vax, HAARP, deep state, JFK assassination, Operation Mockingbird, 9/11) that have historically been supported by those on the far-left. I don't blame you for wanting to distance yourself or the "professional historians" from them. -Location (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

What is required to close an RfC in favor of a minority?

@S Marshall: your reasoning behind closing in support of "three editors" instead of "half a dozen" relies on what you characterize as later, well-reasoned RfC comments by a minority in the discussion. This is not an accurate reflection of the RfC outcome or talk page history: two of the three editors you side with in the RfC had already spent years [38][39][40] arguing against various versions of the text in question [41], which is what necessitated the RfC [42] in the first place. Non-involved editors supported inclusion of the text by a 5:1 margin (five [43][44][45][46][47] vs 1 [48]), and pointed out that the two editors objecting to the text based their arguments upon WP:OR objections to the reliability of all available academic sources.

1. Allegations of CIA involvement in Camarena's death were added to the article in 2013, when a number of former colleagues and agents began speaking to the press on the issue [49].
2. Those allegations remained in the article until exactly two years ago, when they were removed [50].
3. At that time I disputed the removal and looked into academic writing on the topic, where I found that multiple historians and regional specialists endorsed the allegations as likely true [51]. I re-wrote the content to fit with what historians have to say on the matter.
4. After nearly two years of talk page argument over whether ordinarily reliable sources can be reliable in this case [52] and having to deal with endless IP proxying or sockpuppetry [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62], I launched an RfC to just resolve the issue once and for all.
5. Uninvolved editors supported including the well-referenced text by a 5:1 margin.
6. S Marshall, closing the RfC, sides entirely with two involved editors who commented at the end of the RfC, and who had opposed the addition of the content for years prior to the RfC being held.

Contrary to Marshall's statement, those uninvolved editors who supported inclusion gave very strong arguments for keeping the disputed text. For example see this excellent comment [63], pointing out that no academic sources can be found disputing the allegations:

Include Certainly this information sourced to the Bartley/Bartley book and some of the commentaries in journals should be included in the body and in the lead. Particularly the favourable review by Vanessa Freije, which specifically endorses the evidence on Camarena and interpretation presented by the Bartleys, that was published in The Hispanic American Historical Review. Alongside the Journal of Latin American Studies and the LAP it is the preeminent English-language journal in the field, and cannot simply be disregarded. It is important that the information is presented, as the Bartleys do, as circumstantial but nevertheless compelling. To those others arguing at great (!!) length against inclusion: if you wish to dispute the articles supporting the Bartleys' findings you are welcome to submit an article for publication to either of the aforementioned journals or any of several other excellent scholarly publications. But WP Talk pages are not the place for your research and rambling cant on a subject in which you evidently have little expertise. See here. My only caveat would be that Freije's support for Bartley should also be cited.

Of course, I have no undying commitment to the text specifically as written. But after two years of arguing about it and receiving clear RfC support, it's clear that the two involved editors that S Marshall supported in closing the RfC are simply not going to accept adding this information to the article. I wish that S Marshall had understood the talk page history before overturning the RfC outcome, or had carefully read the RfC comments and consulted the works of professional historians and regional specialists who remain, after two years of disagreement, totally absent from Kiki Camarena. -Darouet (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Darouet, perhaps you can enlighten me: why did you disregard the close for some months, during which time you were actively editing, and then suddenly start posting colossal screeds about it on AN during the holiday period?—S Marshall T/C 21:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I was teaching during the semester, and didn’t want to go to AN until the semester ended. -Darouet (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for saying that it's clear that the two involved editors that S Marshall supported in closing the RfC are simply not going to accept adding this information to the article. I now understand that this is your actual problem with the close, isn't it? You don't want to have to negotiate with them because you don't expect them to compromise?—S Marshall T/C 01:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The RfC was held after over a year of negotiations led to no resolution. Thank goodness at least that RfC editor comments so overwhelmingly supported available scholarship. I suggest that you consult that - this is, after all, an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is inappropriate to suggest that an editor must convince everyone (I note that you also made this error in your closure, stating The debate includes several participants who adopt complex and nuanced positions, and offer detailed and persuasive arguments in favour of them, but even after all these words, editors don't seem to be changing their minds in any very substantive way.) Consensus is a matter of discussion and negotiation, but some disputes are ultimately intractable and require outside opinions - that is part of the purpose of an RfC. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reading the RfC I gather that multiple editors supported inclusion on the basis of strong sourcing, then one comment came in refuting the sourcing as weak (which, honestly, reviewing the sourcing this seems accurate), and finally 2 comments implying they're open to mentioning it, but that it should be balanced with refutations of these claims. That seems to be the overall consensus: supporting inclusion of the point itself, but not necessarily the exact text proposed, and it should be balanced with sources refuting this CIA theory.

Comparing this to SM's close: I agree with Q/A #1 and #2, I think #3 was unclear / no discernible consensus. I'm not sure about QA #4 (cannot work on it in the live article), but this is a relatively minor point. I agree with the substance of the close; endorse close. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• On the question of what is required to close an RfC in favor of a minority, guidance suggests that, at a bare minimum, the rationale for discarding some arguments should be elaborated. The closing editor in this case did not even make an attempt to do so. Cambial foliage❧ 00:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Question: What do you think about the S Marshell's opinion that The kind of addition that could gain consensus would need to be succinct as well as specific in order to circumvent this concern? That is the part of the closure that leaped out to me most clearly as a WP:SUPERVOTE - it seems to set specific, unambiguous requirements that S Marshell would need to see in order to accept any consensus, but those requirements don't seem to be ones that anyone else in the discussion even brought up. To me, that's the most clear-cut hallmark of a supervote - a closer who comes in, looks over the dispute, and says "oh, I see what the conclusion to this should look like!" rather than assessing the actual opinions and arguments being made. Likewise, I do not actually see any new arguments being made in the final two !votes - after all, they were people who had participated significantly before; all their concerns about sourcing had been previously expressed and did not seem to convince anyone outside the closer. There are some situations where sourcing concerns could be so stark that it justifies disregarding people who say it's met, but again, S Marshell does not even attempt to make that argument. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• So, where the purpose of a content RfC is to resolve an intractable content dispute, the closer ought to try to show the parties how they can actually resolve it. The closer role is partly that of referee. At best, you make a clear finding for one side or the other, but where as closer you don't feel you can do that, then at second best you try to show the parties a way forward that gets to an edit that's acceptable to all sides without a second RfC. As a neutral party who's read the debate in detail, it's fairly often my practice to offer pointers about what kind of edit I feel could gain consensus. I mean, sure, I could have just gone "No consensus", hatted the discussion and moved on, but that's neither a decision nor a compromise and it just leaves everyone going in circles. I've been doing it for many years, it's SOP for me.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree with that view of the closer's role. The closer should summarize the discussion, not act as an arbiter of the dispute. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with that. But I also agree with the idea that a closer, especially in a case of no consensus, can offer possible paths forward. Not an RfC but I did a version of this today. The key for this to work, I think, is that needs to suggest rather than proscribe and also be specific enough to be valuable but general enough that you're not being prescriptive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  There's a pattern on Wikipedia where content disputes get deadlocked into a permanent "no consensus" state, and this is where tempers fray, people start feeling the other side is stalling or filibustering, and content disputes escalate into conduct disputes. The right RfC close can get past that. I didn't phrase that part of my close perfectly, but I'm confident that the principle of the "roadmap to consensus" approach is right.—S Marshall T/C 09:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Are you saying you believe that the actual outcome of that RFC was no consensus? You seem to have indicated it above, as well (I mean, sure, I could have just gone "No consensus", hatted the discussion and moved on, but that's neither a decision nor a compromise and it just leaves everyone going in circles. Because that was not, by my reading, how you closed it. A closer's role, first and foremost, is to assess consensus; if you (as I read your statements) you're confessing that you believed there was no consensus in the discussion, and you imposed a consensus regardless in order to guide people towards a specific outcome, then you're admitting that you closed it improperly. It is also completely improper for a closer to impose a compromise - either there is a consensus, in which case you determine the consensus; or there is not, in which case you close as no-consensus. If you saw no consensus and wanted to workshop a compromise you should have joined the discussion as a participant in the RFC, rather than trying to close it with a WP:SUPERVOTE towards your preferred consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, I was talking Levivich and Barkeep49 about RfCs in general. On this particular RfC, I don't currently have anything to add. I will, in due course, catch up with the sheer quantity of words that you and Darouet are posting, and may have something to add when I've read it all.—S Marshall T/C 15:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• But SM didn't close as no-consensus. He specifically found a consensus against a specific wording. If he did so while believing there was no consensus, then that was a misclose and needs to be overturned. If he wanted to join the discussion, he could have done so; if he felt he was qualified to mediate, he could have offered to do so. But attempting to impose consensus from above by declaring certain things as a consensus when they are not is abusing the role of closer. It certainly does nothing to resolve the discussion - I know that as someone who only casually participated in the discussion at the time, this absurd outcome has brought me into the discussion with a firm determination to reject SM's misclose or any proposed outcomes that rely on it, since it plainly does not represent any sort of consensus among editors (something SM seems to concede when he acknowledges that he should have at best closed it as a simple no-consensus.) Consensus-building needs to rely on actual discussions an debate; I can understand SM's frustration on seeing an intractable dispute, and his desire to cut through that by imposing an outcome from above (especially by ruling out outcomes that he personally finds unacceptable.) But a closer trying to impose an outcome only introduces additional toxicity and makes the process more difficult. No one who weighed in as an "include" in a discussion like that is likely to accept SM's close as accurate. That means that both sides of the dispute have even less incentive to concede or discuss - both sides are going to believe they have a consensus backing them, after all, and that a later RFC will back them up. Basically, resolving a dispute requires an accurate assessment of where things currently stand - when a closer fails to provide that, discussions are going to break down. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Responding to your question, in my experience SM's closes sometimes mix determinations of consensus with his personal advice on what could achieve consensus. Both things have place in a close, but personal suggestions are not consensus. It's hard to tell, reading that, whether he means "it must be succinct to be added to the article" (which I think is what you've read it as, and that would be a supervote) and "I suggest parties try drafting a more succinct addition, which may address the concerns here, and testing that in a future discussion" (which is totally acceptable). I think he meant the latter, but it might've helped to clearly say that this was just advice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"Exaggerated sourcing"

Wugapodes has stated that arguments in support of the proposed text rely upon "exaggerated sourcing," and ProcrastinatingReader has said a strong argument should "quote from each source." I did not quote from the sources here because they are quoted from abundantly at Talk:Kiki Camarena, and because the text considered in the RfC is little more than quotes from sources, with careful attribution. The RfC text consists of two full sentences introducing the allegation, a summarizing quote from professor (and department head of social sciences at the University College Utrecht) Wil Pansters, a sentence introducing the Bartley book followed by a quote from the Bartleys, and lastly one sentence each devoted to lead DEA investigator Berrellez, a re-opened investigation by the justice department, and a denial by the CIA.

The proposed text that non-involved RfC respondents overwhelmingly endorsed (five [64][65][66][67][68] vs 1 [69]) does exactly what everyone here says is necessary: 1) actually quotes from reliable sources, 2) attributes claims, and 3) includes a denial from the CIA.

Now Wugapodes is stating that we should take this blog-post rebuttal [70] by journalist Elaine Shannon more seriously. We can certainly do that (note that Shannon's post was written after the RfC was launched), but other sources have emerged since this dispute began as well — including a four-part documentary released by Amazon, where numerous former DEA agents and Mexican police officers come forward to support the allegations — so new sources don't fundamentally change the issue.

Per ProcrastinatingReader's request, here's what the authors in question have written:

• Pansters, Wil G. "Drug trafficking, the informal order, and caciques. Reflections on the crime-governance nexus in Mexico." Global Crime 19.3-4 (2018): 315-338 [71] (Peer-reviewed journal article):

The Camarena affair constituted a turning point in the recent history of state-crime governance in Mexico, as it brought to light the complicity between drug traffickers and the Dirección Federal de Seguridad (DFS), which enjoyed the support of or worked on behalf of the CIA. Fierce reactions from the US, eventually led to the dismantling of the DFS.

• Bartley, Russell H., and Sylvia Erickson Bartley. Eclipse of the Assassins: The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía. University of Wisconsin Press, 2015 [72]:

The preponderance of evidence now available in the public record, confirmed and further nuanced by our own cited sources and most especially by Lawrence Victor Harrison, persuades us beyond a reasonable doubt that Manuel Buendía was slain on behalf of the United States because of what he had learned about U.S.-Mexico collusion with narcotics traffickers, international arms dealers, and other governments in support of Reagan administration efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The evidence we have developed also leads us to conclude that DEA S/A Enrique Camarena Salazar was abducted, interrogated, and killed for the same reason and that the two cases are therefore related. The import of this latter conclusion is that, contrary to the hero status accorded Camarena as an ostensible casualty of the "war on drugs," he was sacrificed by his own government in order to prevent exposure of a covert operation against the legitimate authorities of another country.

• Pansters, Wil G. "Spies, Assassins, and Statesmen in Mexico’s Cold War." (2017): 143-156 [73] (Book review in the European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies):

In a painstaking investigative process, the authors along with other journalists in Mexico and the U.S. became convinced that the Buendía and Camarena killings were linked, and much of the book is about the Bartleys trying to put the different pieces together. The most important element is that the interests behind both killings go beyond criminal interests and reach into the political domains on both sides of the border. In the mid-1980s, Mexico’s one party regime confronted serious challenges, while the Reagan administration was deeply involved in a Cold War battle against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Buendía and DEA agent Camarena had each separately discovered that the CIA was running a dark network, which involved Mexican and Central American drug traffickers that imported cocaine into the U.S. and facilitated the movement of arms to the contras. Nicaraguan contras were trained at a Mexican ranch owned by one of the country’s most notorious capos. CIA pilots flew many of the planes. The DFS functioned as the go-between, and hence involved the Ministry of the Interior. The Mexican army provided the necessary protection, and got a bite of the pie. Since the overriding concern of the CIA was the anti-Sandinista project, it trumped the DEA’s task of combating drug trafficking, and covertly incorporated (or pressured) parts of the Mexican state into subservience. Buendía had found out about the CIA-contra-drugs-DFS connection, which seriously questioned Mexican sovereignty, while Camarena learned that the CIA had infiltrated the DEA and sabotaged its work so as to interfere with the clandestine contra-DFS-traffickers network... ...a few years before [The Bartley's book] was finally published the fundamental arguments of the book had become widely known. In October 2013, former DEA agents involved in the Camarena investigation came out publicly in interviews with U.S. and Mexican media, in which they laid out CIA involvement in the case, its connections to drug trafficking, the conflicts in Central America, and the Buendía murder. The influential Mexican magazine Proceso led with the story for weeks. A retired senior Mexican intelligence official came out to corroborate the facts. Mexican journalist Esquivel (2014), criticized by the Bartleys, published a small book about it. So the core argument of Eclipse of the Assassins was already available to a wide audience when the book was finally published in 2015.

• Freije, Vanessa. "Eclipse of the Assassins: The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía." (2016): 766-768 [74] (Book review in the Hispanic American Historical Review):

According to the authors, Buendía learned that the Mexican government was aiding the CIA in its proxy war against Nicaragua’s leftist government. Specifically, the CIA used a Veracruz airfield to transport weapons to the Nicaraguan Contras, and at the same time the agency trained Contras on the ranch of Guadalajara Cartel kingpin Rafael Caro Quintero. Bartley and Bartley find confirmation for these claims in US court case files, which include statements by ex-CIA and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents asserting that such operations involved the knowing collaboration of Mexican politicians, the DFS, drug traffickers, and the CIA, among others. Using these testimonies, which come from the trial for the 1985 murder of undercover DEA agent Enrique Camarena, the authors hypothesize that the United States played a role in the Buendía and Camarena murders to prevent the so-called “Veracruz link” from surfacing (p. 195). The evidence for US involvement is compelling but, as Bartley and Bartley acknowledge, circumstantial (p. 394).

As noted by professor Pansters, this has also received a lot of coverage in the mainstream press (e.g. Tucson Sentinel, Processo, LA Weekly, El Pais, Fox News, Fox News again, and USA Today). RfC respondents were correct to argue that the proposed text [75] was reliably sourced, and far from "hyperbolic," the proposed text should really be considered a minimum coverage for an important topic. -Darouet (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I stopped at the first paragraph. When I said that, I meant in the RfC itself (and I also said That generally helps, although probably not in this case since the sources themselves are dubious). Content discussions don’t really happen on the AN. In hindsight this section has gone off the rails; some attention was warranted to the arguments relating to sourcing which are relevant to the extent that the sourcing is problematic, but mostly limited to those explicitly stated in the RfC. The point I stated here was made in the RfC, and Wug elaborated on the same. Rebuttals should’ve been made in the RfC to the editors who made such points, not @ AN. The point here is that the close seems correct, and you’re always free to take the closer’s advice to draft a new RfC, ideally working with editors on the talk to construct a good proposal. You can perhaps put the above content into said new RfC, and it might convince editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: you've missed the point - the reason there's so much drama here is because this text was the subject of the RfC, and editors who endorsed the content (by a substantial majority) explicitly stated that they did so on the basis of the quotes above. Why launch a second RfC on the exact same material that most editors already agree is well supported by specific text in sources? -Darouet (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Because the text as written did not have consensus for inclusion. Mostly because it appears editors were not convinced by the sourcing and believed the text as written was UNDUE. I notice that above you have not addressed multiple of Wug’s lengthy points, such as the one on book reviews for example, which is one example of why this stuff might’ve been unconvincing. Ultimately, not all votes are equal and this isn’t a democracy. An editor who looks, sees 10 links and writes “Include, reliable sourcing” doesn’t get an equal number of ballots as an editor who takes the time to check each source and tear it apart. In the latter half of the RfC editors did so, and the tide of the RfC changed course. This is what the closer noted, and it seems there’s no consensus at AN to overturn the close.

I don’t understand why you’re seeking a close review when it seems you don’t agree with the conclusion. Ultimately, the walls of text are not going to produce good outcomes. Now, more uninvolved editors are going to be less likely to take time out of their own editing to read all of the above and get involved in a dispute they (generally) couldn’t care less about as far as content goes, hence you want to make it not so difficult for editors to weigh in. So I really think you’re kinda inadvertently shoot in yourself in the foot here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Emily Murphy and other things

I request an administrator to review this section, and the editor who has written an extensive rant against a person related to the article. They are currently the subject of discretionary sanctions in the topic area. I don't wish for this to become a discussion about the editor but if this is in the wrong place, please let me know. I haven't notified the editor for that reason as well, but if it is still necessary then I will do so. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip, you still have to notify them. I took a look, but as I was involved at Emily Murphy, I can't act as an admin there, but I commented. —valereee (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That person was Donald.Trump. The article was about he and his subordinates trying to steal an American President election. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79 has doubled down at that talk, now calling Emily Murphy an actual criminal and accusing me of having a COI because I'm telling them they shouldn't libel her. Special:Diff/998247947 —valereee (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Arglebargle79 has marched into this particular section of Wikipedia apparently with the agenda of vilifying President Trump even above and beyond the scope of the currently relatively NPOV article. I realize that Onetwothreeip wants to avoid making this AN an editor referendum, but I believe that Arglebargle79's conduct does need to be examined in full, particularly on that talk page. I am concerned that the editor is here to soapbox.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

And tripling down: Special:Diff/998293365 —valereee (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely for the continuing BLP violations and general failure to Get It, as a normal admin action. Any admin may do adminny things with the block. (This action does not preclude the ban discussion below.) --Izno (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from AP32

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

---

• I'll note that Arglebargle79 is already under a restriction for AP32: indefinite WP:1RR per 48 hours, and obligation to discuss reverts on the article's talk page, unless it's a blatant case of vandalism or a clear-cut WP:BLP violation. When I warned them a few minutes ago about BLP violations at AP32 articles on their talk, this was their response: Special:Permalink/998314071#January 2021. I propose a topic ban from AP32.
• Support as proposer —valereee (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support After I saw the above message I tried to leave some guidance, as an uninvolved editor, on the Talk page [76] suggesting they back off a bit. My hope was that this would arrest the need for a TBAN before it came to that point. They not only seemed to double-down with their next edits but then left a message on my Talk page [77] saying they had obtained information, via Twitter, of a "riot" that was going to happen in the next couple days and they needed to get the word out through Wikipedia [78]. There was also a somewhat confusing and (and I hesitate to use this word lightly) incoherent metaphor in which they compared their comments to Topol's 1971 musical film Fiddler on the Roof. At the very least this seems to indicate they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but are, instead, here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The 1RR has only seemed to succeed in pushing the disruption "underground" - from article space to the Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support and also support the aforementioned indef block due to WP:IDHT to the extreme.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Arglebargle79 (talk · contribs) was indeffed by Izno at 02:53, 5 January 2021 for BLP violations. FWIW I support an WP:AP2 topic ban (not AP32?) but perhaps this could just be closed if people don't want to discuss. If the user is unblocked and repeats their attitude, would someone please let me know so I can AP2 topic ban them per the discretionary sanctions, although I think others would beat me to it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Groan, somehow I missed seeing Izno's post above. I'm sure it wasn't there five minutes ago... Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  Schodingers post! --Izno (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support in case the indef is ever lifted but maintain indef block because I just read the discussion following their block and wow. This is one of the most blatant cases of WP:NOTHERE (if we're being charitable) and/or WP:COMPETENCE (if we're not) I've seen in a very long time if ever.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support ArgleBargle has been concerning in the AP2 area for some time; if they come back to Wikipedia they should edit in some other topic area for some time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Sadly, I've seen ArgleBargle saying some pretty questionable things regarding AP32, and Wtmitchell and I have been discussing with them a lot on the Electoral Count Act page and I can totally see the arguments for WP:NOTHERE based on that. I've also looked at their conduct on the talk page and the repeated warnings made to them regarding AP32 and they've heeded absolutely none of the warnings. Sadly, even if they're editing in good faith, their actions seem to have wreaked havoc on Wikipedia and that simply cannot be tolerated. I propose a one year ban at the very least, and an indefinite topic block from AP32. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to add on, ArgleBargle's questionable POV/BLP edits literally drew the attention of the President of the United States. Seeing this just furthers the argument for an indefinite ban, unfortunately. Even if some might argue that the edit in question wasn't in violation of Wikipedia policies (it smacks of an NPOV violation to me but that's just my opinion), it shows the real potential for harm resulting from this editing. Unfortunately, it's clear to me that the indefinite ban is warranted, and shouldn't be lifted for a while. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban on grounds of WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMPETENCE. In my encounters with this person, Arglebargle79 seems to be either incapable or unwilling to leave his POV behind before making edits, and interjecting personal strong bias without actually reading the sources this editor cites. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban per WP:CIR and WP:IDHT. I am the editor who filed the two ANEW reports on Arglebargle that got them indefinitely sanctioned in AP2. That was the result of Arglebargle repeatedly changing Biden's photo in the 2020 Democratic primaries series, which they did because they "loathed" the picture. Complaining about that picture, they wrote some of the most deranged and nonsensical things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. And now I see that they are continuing to complain about it in their recent comments after being blocked. This is over something that happened in June, and they are still refusing to let it go. Arglebargle has repeatedly insisted that they did not, in fact, make disruptive edits that we can plainly see in the edit logs, and has blamed their own behavior on a "coterie" of editors conspiring against them. They are fanatically committed to vilifying Trump and anyone connected to him, and have shown zero willingness to understand or comply with our content policies, including WP:CRYSTAL, WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. That they were blocked for BLP violations does not surprise me. A topic ban is long overdue. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

How do we feel about accounts that only seek deletion?

Like this one: [79]

If this hasn't been covered before, I would invite both admin and non-admin opinions to get a broad perspective. Thank you.

Samsara 09:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Example user notified of discussion [80] Samsara 09:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have no problem with an AfD SPA. Accounts of this nature are consistent with our policies and guidelines as I understand them. Our WP:EDITING policy says that "Wikipedia is the product of millions of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help." In this case the thing the editor is bringing to the table is a willingness to ferret-out content that doesn't meet some aspect of our policies or guidelines, or at least what they perceive to be content that doesn't meet some aspect of our policies or guidelines. Our WP:VOLUNTEER supplement establishes there are no minimum participation thresholds that need to be crossed, presumably allowing someone to hyperfocus on AfDs, or even nanofocus just on AfDs that meet the deletion criteria to the exclusion of those that would warrant keep !votes. That said, I think it may be too early to describe Foonblace as an AfD SPA since they've only made 33 lifetime edits. Chetsford (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• I should mention that it is a little unfair to single me out as "only seeking deletion" - I have made other contributions to Wikipedia also. My reason for seeking deletion for the pages in question is that I genuinely do not think that their subject matter meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and, if a page was created about them now, would be removed for that reason. There is possibly a wider discussion to be had in fact about pages for F/OSS projects in the same vein, many of which have existed for well over ten years while the projects they're about died shortly after they were created. Foonblace (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between longevity and impact, and impact is usually more relevant to notability. Samsara 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• So long as they understand the relevant guidelines (such as notability) and add useful input to the deletion discussions, I don't see an issue. Users are here to contribute to the encyclopedia in different ways than others, whether it be creating and expanding articles, reverting vandalism, or discussing the deletion of pages. If what they're doing benefits the project, I see no problem with it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• If there's nothing disruptive about the deletion nominations themselves, why would it be a problem? Finding inappropriate articles is a valuable contribution to the encyclopaedia—otherwise we wouldn't have a deletion policy—and restricting that work to editors who have somehow qualified themselves by doing other tasks would be against the basic ethos of the project. – Joe (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Editing a compilation of documents involves not just deciding what to put in, but also what not to. Unless there is something actually wrong with the deletion nominations, trimmers perform a useful function on this encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 12:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• I feel substantially kinder about them than I do about the wikidata trolls trying to subvert and twist ENWP for their own personal financial benefit. Or the commons editors who seem more interested in keeping pictures of underage penises around. In comparison an editor who spends a substantial amount of their time nominating articles for deletion is way down my list of 'people not wanted here'. Behind people who spam create articles from badly sourced databases, cosmetic bot operators & mime artists. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for calling me a troll and suggesting I am getting financial benefits for twisting ENWP. Have a nice day.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Although I agree with you that wikidata is dismal trash, and so are database-scrape permastubs, I think accusing people of shilling is a bit much. Reyk _YO! 13:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  The second sentence of OID's comment parses correctly as "that subset of commons editors who ...." The syntax of the first sentence is less clear, but it seems more likely to me that it should be parsed "that subset of wikidata editors who are trolls trying ...", no? --JBL (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  While I know Wikidata is a rather sore point here, taking that as a blanket statement against all WD editors does seem to be reaching. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I feel the same away about accounts that only seek deletion as I do about accounts that only create articles. They're all welcome contributors like everyone else. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• There is nothing inherently wrong with pursuing article deletion as the main thrust of your editing, no matter how much my inclusionist blood wants to scream otherwise. My only theoretical concern would be whether such a focus is masking a hidden WP:SPA or WP:Involved (meant WP:COI) agenda - i.e. do the deletion requests have a pattern serving covert purpose to remove commercial competition, delete subjects that are politically inconvenient, etc. To be absolutely clear, I have ZERO reason to believe this is the case here; it is simply a possibility of this kind of editing that might rear its head.VanIsaac_WS^cont
  • The listed user account was just an example to demonstrate that accounts with pure deletion activity exist, to anchor the discussion. You've outlined a scenario where this kind of activity would be used as a specific attack vector on a particular topic. However, it could be used more generally as well, by someone who just wants to do harm and doesn't care about the topics. Samsara 10:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

changes to functionary team

At his own request, the Oversight permission of Someguy1221 are removed.

In addition, in accordance with the policy on CheckUser and Oversighter inactivity, the CheckUser rights of Berean Hunter are removed.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Someguy1221 and Berean Hunter for their service as functionaries.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 15:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § changes to functionary team

100 000 edit award

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#100 000 edit award and time to close AFD :: User:Davidgoodheart asked me what special happens when a user reaches the 100 000 edit award. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• What happens is that you're allowed to make edit #100,001. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, and your Wikipedia salary doubles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, I was told there'd be cake. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There's always cake here. Paul August ☎ 00:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Cake or Death--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• The cake is a lie. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: what happens is that they will receive an echo-notification (assuming that they didn't opt out of these) stating: You just made your hundred thousandth edit; thank you for an amazing contribution!. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Really? I don't remember that. Maybe I've forgotten or I opted out - I'm not big on badges and other geegaws like that. (Although I certainly appreciate barnstars on those rare occasions when people are kind enough to award them to me.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally I'd like it if it notified me of the edit before a nice round number. That way I could do something particularly big and constructive, like blocking Jimbo Nosebagbear (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You can install the script which shows the number of edits got any user (including yourself).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I was notified for 10K edits (and I do get notified for 1, 10, and 100 edits made on other projects). I assume this is the default. The echo system was the only one who noticed I had 10K edits. --Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe you get a notification for every 10ⁿ edits Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Asartea: 10^n (n:0-7), your 100,000,000'th edit will sadly go unrecognized :D (see the text of these here) — xaosflux ^Talk 16:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, no one has made anywhere near 100 million edits, so this is moot. 16:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs)

I can not easily find the table, but I believe there are Wikidata bots with few million edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Xaosflux, seems to me like its bug report time Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Bots don't really care about echo-thanks - but there are 2 approaching according to this query. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I got no cake, myself — didn't even know that it happened until the IP I was conversing with at the time was like: btw, congrats on reaching 100K edits. So, at least there was that.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 16:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Personally, I like Boston cream pie -- which is a cake -- and icebox cake -- which is cookies covered with whipped cream and frozen. And I hear that yellow cake uranium is highly sought after. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I've recently cracked 93,000 edits, so it's good to know that I've got an automated echo notification to look forward to in 7,000 edits time! Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Do I get a Key lime pie at 150,000? I like pie. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Great Western Main Line

I noticed from my watch list that someone has moved article Great Western Main Line and it's talk page from main space to Wikipedia project space. Apologies if this is the wrong place to post to get it resolved. Let me know if I should post elsewhere in future. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. This is something that the new(ish?) method of having a dropdown to set the space parameter causes problems compared to (Back In My Day) having to type in any project prefix: it's easy to accidentally set something and not notice... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

misplaced move and its been cleared up by user:The Bushranger. Nthep (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Review and Removal of RfC on Chad Wolf

I ask for review and removal of the RfC on Chad Wolfs page.

It is currently being used to display information in a misleading, out of order, manner. I provided opinion and suggestion in a new talk about how to change Chad Wolf's heading to read without confusing or burying of the lede.

The current RfC is being used as a shield against changes. Changes that are needed as Chad Wolf resigned his position and the current RfC heading confuses that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to start a new RfC, but the current one stands until one replaces it. I have reported you to WP:AN3 for repeatedly edit-warring your version in against the RfC consensus. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I ask for review, not from Tartan357, as his opinion is biased as a contributor of the RfC in question. The wording he adds to Chad Wolfs page is vague at best and misleading at worst.

If requested I will also create an Administer Notice to review his contributions above, knowing these things. Response is not needed by Tartan357 to this statements.

Tartan357 himself has just shown above that the current RfC is disputed, but has not added any contributions in the current talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not disputed, it received a formal admin close. I am merely enforcing that WP:CONSENSUS. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Understood. How do I ask that a confusing, out of order, misleading opening statement, that goes against the spirit of accurate information, protected by an RfC made before current job title changes... be removed?

And that a reflection of a current position not be buried after 5 commas deep until than? A talk, with suggestions, has been started as previously stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You start a talk page section like you did. But there has to actually be a discussion before you can make your change. Simply starting a discussion does not entitle you to ignore the existing consensus and force in your preferred version. Dispute resolution requires patience. I disagree with your characterization of the consensus text. I especially fail to see how it is misleading. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Both the IP (5RR) and Tartan357 (4RR) have been blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR at Chad Wolf. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It does appear Tartan was reinstating the RfC consensus from the “RfC: Describing legal status in lead” section. I always presumed reinstating a properly documented consensus was an uncontroversial exemption to edit warring restrictions. The last discussion on the 3RR talk on the matter seems to confirm the same, and it’s explicitly mentioned as such in the DS templates too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Per WP:3RRNO, it's not - except on AP2 DS pages. The twist being that Talk:Chad Wolf doesn't have the correct AP2 warning template - it has one that does not mention the exception. Somebody needs to (1) fix that and (2) make the "this is exempt" on {{American politics AE}} not hidden away behind a dropdown box. Anyway, I've unblocked Tartan357 with an apology and will be delivering a self-trouting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Contains fish
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

• • • {{American politics AE}} is not the default template for AP2 areas, it is used when admins want to add 1RR to articles (and should be logged on WP:AELOG in such cases I believe), and I think the disclaimer there only applies to the 1RR restriction which the template signifies. I don't know why it wouldn't be hidden behind the box, the dropdown contains extra info. Presumably admins enforcing will be familiar of those things before they enforce. No need to move more clutter out of the dropdown.

      It's not listed at WP:3RRNO, but I think it should be. The last discussion in the archives on the same page indicated that this is another example of an uncontroversial revert. Whilst I agree a report to ANEW and waiting is probably better, I have not seen an editor be blocked for enforcing the consensus of an RfC closed less than a month ago before, in any topic area. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

      Funnily enough, that template has 186 transclusions but the editnotice for it has 126. So either the discrepancy of 60 is caused by admins forgetting to create the editnotice, and so the sanctions being ineffective, or by non-admins mistakingly placing the template, and the template being misleading. Someone should probably look into it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

      ProcrastinatingReader, see you in a few hours Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

      ProcrastinatingReader, This seems to be caused by pages which are instead using {{Ds/editnotice|topic=ap|1RR}} Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

      And from that explanation above, it seems that the page wasn't under 1RR restrictions - and therefore the exemption technically didn't apply? Ai yi yi what a mess. And I'm not the first to have been tripped up by this either [81] - this is a problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not know what most of this above means. I am just trying to fix a page. While the first sentence is a correct statement; it is a misleading statement as to who Chad Wolf IS, not has been. Like the picture box on his page was changed because his position has changed... the entry text hasn't. I had to look up how to post here and after all this transclusions 1,2,3,4,5,RR stuff I know I don't know how to make an RfC. Could a few of you take a look at the Chad Wolf intro and new talk topic and do this RfC change thing if you think it needs one. thank you for your time, sorry for bringing up the the above errors whatever they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC) In response to Tartan357 failing to see how the intro is misleading: The first sentence makes a statement. How long and how many sentences and commas do you have to read before you dive into a nest of commas to see that the first statement no longer applies? ... how much longer into the paragraph do you have to read to figure out why it no longer applies? The intro paragraph RfC that Tartan357 closed, though technically correct, is garbage from an information point of view. And that is why I have asked for a review of an RfC that protects misleading information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Cyberbot I and lowercase sigmabot II are edit warring

• Cyberbot I (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
• Lowercase sigmabot II (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

These two bots have decided to edit war over if there should be a sandbox header or not, so I don't know what to do.

Courtesy ping: cyberpower678 and Σ. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 21:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone's cocked up lcsii's sandbox code, which is why there's oddities afoot. I'm looking into it. Primefac (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think they're edit warring. lcsii seems to be triggered whenever you add something at the very top of the page, not by whatever Cyberbot's been doing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's {{Sandbox reset}}. I reverted the blanking and upgraded the protection. Sandbox looks good now. — The Earwig ^talk 02:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea how I missed that (looked at a dozen different templates and template redirects). Primefac (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't sure either, so I consulted the source code. (This was complicated by undetected IP vandalism that had deleted the source code. Sigh.) — The Earwig ^talk 02:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

GAH! I looked through that page a half-dozen times and somehow managed to miss that line... Primefac (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC) of course, the vandalism that removed that part of the page six months ago explains it!

Reviewing my topic ban

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post it. But over a year ago I was put on community restriction and was topic banned from adding my own photographs to any article which already contains an image. The only way I could was to propose it on the respective talk page and get consensus from it. I been doing that since then. I'm going to be honest at some point I might of violated my sanction at some point. A few weeks ago I did revert one edit by a IP user which replaced a photo already used on the article as the infobox.

Personally I'm getting worn out from having to gather everyone on the talk page every time I want to add a image taken by me, the reason they did the sanction in the first place because I did used to self-insert my photos in articles and often wasn't a improvement in the first place but I think I grown from that and noticed my flaws with some of my own photos and understand why editors might've been unhappy with my edits. I did try and ask for my sanction to be lifted however the admin who done it; GoldenRing has been inactive for over a year now. --Vauxford (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Link to ban discussion. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting topic ban. I am the administrator who wrote the topic ban, which easily gained consensus. Vauxford, you state "Personally I'm getting worn out" with having to comply with the restriction, but I notice that you are not using the edit request process. That may help speed things up. The disruption you created was major, and I am not convinced that problems wouldn't quickly return if the editing restriction was lifted. Also, you used some highly inappropriate language in the discussion that led to the topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support lifting TBAN I don't see any recent disruption. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, isn't violating their topic ban less than three weeks ago, as admitted above, a form of disruption? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Difficult to evaluate this request without knowing Vauxford's track record for image proposals on talk pages. If all the image proposals gained consensus without disruption, then it might be time to lift the restriction. If none of the image proposals gained consensus, then it might not be time to lift the restriction yet. If it's in between, then that would require some thought. But right now there is no data in this appeal from which to base a conclusion. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  Support lifting TBAN — after reviewing the IP revert link above, the image proposal links below, and Vauxford's last 50 talkspace contribs (which go back to March 2020). It seems almost all of these image proposals gained consensus and discussion was brief and collegial. Seems to me that Vauxford knows what they're doing and is able to navigate articles without disruption. I don't think this TBAN is necessary to prevent disruption any longer. In fact, I think it's needlessly wasting the time of other editors. I don't want to call any editors out by name, but in reviewing some of these discussions, I saw multiple other editors over the past year express frustration with the fact that Vauxford has to post on a talk page to make uncontroversial improvements to an article. So I think lifting the TBAN would benefit other editors in this topic area. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Diffs of the image proposals I made. Jaguar R1, Audi e-tron, Audi A3, Mercedes-Benz GLB-Class, Porsche 911, Porsche 992 Hyundai i10, Skoda Rapid (2012), Skoda Octvia and BMW 5 Series (G30) --Vauxford (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible Aggressive IP user

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

---

• 2603:7000:6F03:1CB8:E4CC:BD2B:3D83:749D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm not sure if this can be addressed here, but there's an IP user who was being somewhat disruptive on an article, and when they were warned on this, their response was in a tone that was quite aggressive. In fact, when I warned him his disruption was close to getting him potentially blocked if he continued, he was... rather rude. To be blunt, he 'bleeped' a swear at my message.

IP's talk page provides more details on behaviour. GUtt01 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Another admin blocked the IP for 48 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I've seen. Let's hope they learn to be civil in future. GUtt01 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

J4lambert, repeated unsourced editing & creating double-redirects following block

J4lambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated unsourced and disruptive editing. Indefinitely banned 4 November 2020 from edits relating to elections in the United States, broadly construed. Blocked 3 December 2020 following first ANI detailing very long-term disruptive editing pattern. Following unblock 10 December 2020, additional unsourced edits:

• Frutiger (typeface)—First edit, adding unsourced content
  • Talk:Frutiger (typeface)—Second edit, asking others to source user's own unsourced edit
  • Frutiger (typeface)—Third edit, making unsourced content a hidden comment
• Addition of unsourced content to Edd Kalehoff

Additional disruptive editing creating of double-redirects:

• Trump twitter ban
• 2021 NHL Lake Tahoe series

And further disruptive editing adding unnecessary/spam redirects:

• 1918 liberty loan parade
• Forza motorsport 8
• B117 pandemic

AldezD (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Those redirects... J4lambert (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I was previously barred from editing articles related to the US elections. J4lambert (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @JBW:, an involved admin. AldezD (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am announcing my retirement from Wikipedia effective January 17, 2021, due to issues regarding my edits of articles for the 2020 United States presidential election. J4lambert (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Pretty well the editor's entire editing history since the recent block expired seems to consist of doing the things that led to that block, including blatant violations of their topic ban. I shall reinstate the block, this time indefinitely, which I warned the editor would be likely to happen if the same pattern of editing returned. (I had hoped that the block would prompt the editor to start taking notice of messages and warnings about unacceptable editing, and change their approach, but unfortunately that hasn't happened.) JBW (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You know, it's an account from 2008 and all, but I couldn't help but on seeing J4lambert wondering if they were deliberately trying to "look like" Johnpacklambert... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Brexit Party

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

---

Brexit Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone protect this - there is an ongoing discussion about renaming it. But we have just had a declared Brexit Party member move it on the basis that the Party has decided so that is it. Needs a calming influence -----Snowded ^TALK 15:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

What are the Faragists called this week? GPinkerton (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:Brexit Party#RfC regarding article split, and is still in progress. Britishfinance (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Move protected indefinitely. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Unblock request by Ahrtoodeetoo

Moved from Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

A simple perusal of my contributions shows perfectly well I am here to build an encyclopedia and have made ample productive contributions to the project, both recently and in the past. The blocking admin's explanation underscores the weakness of this block. Their justification is not about WP:HERE, but is about incivility. I think I was quite civil, but even if I wasn't, that's no basis for an insta-indef without a civility warning--DS do not apply here. If their justification was that I've been refusing to let people post non-mandatory comments on my user talk, that's not a blockable offense, that's my right. In fact, the blocking admin's repeated posting on my user talk against my express, acknowledged requests is harassment-- see WP:HUSH. I understand this is a block appeal, but I believe in good faith this admin is harassing me and this should boomerang. Please at least open this up to ANI because I think this is a total misapplication of policy. R2 (bleep) 18:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for using the acronym "GTFO" and for calling 331dot a "pig." I do think they were reasonable in context, but I understand how they might be taken to be disrespectful and inconsistent with the spirit of the project and I won't do that again. I do think the community needs to have further conversation about admins' use of their authority in user talk spaces, but that's a separate issue. I also think the indef block was grossly disproportionate to the offense, especially in context, and a deescalation with a simple warning combined with an invitation to join the Teahouse discussion would have done the trick. But that is not an excuse. I'm also willing to engage in further discussion with the community to understand what my obligations are with respect to my user talk, and to comply with those obligations. R2 (bleep) 23:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The above is copied from User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo#Unblock request. Note that 331dot modified the block reason after Ahrtoodeetoo's unblock request (first paragraph copied from unblock template). The second paragraph is Ahrtoodeetoo's last post to the thread. Politrukki (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a standard unblock request. And frankly, given the years of chronic incivility, I find the follow up request to be quite insincere considering just minutes before they were blaming everyone else for their actions. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I know this "isn't the place for a standard unblock request", but the circumstances are also unusual because of Ahrtoodeetoo's unusual "banning" of normal discussion on their talk page. I do wonder whether the subject line I picked is misleading because the community should not decide whether Ahrtoodeetoo should be unblocked. This should also not be considered a review of 331dot's acions.

Looks like there were mainly two reasons for the block: a) a note on their talk page: "Everyone is banned from my talk page (except for mandatory notices, of course) until further notice. And do not ping me. (see User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo#Important notice - please read before postng from 2019) and b) recent personal attack telling 331dot "GTFO my user talk, pig"[82].

When I saw the personal attack – and before Ahrtoodeetoo was blocked – my initial thought was whether the incident should be taken to ANI and ask whether a (short?) civility block would be necessary and request whether the community should ban the blanket ban Ahrtoodeetoo "imposed". I didn't know that a Teahouse discussion existed.

Disclaimer: I have collaboratively edited with Ahrtoodeetoo, but we may have had minor disagreements, at least indirectly. But both happened ages ago. Politrukki (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

As the editor who brought this user to the blocking administrator's attention through a Teahouse thread, I feel obliged to comment. I will not pass comment on the matter of civility, as the requestor's comments speak for themselves. However, under WP:ENGAGE, I struggle to understand why the requestor believes the notice "banning" other editors from posting on their talk page and pinging them is appropriate. Under WP:UOWN (which the editor cites themself), pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user ... other users may edit pages in your user space or leave messages for you. A blanket prohibition on both user talk page messages and pinging means that there is no way to bring a matter to the requestor's attention. That is simply untenable. (Non-administrator comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"I'm sorry for using the acronym "GTFO" and for calling 331dot a "pig." I do think they were reasonable in context," I think that says it all. No it was not acceptable in context, and until they realise that I don't think an unblock from a civility block is justified. Canterbury Tail talk 15:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

As I pointed out on their talk page, this isn't their only foray into the world of attacks. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 15:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I am willing to answer questions if requested, but to avoid further accusations of harassment I won't make any comment here. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: re: "I'm sorry for using the acronym "GTFO" and for calling 331dot a "pig." I do think they were reasonable in context" (emphasis mine). If the editor believes this could be reasonable in any context I think there are problems waiting to happen. re: "but I understand how they might be taken to be disrespectful", editor seems to think the problem is with others perceptions and not their words, again I think a sign there are problems waiting to happen. Blocks are prevenative.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   15:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's always a shame to see an otherwise productive editor indeffed over a lapse in judgment like this, but I'm not going to offer an opinion on the length of the block because a first-time civility block that's also a first-time indef should be, frankly, easy to get lifted with an unblock request. "I understand that my comments were uncivil and unacceptable in a collaborative project. It was a major lapse in judgment and I will do my best not to let it happen again. Sorry to [other editor]." That's all that's really needed (along with sticking to that sentiment). On the other hand, saying you don't think it was uncivil, and that it was in fact "reasonable in context" is not only going to result in a declined unblock, but will make the next unblock request more difficult (which isn't to say it's not still relatively easy to fix this if you want to). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • R2 has drawn my attention to this comment, which hasn't been copied here and is a step closer to the right direction. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Rhododendrites, what I'm struggling with a bit at the moment is how 331dot's messages can be construed as being harassment. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      • @Sdrqaz: - I share that concern. SQL^{Query me!} 16:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Sure. It's just a clarification that wasn't posted here which is, if not quite there yet, at least a step closer. The problem with having messages copied to ANI is that what's here is what people will primarily base their opinions on, rather than subsequent clarifications on the user's talk page. So the best thing at this point, R2, may be to take a couple days and start with a fresh request clearly articulating your perspective, keeping in mind that attempts at justification often throw a wrench into such requests when not entirely compelling. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm still on the fence about an unblock here, leaning slightly towards an eventual unblock. I was initially ready to unblock with a "Sorry, it was a lapse, won't happen again", and quickly escalated to the point that we had to move discussion off the user's talkpage. I was surprised to see the quick about-face, which is almost there. I'd agree with others above that "reasonable in context" is problematic, which is somewhat addressed here, albeit with a sarcastic "Really?". I do believe R2 is generally civil, and does good content work. They choose to work in a part of the project I stay far the hell away from because of the extreme toxicity and divisiveness (American politics) - and maybe it would be helpful to edit other subjects for a bit - that has to be draining. SQL^{Query me!} 16:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Ahrtoodeetoo: (Replying to this message) I had indeed not seen this, which does a far better job at addressing the issue here. SQL^{Query me!} 17:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - 'I'm sorry for using the acronym "GTFO" and for calling 331dot a "pig." I do think they were reasonable in context' says it all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, I have to ask. While you are considerably more polite in banning people from your talk page you are also quite prolific in doing so. Do you happen to have a total for how many you have banned from your talk page? PackMecEng (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  BMK: Remember there's no need to respond to trolling. They're just trying to get a rise out of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Who is trolling? It was a serious question that goes to some of the issues in this situation. In the future please WP:AGF. Thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  With respect, it didn't seem relevant to the matter at hand or necessary. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  My thinking was the block in question had a lot to do with banning people from their talk page. I wanted to get a little more insight into what the effects of such broad banning can have on a users ability to communicate on this wonderful website. With that in mind BMK, as far as I know, has the largest list of users forbidden from communicating with them on their talk page. So I was looking forward to better understanding their point of view. Then, out of no where, I get accused of being a troll by some random person for no apparent reason. It is really disappointing. PackMecEng (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  There's a big difference between telling individual editors not to come back and telling the community "don't talk to me OR ELSE". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  I did not notice an OR ELSE. You quote it, do you have a link so I can take a look? Also where would you say that line is? If I had to guess it is probably a few dozen at least that BMK has banned and I am still waiting on their thoughts on the matter. PackMecEng (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It was very much implied in their blanket prohibition. As SQL has pointed out, BMK is not having an unblock request evaluated. Your dispute with BMK is not relevant to this matter and is best taken elsewhere. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Truly, I have nothing against BMK. There is no dispute with me and him. Nor am I trying to imply they did anything wrong, they did not. Please stay on track here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing else to say to that exhortation. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• @PackMecEng: We aren't evaluating an unblock request for BMK. SQL^{Query me!} 23:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  SQL, Correct. PackMecEng (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock; Wikipedia is a collaborative project and the user has proven incompatibility with this concept. Special:Diff/999931299 alone is reason enough not to consider any unblock request for a while. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for now - while we certanily need good and productive content creators, the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Editors here have to be compatible with collaboration, which the notice which may or may not have kicked off this whole mess is not. We have to be willing to engage with other editors, and pointedly cutting off the most major method of engagement is bad optics at best. Calling another editor a "pig" (in context, being addressed to an admin, is pretty clear in meaning) is wildly uncivil and the 'apology' for it smacks of not being sorry for it but being sorry for being called out for it (and I do think they were reasonable in context, but I understand how they might be taken to be disrespectful makes the whole thing a non-apology anyway - either they were reasonable or not and they were very not). Finally, regardless of the merits/reasoning of the original block, the user's conduct on their talk page since the block has left me very uncomfortable with the thought of an unblock at this time. If they are to be unblocked at the very least they need to issue an apology without any weasel words and understand and accept that their user talk page is for communication with them by and from the entire project and that while they can tell editors they have issues with not to post there that is for individuals they have issues with, not a pre-emptive total ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock -They've not addressed the reasons for the block and give the appearance of WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. (Don't talk to me?) Indef is not infinite. User can be unblocked whenever they address the reasons for the block and give the appearance of being able to collaborate. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• I was all for supporting this, because I'm all for unblocks, but I can't support right now. Their comments to Bbb last year were awful, no one should call another editor a pig, and even the unblock reason here is unconvincing: " I do think they were reasonable in context, but I understand how they might be taken to be disrespectful and inconsistent with the spirit of the project and I won't do that again". No, they were not reasonable in context. At the risk of sounding patronizing, I think it's TOOSOON. R2 needs to stew on this for a little bit. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for now. But let them make a standard unblock request in the future on their user talk page. (No need for another discussion here.) The banning of literally everybody from their talk page doesn't really work for me. The pages are there so people can communicate, and sometimes communication beyond required templates is necessary. I'm not sure where it all went wrong, but I miss the spunky little robot from 2 years ago. ~Awilley (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Regardless of the outcome of this unblock request, it should be made clear to the requestor that per both WP:ENGAGE and WP:UOWN, the blanket prohibition on both user talk page messages and pinging is not allowed. (Non-administrator comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz I will note that users are free to turn off pings in their preferences so that they never see them and by extension inform others of that. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

331dot, they are free to do so. But the text of the notice was that other editors shouldn't ping them (instead of a simple notification that pings had been turned off) and the requestor coupled that with a prohibition on others editing their talk page. That seems problematic. What if one has an issue with the content of their contributions or their conduct? Editors should not have to go straight to creating ANI threads instead of trying to hash out a dialogue at their talk page. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In response to the request that I withdraw this proposal, I decline to do so. The proposal has its own subheading, which means other editors can respond to it separately if they wish. It is considered good practice (as far as I can tell) to allow other editors to engage with oneself on one's talk page. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur; saying "do not edit my talk page, ever" is behavior not compatible with a collaborative project. Communication is required, and the user talk page is pretty much the linchpin of communication on Wikipedia; furthermore the editor in question's reactions to people who do post there have been, from what I can see, not constructive - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

[1st] unblock request declined

Just noting to participants that I have declined the [1st] unblock request. El_C 00:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Publish article page Draft:Synergy_Inc.

Hello,

Thank you for your help in advance.

I'm trying to publish the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Synergy_Inc.

Please could you help me with this?

Thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lighting100 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Lighting100 In the future please use the Help Desk or Teahouse for questions like this. Your draft was unambiguously promotional. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves, and has no interest in increasing their exposure. When independent reliable sources choose on their own to give what I assume is your company significant coverage, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, someone will eventually write about it- but it shouldn't be you, and the company will have no control over any article that might be created about it. Please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Your link is broken. The deleted page to which you were trying to refer is Draft:Synergy_Inc.. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about banning policy

Admins and editors may perhaps be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#One-way Ibans. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Proposal to change logo for 20th anniversary

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Proposal to change logo for 20th anniversary. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48