Overall, the consensus from the "ideas" round indicates the permission should be easy to get, with a fairly low threshold to discourage single purpose accounts and inexperienced reviewers. It was also deemed that the permission could be revoked only after discussion; not by an individual admin. The "straw poll" section indicated a threshold of around 500 non-auto edits to en.Wiki, and an account registered for 90 days. Overall, it seems that the right would either take the form of a requestable permission edit filter, or community standard, pending another RFC and technical information from WMF. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[AFC reviewers] must have demonstrated that they understand WP:PROD, WP:AfD, and WP:Notability, and are able to interact with other users in a polite, friendly, and helpful manner. --Kudpung, 18 October 2013
This RfC discusses suggestions for the threshold of experience for users to demonstrate that they are adequately versed in the policies and guidelines involved for an article that can exist uncontentiously in mainspace.
This RfC does not discuss how this threshold will be granted and/or implemented. That will be the topic of a further discussion, when the threshold itself has been established.
This RfC is not a vote. Participants are invited to discuss what would be a reasonable threshold. The closer will assess the outcome based on the discussion.
Consensus has been reached for this permission, this RfC is not for rediscussing whether a permission is needed.
Reviewer (Pending Changes Reviewer): Quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content. The threshold is deliberately low but Reviewers are not expected to be subject experts and their review is not a guarantee in any way of an error-free article. They are expected to have a reasonable editing history, distinguish what is and what is not vandalism, and be familiar with basic content policies.
Reviewer permission are specified as follows:
You have an account, and routinely edit.
You have a reasonable editing history – as a guide, enough edits that a track record can be established.
Rollbacker: While there is no fixed requirement, a request is unlikely to be successful without a contribution history that demonstrates an ability to distinguish well intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism. Users with 200 edits (generally discounting those to their own user space) can apply for training to the WP:CVUA. Admins rarely grant the tool for less than a clear run of at least 100 reverts of clearly identifiable vandalism without errors. Significant experience is needed to identify the kind of edits that may not appear to vandalism at first sight e.g. inappropriate edits missed by the bots and abuse filters.
Permission is granted by an admin.
Stiki: The account must have either: (1) the rollback permission/right, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or be approved after discussion with the developer.
Huggle: Requires rollback permission in order to function but does not otherwise have an approvals system.
AWB: Users must be added to a whitelist in order to use AWB. Only admins can edit the whitelist, and admins automatically have access. As a general rule, only users with more than 500 mainspace edits will be registered, and admins tend to only give access if a user has specified a task they want to use AWB for.
I'll start the ball rolling here with a fairly low threshold. Having seen plenty of the kind of errors that are made by editors who review AfC, I suggest that the minimum should be based on candidates having the choice of satisfying either of these two criteria (but not a lower mix of each).
1. Must have both Reviewer and Rollbacker rights, and have demonstrated that they have used these correctly within a minimum of 500 mainspace edits, and a minimum of one month tenure.
or
2. Must have patrolled at least 200 pages at WP:New pages patrol without recent error and demonstrated that they are a) familiar with the tags and deletion criteria offered by the Page Curation Toolbar without error. b) made significant use of the 'message to the creator' tool.
3. Above all, candidates must have demonstrated that they understand WP:PROD, WP:AfD, and WP:Notability, and are able to interact with other users in a polite, friendly, and helpful manner.
Does Page Curation need to be singled out? Don't a lot of users do NPP with other tools, like Twinkle? I think you should refer to NPP-related tags and criteria in general. Also, I think reviewer/rollbacker would be fine with one-or-the-other, rather than needing both. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
NPP should only be done nowadays with the Special:NewPagesFeed which does not use Twinkle. There may be a few editors still using the old page feed, but that system has been redundant now for a long time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I happened to just ask Dragonfly67 on IRC the other day, and he doesn't use the curation tool... Not implying one way or the other whether or not he would want AfC reviewer (yes, I obviously realize as an admin it doesn't really make much difference), just wondering if someone like him that doesn't use page curation but has patrolled thousands of pages should really be excluded. TL;DR, I think that saying that curation tool use is a requirement of proper page patrolling is inaccurate. Technical 13 (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ditto... I patrol off WP:SCV and #wikipedia-en-spam. What we are looking for are speedy deletion accuracy and PROD/AFD nominations getting deleted. MER-C 05:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
MER-C, That's probably what you do, and naturally you are perfectly free to pick and choose how, what, and when you do, but patrollers should be aware of the recommendations at WP:NPP otherwise they are not really helping the project. I, for example, generally only look for blatant candidates for ultra speedy - and some of them I then summarily delete already - leaving the rest for other patrollers to figure out and learn from; I certainly don't plod systematically through the list, well, not these days - three years ago I cleared about 20,000 from the backlog in as many days, but I guess I was still full of Wikithusiasm. IMHO the new page feed and its curation tool is a brilliant piece of software; the only problem is that it's only any good in the hands of users who know what they are doing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see a certain number of articles created, perhaps 20, as a criterion for this user right. This would allow a fair assessment of the user's understanding with regard to article creation in my opinion. Additionally, I think the right could be bundled with autopatrolled just as well as sysop.—John Cline (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
While I like the idea of requiring some article creation experience I'm afraid 20 is far too high a threshold. I had been active here for 5 years and logged about 20,000 edits by the time I created my 20th article. Many of the most suitable candidates for AfC reviewer are those editors who have a lot of "wikignome"-editing experience - they generally don't create many articles. In any case "articles" is not a very useful unit of measurement - because both a 50-word stub about a village in Uzbekistan and a comprehensive GA-rated article about an obscure disease count as "1". I would give the right to the creator of one comprehensive article before I give it to a stub-mill with hundreds of three-sentence stubs, that just barely scrape past the minimum standards, on their scorecard. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Dodger67, for 'Autopatrolled' the default criterion is 50 articles. However, admins review these carefully, discount redirects and dab pages, and and don't generally accord the right to '100 stub wonders'. 1-line stubs about one specific topic area do not demonstrate a sufficiently broad knowledge of policies and guidelines, especially the mass creators who use AWB or their first stub as a template. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
When I saw the topic, I was going to suggest article creation as a possible prerequisite. If as high as 20, I'd recommend that it replace one or more other requirements. If standalone, I would recommend a lower threshold, perhaps 5, but those articles must demonstrate knowledge of notability, reliability, independence, etc. If more than 5 articles are created, not all need to pass this criteria (some should could be stubs), but there must be 5 that do, and there must not be recent creations that demonstrate lack of knowledge in the critical areas. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 12:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
That largely echos my thinking. Article creation is good, but expansion of a stub to a full-blown article may be worth as much or more.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
While creating content within an existing article is an important measure, it presumes the existence of a notable article, rife for improvement. Article creation better demonstrates the all important ability of identifying notable subjects. AfD participation is perhaps another good way to gage clue in this regard.—John Cline (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Question as I'm seeing a lot of numbers or other rights being required here, which would be a major hurdle for many existing reviewers without of "grandfathering" of some kind. I'm not saying that these requirements are necessarily bad, just that they may be overzealous. Along the same lines as WP:CVUA for Rollbacker, I would like to think that a user without any of Reviewer or Rollbacker or 500 mainspace edits or 200 WP:New pages patrol or 20 created articles but who has demonstrated that they understand all of the proper policies (especially WP:Notability) via an AfC specific training program would be eligible. Technical 13 (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Above all, candidates must have demonstrated that they understand WP:PROD, WP:AfD, and WP:Notability, and are able to interact with other users in a polite, friendly, and helpful manner.
You nailed it right there.
Any counts or other criteria we come up with are just ways to tell those who have done this from those who haven't, without having to spend hours wading through prospective reviewer's wiki-histories. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I hope you don't mind, I turned it into the {{tmbox}} at the top. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I mind. Promoting one person's comment above all others with a big flashy spotlight is not conducive to consensus-building. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
There was a lot of concern during the previous discussion that this would be a privilege which would be bestowed on some editors by others. This is how I envision the process working:
The Afc helper script be changed to only function for those on the Wikiproject AfC reviewer list.
The list could be on a protected page so that someone with regular reviewer rights would be needed to add names.
On request, an editor would automatically be added if they had reached a certain level of editing (for example, 2000 edits and one year of experience).
Editors wanting to review sooner or with less experience would have to meet the lower numbers of edits and time served mentioned above, and also convince a reviewer to add them to the list by demonstrating such items as Kudpung has mentioned above.
Names could be removed if problems cropped up (such as frivolous or frequently incorrect reviews).
The reason I suggest the addition of an automatic pass level is that I believe that many of the people who supported the previous Rfc only did so because they believed that it would be an automatic rather than requested permission. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Consensus not to implement, due to concerns about threshold being too high. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There were absolutely no mentions in the proposal on the previous RfC that the right would be automatically conferred. Criteria for the right, and how it would be granted were deliberately left open for further discussions. This discussion is to determine those criteria. What was clear on that RfC was the typical phenomenon on Wkipedia discussions that many people, especially those commenting later, do not fully read the preamble and proposition correctly and the following discussion and go off at half-tack - even introducing items that were expressly not required in the discussion.
I didn't mention it above, but but I would assume that current active reviewers who have not demonstrated any controversial issues with their reviewing would be grandfathered in.
I think requiring 20 article creations would be setting the bar too high. This is not required for NPP which has a similar need for knowledge of policies and practice but which does not require a permission (yet) and still suffers from the same problems: not enough patrollers, and often too little experience. I know I keep drawing these comparisons with NPP but I do feel it's relevant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose criteria 2 New pages patrol is quite tedious and many users that could do it choose not to. I have to believe that asking people to do 300 NPPs will deter a ton of people from asking for AfC reviewer permission because there are plenty of other things most people would rather do than spend 20 hours doing NPP. Sven ManguardWha? 06:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree it is tedious. I did some quite some time ago and hated it. That said, it is eye-opening, and I wouldn't mind inclusion at a much lower level. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Given the exceedingly limited use of pending changes, what does reviewer actually signify? I agree with Sven's comments regarding NPP, as a long-standing patroller: 300 reviews is exceedingly high, both as something for the candidate to achieve and as something for anyone reviewing the candidacy to actually triage and check. Ironholds (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ironholds, I don't see anywhere that anyone has suggested 300 new page patrols. Perhaps if people would read discussions before they participate. I disagree most strongly that at NPP it is so difficult to attain a number of patrolls, I have done thousands and so have you. At the rate at which some patrollers review new articles, 200 patrols can be done in 200 minutes - alebeit probably as slipshod as some of the reviewing at AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
As usual, I'm going to ignore the pointless (and pointed) elements of your comment. To the remainder: the argument seems to boil down to "hey, you did it", which would be great if I wasn't the most active patroller for a solid two years by an order of magnitude I was even in a research study, how about that - "you can do it and I can do it" simply proves we can do it, not that it's achievable by anyone else. You know full well that our work on NPP is non-standard even for patrollers.
Sure, it's possible in a few hours, or days, or weeks if you actually want to put some effort in: that's not the point. It's a lot of work to put in to an activity you may actually have zero interest in - your interest is in AfC, not in NPP. It'd be like saying that for someone to be autopatrolled, they need to have extensive experience patrolling articles: sure, it's indicative of knowing what makes a good or bad article. It's also something that may bore them silly. I'm not entirely sure how excluding the people who don't enjoy NPP is going to help improve the quality or frequency of AfC work. I'd appreciate if you could address the reviewer comment as well. Ironholds (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
There are dozens of patrollers who have made 200 or more patrols - if you only do one a day that's about half a year, so please let's keep this in perspective. If the task is as thankless and boring as some have pointed out (which IMO it is), armed with that qualification they may find AfC more rewarding. No one is excluding those who have not done NPP - but you probably missed the alternative qualifications that were suggested. Whilst I see many parallels in the work of AfC and NPP, I see little or no correlation with PC reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Then I'm rather confused as to why you've recommended 'reviewer' as part of a qualification to get this right, since it's a PC-centric userright (unless someone can explain other uses it has, other than AFT5). Ironholds (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ironholds, it should be quite obvious that these are listed as examples of criteria for permissions that are accorded based on prior general experience and as incremental stages of user experience that demonstrate some metrics of knowledge of guidelines, policies, and practice for the purpose of access to different levels of meta tasks. We naturally have to start somewhere. You appear to be confused that we are discussing a MedWiki 'user right' according to the semantics of the Foundation, rather than a 'permission' as applied to this exercise. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't that obvious. I had to read it twice, after being initially puzzled that these were being designated as prerequisites. Then I realized they were examples of other rights, along with the criteria, so people could see example of criteria which could be used to think through the criteria for this right.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Sphilbrick. The text is indeed pretty confusing. Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Support except for criterion 2 - but only because I have never done NPP at all. I've just thought of a way to imlplement "Criterion 3". Basically it ammounts to putting new reviewers "on probation". We use a mechanism similar to the "re-review" that is currently used as a "quality control" check during backlog elimination drives. Thus someone who meets the (deliberately low) technical threshold has their first reviews logged at a special page from where they are rechecked by experienced reviewers. The "probation" is lifted once the new reviewer has demonstrated comptence to the satisfation of the other reviewers.. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Dodger67, that's why aspiring candidates can choose between the two sets of criteria that fits their situation best. They don't need to satisfy them both. Essentially however, exactly what we are trying to do here is to avoid having to monitor the work of new reviewers as much as possible. This is currently being done on an ad hoc basis, but only when issues come to light. It would be impossible to do a double-control on all new reviewers - AfC resources are stretched too far already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I think RogerDodger67 has the right mindset ... but I agree with Kudpung that manually reviewing past work, by having existing AfC folks manually monitor some please-check-me-for-accuracy queue, is not the way to go. Methinks the only approach that can put new reviewers on probation, and also automatically check their competence *without* requiring any additional effort from existing AfC folks, is to use an auto-test setup ... where the candidate AfC reviewer attempts to pass judgement on a stream of submissions, which some existing AfC folks have already judged. If the candidate gives the same answers as the existing folks, then the candidate has proven their worth. See my detailed suggestion-section, below. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose rollback requirement. There are other ways to revert vandalism, for example by using Twinkle's rollback function. I find Twinkle's rollback feature superior to the standard rollback feature as it allows specifying an edit summary, and for that reason, I haven't even seen any need to apply for rollback permission on this project, although I occasionally use the rollback function on Commons. A user's choice to use alternative tools shouldn't affect the chances of becoming an AfC reviewer. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose setting the bar wildly higher for WP:AFC than for WP:NPP as both largely compete for attention of the same volunteers. The requirements for both, while not identical, should be close. It's reasonable to ask that a reviewer be someone who has written an article or two which didn't get deleted, and understands the basic policies (particularly notability and sources), but set the bar arbitrarily high and the only result is to make an already-bad AFC backlog worse. That does no one any favours. K7L (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ironically there is no bar for NPP. That's why they have problems there too. I campaigned for years for a solution for the control of new articles which accumulated in the ill fated WP:ACTRIAL, and for improvement of NPP, and that was why we ultimately got the Page Curation system, but it still did not address the two issues: too few patrollers, and too little experience - and there is still an unacceptable backlog with some less easy articles not getting patrolled for months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Despite "Consensus has been reached for this permission, this RfC is not for rediscussing whether a permission is needed." I still think that this is an incredibly bad idea and will ultimately complicate a process that is already so heavily bureaucratized and understaffed that it has had to come and beg people to help multiple times.
That being said, my suggestion is that rather than make the criterion based on vandalism fighting, we make it based on content creation. The permission would be given to:
Autopatrolled (automatically, by making adding it to the autopatrolled package)
Anyone with at least one GA or at least two DYKs
Anyone that has a track record of positive work doing AfC reviews (before the RfC)
Admins should feel free to assign the permission to anyone that qualifies. Rather than set up a request board, the AfC instructions should instruct people looking for reviewer permission to ask an admin already involved in AfC.
Finally, and I can't stress this enough, the AfC reviewer userright group should never be used to determine recipients for mass messages. AfC has, in my opinion, a shockingly bad track record when it comes to soliciting participation from people that don't want to hear from AfC, and no matter what the ultimate decision about what the AfC reviewer criteria is, plenty of people are going to be given the userright despite having no interest in AfC reviewing (not least because admins will get the right automatically, as they do with almost every other right).
I'm still confused as to why we're talking about a userright. What technical privilege would it confer, and has anyone taken the time to ask the developers if this would actually be possible or even desirable as MediaWiki functionality? Ironholds (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
We can restrict use of the AfC tool. I'm not sure if that conforms to the definition of a userright. Re: "Has anyone taken the time..." Would you mind being a bit less combative? In the previous RfC, linked above, someone with (WMF) in their sig, who seemed to know technical stuff chimed in. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ahh. Me or Sven? Sorry if I'm coming off as combative; that's not the intent. Userrights are software-recognised things that permit or restrict MediaWiki actions; admin is a userright that allows access to things like Special:Block, autopatrolled lets MediaWiki automatically mark a page as reviewed, so on and so forth. From a MediaWiki point of view, AfC does not exist; it's not special functionality, just a set of pages. So I'm trying to ascertain if people have actually spoken to the developers and asked if this makes sense as a technically-implemented userright. If not, some of the comments above (rolling it in with autopatrolled, for example) seem unnecessary, and people might want to use less confusing terminology. Userright == MW-recognised status that grants access to special functionality. AfC is not software-recognised functionality.
The WMF-person I can see is Steven Walling; his statement was "I have no idea whether it will be even possible to fulfill the request from a technical perspective". So, this probably needs further investigation before rather than after criteria are established. Ironholds (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying userright. We should probably determine what level of competence a person needs to have demonstrated before being permitted to review AfCs, before discussing whether we need to enforce it with a technical fix. I proposed earlier in this discussion that we use Wikipedia:Reviewer as a marker for adequate competence, and use social control to enforce it along with changing the AFC tool script to prevent anyone not on Special:ListUsers/reviewer from using the tool. But I pulled it, wondering whether that's setting the bar too low. Regardless, we can probably do what we want here without involving MediaWiki development. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the plans for how to implement this, but a user right does not necessarily need to give access to extra special pages. For example, Commons has the OTRS-member, and the only difference between "OTRS-member" and "autopatrolled" is that an "OTRS-member" can add certain templates to a page without triggering Commons:Special:AbuseFilter/69. This user right could potentially be used in a similar abuse filter to prevent addition of certain AfC templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Once again, as there is little likelihood that a MedWiki solution will be granted - or even asked for, the question is moot. Some non MedWki methods have already been suggested and even by Brandon himself with whom I had a lengthy (and exceptionally friendly) discussion in Hong Kong. It's been mentioned dozens of times that permissions are needed for several MedWiki-independent actions. They are however listed at WP:PERM as the portal for permissions that are granted by admins. So again, we are discussing something that is not on the agenda of this RfC. Implementation/deployment comes later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I am befuddled by this counsel! Considering notes 1 thru 3 of the original RfC, how can one say another's suggestion is moot upon its rendering? Otherwise, this is not a request for comment, but instead, a request for support; of ideas apparently already decided.—John Cline (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely not, John. This is a think tank with an objective to define some criteria of experience for reviewing articles submitted to AfC. As stated in the previous RfC, what these criteria would be are for discussion (now here), and how it would be implemented will be discussed when the criteria have been established. One of the reasons that Wikipedia RfC fail or become overly convoluted is that there is often a tendency to discuss tangential issues at the same time, or ones that are not yet up for debate. Ironholds has made it perfectly clear that he will resist any suggestions to make this a MedWiki based 'user right', but has mistakenly assumed that that was the intention (on both this and the previous RfC). That said, if indeed any of the senior staff at the WMF decide that this 'permission' is of significant interest to entertain a MedWiki solution, we would be most pleased to hear about it, but we are not aware of any such offers as yet - in fact a closer look at my comments will reveal that I concur entirely with Ironholds that this is not a MedWiki operation, hence such suggestions are off topic as being evidently unworkable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion it would greatly serve this discussion if there was a definitive answer regarding MediaWiki support. If the entire modification is to be implemented at the WikiProject level, then yes, we are straying off topic by suggesting a new userright, whether automatic or granted; and should therefore focus the eye of our brain storm locally. That said, the best solution to my eyes involves MediaWiki support, and I for one wish we had garnered that support already. Otherwise I think Graeme Bartlett is correct that a blacklist is the way to segregate bad apples and I suppose we could use discretionary sanctions to ban individual involvement where cause has been shown. Notwithstanding, I am optimistic that better ideas are forthcoming, provided we don't stifle the creative flow of ideas by the heavy hand of pessimism.—John Cline (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to keep coming back to this John, but I think Ironholds (whichever hat he is wearing) has made it already abundantly clear. We're essentially discussing a set of criteria for a 'permission' rather than a 'User Right' per per Foundation semantics. I had an interesting in-depth discussion on this very topic with Brandon Harris, Erik Möller, and Steven Walling in Hong Kong and although they made some very interesting suggestions how we could approach an improvement to the AfC process, I do not believe there would be a spark of optimism for a MedWiki solution unless this were to have a cross-Wiki rollout. Personally I think it's best for us to find our own solutions locally. There is a faint chance that if they see we're making a superb effort in the right direction ourselves (as they did with NPP) they may step in towards the end bearing gifts, but I wouldn't bank on it. That said, although we want to avoid hat-collecting, I'm very suspicious that one of the reasons why NPP performs badly is that it ironically doesn't have a hat to collect although it demands far more knowledge than PC Reviewer or Rollbacker. Only today I came across a blatant long copyvio synthesis of multiple academic papers completely wrongly tagged by a 14-year-old patroller, who even apologised to the creator and removed the tag again! How many 100s of users would we need to blacklist before we have a few dozen reliable AfC reviewers left? A blacklist only shuts the barn door after the horse has bolted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
What were their suggestions? And this isn't a Foundation POV, this is a software POV - the two are very much distinct. Ironholds (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Their suggestions are for a different discussion. As to WMF vs Software, you are best placed to know these things, but as far as the community is probably concerned, the Foundation holds the keys to development priorities, the human resources, the servers, and the funds. Please note that I support your theory that this is most unlikely to be accepted as a MedWiki request and I'm doing my best to stifle any sidetracking on the assumptions that it will. That said, from what I have heard from the Foundation staff and from competent programmers among the volunteer community, it won't be too difficult to find a local en.Wiki solution, whether a social one or one governed by some kind of script(s). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
If all that we want from this is to limit who uses the Afc Helper script, I don't see why any WMF changes are needed. The script is developed by our volunteer coders here. As I mentioned in my suggestions above, to enforce this all that would be needed is (1) The list of reviewers on the "Participants" page would be protected so that someone with Reviewer status would be needed to add a username, and (2) The script would check the list and only work for a username on the list. Whatever criteria we decide to use, this combination should prevent random new users from coming along and adding themselves to the list. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
And what does that solve? The AfC Helper script is just a helper. There's no requirement to use it. It provides no functionality that a user can't do without it. AfC went a long time without having it, so I'm not sure what restricting it from some users accomplishes. If this whole RfC is about limiting a helper script, we really don't need an RfC at all. Just code it. However, the initial RfC made it very clear that this isn't just about the script. So, if it isn't a bit and it isn't just the script -- what is it? -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I was just about to redirect this deep thread to ShinmaWa's question-section at the bottom. Agreed that there is no software-enforced requirement that only threshold-approved official AfC folks are permitted to perform AfC actions... but we can make that the *default* way that AfC is handled, and folks doing it *outside* the default way (with exceptions made to grandfather-in people with 10k edits that are using old-school tools or their own custom workflow or whatever) will therefore stick out. This makes it easier to see who is 'officially' doing AfC within the threshold-limits, of course... and if needed, we can tell people doing it *badly* outside the threshold helper-script world to please stop, right? I think enforcement without no cracks in the security is *not* the goal here, because WP:AGF. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
In my eyes, an AfC reviewer should experienced enough that they would easily qualify for the rollback tool. Putting that aside, I would agree that having at least 1000 mainspace edits is a good idea for an AfC reviewer. I would not say that the conventional reviewer right was enough; it's one thing reviewing and rejecting vandalism, and a whole other one reviewing a whole article. I don't see how GA/DYK/FA count should be relevant. The "autopatrolled" bar is too high for the AfC reviewer right; and as I've said before, you can be a great article writer but very poor at reviewing other's works. Having to patrol 200 things at NPP is excessive, although I agree that some experience is required (maybe 25-50?), due to that being one of the more relevant comparisons. I'll come up with my own proposal later, if I have time. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 07:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
"Rollback" is a vandalism tool; it allows multiple edits to be undone quickly where a vandal has randomly hit multiple articles. "Autopatrolled" is intended to keep extremely prolific but otherwise harmless new page authors from flooding WP:NPP. Neither necessarily infer a better AFC reviewer, although they normally are given to someone who is doing no harm. A good or featured article usually has multiple contributors instead of being WP:OWNed by one primary author; someone who'd submitted a pile of stubs in 2002 on valid topics, left the project for a decade and then returned to find some were expanded to GA/FA level would be given more credit than due. An editor which pulls a topic off the WP:AFD pile and rewrites it to WP:FA status, conversely, is not credited with creating an article. All of these metrics have their limitations - preview nothing before you save it and you can run up edit count more quickly, for instance. Experience writing valid articles or bringing existing articles up to some standard (off AfD to viable, off stub/start to B/A/GA, ordinary article to FA) is valuable but collecting privilege flags or edit count just for the sake of doing so does not always guarantee a better reviewer. K7L (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
We should consider what we are trying to achieve here:
Firstly we want to build the encyclopedia. So such a person should show that they can recognise the useful content for Wikipedia. The person should be able to understand what is and is not a suitable topic. They should be able to find a duplicte topic.
Secondly we want to encourage the contributors, so we want the candidate to be able to talk to the contributors to explain what is needed to improve or to make an acceptable article. The person should be civil in their communication.
Thirdly we want to keep it legal, so the candidate should be able to recognise a copyright infringement, or an attack page.
Fourthly some nice to have features: The person can add categories and stub tags. The script seems entirely cabable of adding the almost useless orphan tag, so I hope our person can also show that they can edit articles to link to pages, including use of piped links.
Pretty accurately sums up what I said in my suggestion, Graeme. What we're looking for now are some metrics that define those qualities for the purpose of according the permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
So I am not so demanding in predefined standards, but the candidate should be able to show these capabilities. If a person is asking for it they can show diffs that illustrate these capabilities. I do agree that NPP is quite a useful precursor experience for AfC reviewer. The other flags such as rollback and reviewer are not directly relevant, but certainly would show that the editor is constructive. If the person does not want to do 400 NPP items, perhaps they could do some apprenticeship work, perhaps checking AFC contributions and giving feedback to a mentor that would prove that they are on the right track. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I see that 200 has grown to 300 and now to 400. Sounds a bit Falstaffian ;) Mine were but the first suggestions to get the ball rolling and I knew it would entrain some discontent; let's lurk awhile and see what others may suggest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I like Graeme's ideas, and as a submitter I would love to work with an AfC person who met all these criteria... but I am very hesitant that some of them can be decided without fawning, interviewing, role-playing sessions, and other expensive overhead. (Yes, we are all volunteers for the most part, I'm talking about opportunity cost here... every minute an existing AfC person spends interviewing an AfC candidate, is *two* minutes that those people could have been actually whittling down the AfC queue backlog.)
In particular, Graeme's point#2 about being an encouraging person, explaining things well, invariably civil, good looking, well dressed... okay, not those last two. But I hope the point is clear: there is no way to automatically test and verify those things. Just because somebody is good with those things in a one-hour interview is also no guarantee they will be that way *every* day, to more or less *every* contributor they happen to work with. Some people have a naturally sunny, cheerful, helpful disposition: I've met a few librarians like that, and many teachers. But for every one of those, I've interacted with hundreds if not thousands of fast-food clerks, waiters in restaurants, checkout clerks at the grocery store, floor assistants in retail stores, tech support folks via telephone or IM, and so on and so forth. It is *hard* to be consistently nice, consistently helpful, explain intricate details fully, and all that. Such people are diamonds in the rough, not grains of sand lying on the beach. If we *do* get a gemstone in AfC, I'd recommend we use them as a second-tier, for when contributors have trouble with their first tier person for whatever reason, they can be passed to the sunny cheery natural teacher sitting in the tier-two chair.
Since point#2 took so much verbosity, I'll hit point#3 super-lightly: don't we have copyvio bots? And aren't BLP articles a specialist niche, given their legal-kryptonite-status, which ought be directed to *only* the AfC folks most experienced with such things? Point#1 methinks we *can* auto-test, see my 74-whatever comment below, and some of point#4 is also either auto-testable, or demonstrable in a three-minute (as opposed to three-hour) interview process. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
74 it sounds like you are raising the quality bar on the point 2, I was not expecting the behaviour always, but enough to do the job and encourage the contributors. The idea was not to have just gamers that can only push buttons. BLPs are most of what we have (may be companies too) so we need people to handle them too. But perhaps also we need people who can recognise their own limitations and not attempt something the mess up. So even someone that can decline a joke or vandalism can be useful if they just stick to that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Well... I'm not really trying to raise the bar, so much as point out that cheerfulness is a spectrum, but with some pretty well-defined focus-areas. I'm actually trying to lower the bar, if anything. I think we want the tier-one AfC candidates to be the equivalent of the sales-associates at the designer clothing store: efficient-n-quick with straightforward purchases, at least minimally friendly, but do not really have time (and thus do not really need to have the skillset) for solving difficult sticky-wicket cases. If you are trying to create an article about a BLP, who was formerly a relatively unknown business owner, but just announced their candidacy for the mayorship of a large city, and leapt to frontrunner status in the polls, then the sales-associate can send your article on through. If your little brother has a garage band, and the school newspaper mentioned their name once, and that is it so far, then the sales-associate can politely tell you WP:NOTNOW.
The grey areas are more tricky, where something is borderline-Notable, but requires more depth in the sources, or whatever. I want those types of grey-area cases to be quickly glanced over by the first-tier sales-associate, and then passed back to the second-tier cheerful-librarian-associate. If the second-tier folks cannot solve the issues in a timely fashion, I want the third-tier to be, that the submitter is redirected to the WP:TEAHOUSE to find help doing the rewrite, and their AfC submission goes to the back of the queue. TLDR, rather than insist that our sales-associates aka AfC reviewers *must* be "interviewed for cheerfulness and tested on how sunny their disposition is", methinks we just need to remind everybody to be WP:NICE, which is required of *all* wikipedians anyways. If we happen to run across somebody that is *naturally* cheery and sunny, then we should then 'promote' them to tier-two work, where their special skill is extra-applicable: handling grey-areas. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
We have copyvio bots, but they probably can't be used until AfC submissions are made on a namepage e.g; 'Draft', instead of a talk page or sub page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
User:MadmanBot already scans AFCs (it misses at least some copyvios) when it's working. Patroller recognition of copyvios is still a must. MER-C 04:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay... and how do we test whether an AfC reviewer-candidate possesses that special skill, ability to sniff WP:COPYVIO? There is a tool for analyzing whether URL#1 and URL#2 have copyvio problems. And there are bots that detect plagiarism, kinda-sorta. But short of glancing over the output of such tools, can humans really detect COPYVIO? I guess some things will be obvious, like a submission that says "copyright New York Times" at the top or the bottom of the text, or more subtly, text that has a bunch of internal links that are not wikilinks, but look like they came from a view-source-cut-n-paste job. But baretext submission, that was cut-n-pasted from the middle of some obscure website? Seems unlikely an AfC reviewer will detect the plagiarism with their spidey-senses. Maybe it's not that hard, because the plagiarized portion sticks out as a different 'voice' from the other portions of the AfC submission? (If there is a knack to copyvio-sniffing, methinks the parallel-primary-criteria scheme is useful training.) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose any creation of a new right that resembles a "collectable hat" in any way, or that makes editors of this, "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" more dependent upon bureaucracy.
We have a vandalism problem that ab initio editors can pop up, trash an article, post spam links and wander off. We have no checks on this. We allow unregistered editing and we allow unregistered editors to wreak all manner of havoc on established articles. I thus fail to see why we should start narrowing down AfC in particular to a subset of editors willing to jump through hoops.
In particular, making AfC review dependent upon a discretionary permission like rollback. I don't have rollback. I did have, and it was removed for a disagreement over regarding this edit / User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2009_September#Reversion as vandalism or not. Ever since then I've made a point of never asking for such a discretionary permission, lest it be pulled by some teenage admin with an axe to grind.
I can see some virtue to restricting AfC review (and think a lot more things, up to basic editing) should be restricted. But can we please keep this to a very lightweight, automatically-granted permission, not one dependent on cliques and fawning. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This idea of a automatic permission, or one that is very easy to get, appears to have overall support. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To clarify a point raised off-line, there is a genuine concern that "editors who can't accurately review" shouldn't have this permission (that being it's point). We can attempt to judge this before granting it (which seems difficult to judge) but we can just as readily judge it after it has been awarded. If awarding the permission is a simple edit-count as a first filter, then it's easier to judge real skill by seeing some AfC reviews (and most editors just won't get involved anyway).Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I support these sentiments.—John Cline (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. AfC is desperately understaffed as it is, and unless the permission is automatic this already understaffed project will become a huge bottleneck for the encylopedia. At the very least, everyone who has previously done favourable work at AfC (10 or more good reviews) should have this permission from the outset. --LukeSurltc 10:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Support this view. Any limitation on Articles for Creation will end up shutting out more good contributors than bad, and AfC is horrible backlogged already. Howicus(Did I mess up?) 14:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Where are the hoards of volunteers 'without' a criteria who are already prepared to step in and review AfC submissions competently? AfC is indeed desperately understaffed as it is, and does not have the person-power to review every reviewer's work. That would only make the bottleneck worse. Some are obviously getting it wrong and yet others blatantly abuse the system for their own ends. We either want reviewers or we don't, but appointing them through some arbitrary automated selection method without any real control would probably lead to greater disaster. The permission has been created by consensus. This is an RfC to determine the criteria for that permission and not to re-debate the need for it. Once the criteria have been established, it will be further discussed how to implement them specifically in a way that it does not become a trophy for the hat-collectors, with as little 'cliques and fawning' as possible, and avoid being pulled by the (fortunately) ever dwindling corps of teenage admins with an axe to grind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I think getting more AfC candidates is a job for WP:RETENTION, and similar anti-WP:BITE organizations like the teahouse. Bluntly, it is very difficult to *increase* the percentage of editors that will want to get involved with AfC work, by demanding they first meet some threshold-criteria. (That is not strictly the case, which is why I said 'very difficult' and not flat impossible... one could imagine threshold-criteria like 'willing to accept USD$100/hour from wikimedia foundation for their AfC work' that would *dramatically* increase the pool of editors willing to fight for an AfC slot, but as a class those tend to be unrealistic).
I think what Andy and LukeSurl are trying to say is that the point of the threshold-criteria is to keep from accidentally reducing the number of AfC candidates *too* much, while still satisfying the basic goal that the threshold-criteria gives us a usable metric from separating the wheat from the chaff. We want the threshold to prevent COUNTERPRODUCTIVE folks from becoming AfC workers, where their net contribution is negative, because they make so many mistakes which other folks end up needing to clean up later on. But if we require fawning, or non-automatic AfC-permbit acquisition, or tons of paperwork, or running the gauntlet ("in order to get the AfC-permbit you must undergo RfA -- even if you already have the admin-bit"), or significant friction-slash-overhead, we shoot ourselves in the foot. Too much friction, and the overall benefit of having a threshold (eliminating N counterproductive candidates) will not outstrip the overall disadvantage of having a threshold (eliminating M productive candidates!). Agreed that we don't want an "arbitrary automated selection method without any real control" ... but we do need it automated, preferably non-arbitrary, and with as little bureaucratic friction as possible, both to keep from tying up existing AfC folks in resume-review-and-interview stuff, plus also to keep from tying up AfC candidates in fawning-and-paperwork. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I think we do need a human assessment rather than an automated one. Perhaps it can be easy to get but then easy to remove if there are stuff ups. Perhaps a list such as for AWB can be useful, and alternative could be that we just have a black list. The kind of hat that people would not want to collect is a possible. The hat could be "restricted from AFC review" and only stop people from doing it. We could have other bits for vandals or clueless or copyright infringers. Then these are the people that don't get to operate it. for the axegrinders, we need an axeginder bit too! Though I think I am stretching this to non-seriousness here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The Eric Corbett CIVILity-inapplicable bit. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
For the axegrinders we need an angle-grinder. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
support as best idea I've seen thus far. Hobit (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
So far the suggestions have mentioned edit count, rollback, AWC, etc. as prerequisites. However none of those things truly show that one can review articles well. What is a better way to prove your worth at reviewing articles, than reviewing articles? I propose that every candidate find 5 pending articles they would decline, and 5 they would accept and they would have to explain their reasoning, citing policy. They should also be able to explain WP:BLP, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, etc. An admin would then review their responses and choose whether to accept them as a reviewer. Thoughts? Ross Hill (talk) 16:30, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC) 16:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit hard to find acceptable articles...how about 5-8 articles total, whether acceptable or not? Howicus(Did I mess up?) 23:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose "admin would then review". I don't see any reason why administrators are required for this process, unless there's a technical implementation requirement for them to be. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't really focussing on any specifics. I don't care if it's an admin, or an experienced reviewer. 5 articles, or 3. I just want feedback on the idea. Ross Hill (talk) 23:52, 18 Oct 2013 (UTC) 23:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Of course, how feasible this suggestion is depends upon the implementation (which is why it is folly to attempt to separate criteria from implementation). However, given all the social-based implementation ideas presented so far, including AfC mentoring, elaborate testing, and the like, this one is the best so far, I think. However, it would need to be fleshed out quite a bit on the specifics of who gets to review, based on what objective criteria, and -- to beat the dead horse -- how approving an applicant would be implemented. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I have fleshed out an implementation plan for Ross Hill's idea, which I believe is the only truly fair (and predictive) basis for 'testing'. (My answers to ShinmaWa's questions are nobody, based on the objective performance of existing trusted AfC folks, and automatically based on the specified X-and-Y values at the time -- or perhaps retroactively.) The other criteria being discussed (editcount/etc) are all secondary criteria, which might be useful as a way to pass-the-test-without-testing, but cannot replace the trial by fire of AfC work itself. Rather than choosing articles at random, and let possibly-biased editors make the call on whether the candidate judged correctly, I suggest using real articles that are really going through AfC. If the candidate gets right answers (where 'right' is defined by the answers the actual AfC person gave) on enough of the articles, they too become an official AfC person. See here -- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/RfC_for_AfC_reviewer_permission_criteria#Suggestion_by_74-whatever
support this. If we must have a 'crat allocated privilege, then at least let's bind it to the real task in hand. Candidates review some (clarification needed) unreviewed AfC candidates, of which at least a couple must be judged pass/fail as a result. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
It's distracting to separate criteria from implementation here, since they are closely tied together. (The criteria you use affect how you can implement it, and v-v.) So here's a joint suggestion:
Simple option
Maintain a list of reviewers on a wikipage. Let anyone add themselves; remove those who aren't working out yet. Add a feature to one of the popular review-tools that checks to see if new articles on an AfC topic are created by users who aren't on the list -- a flag that someone else should doublecheck the work.
Tying this right to 'edit count' or 'rollback' seems like a terrible idea to me. The number of people willing and able to do this work is tiny; you can interact with them all personally. Instead, tie it to a single back-and-forth welcoming interest and asking people if they feel comfortable they know what a good article looks like [with pointers].
Future technical option
Combine this with the Reviewer flag. Make this the Flagged-Revs workflow for the very first rev of an article. Make it something that is given automatically to people meeting certain threshholds, and to anyone else who asks. Allow it to be removed for misuse; but most granting of the right should be automatic, other than time spent welcoming new collaborators.
The flag should allow access to tools that make AfC work streamlined and easy, and that update any special pages that track requested articles. (In comparison: anyone, with or without this right, can browse the AfC requests and create articles based on them. But it won't be checked off of the queue until a reviewer checks that work.)
Aside: it seems to me that the impact of the Reviewer flag has been weakened by the requirement that admins apply the right, with no automatic way to get the flag. This is unlike basically every other reputation-ladder I know of. Our lack of automatic activity-based rights (other than autoconfirmation) is a waste of energy, and seems self-perpetuating.
– SJ + 17:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree. I am still against a user right for this, and reading over what is written here, it looks like what we need is a "reviewer block" for bad reviewers, not an extra reviewer right. All of the criteria I have read above just reinforces my scepticism, because whenever someone talks about "grandfathering in" they really mean "let's keep this cabal small, trusted and among ourselves". We really need to start trusting newbies again like we did back in 2006, or the editor retention rate is going to drop more and more rapidly as the "grandfathers" start to drop off, for whatever reason. Jane (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I'm going to cut right to the chase. I think that in order to get the reviewer right, you need to get past this. The mentoring program is currently a work in progress, but when it's done, it would be the perfect solution for the new AFC reviewer right. buffbills7701 20:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This should be one way to get the access to the AFC Helper Script. It should not be the only way (e.g. most very experienced editors with good reputations shouldn't have to "go to school" to get access to the tool). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a great way to open a hatshop for the currently inexperienced. No, or at least very few, long term editors would go near it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Andy, I'm sure Buffbills meant 'one way' as David expanded. Every single user right from Confirmed through to Bureaucrat is a millinery in our information mall, but generally only on the lower floors - anyone who has worked extensively at WP:PERM and WP:RfA knows this. However, the systems of scrutiny that accord those rights generally function well but there will always be a tiny few who loose their flags - especially admins who have an axe to grind. At the lower levels, it is even more rare for PC reviwers, Rollbackers, File Movers, Autopatrolled, etc. to be demoted, but it does happen. I've never been subject to sanctions, but as one who was bullied by two teenage admins early in my Wiki career, and completely bullied away by an admin (now desyoped) from one topic area, never to return, where I had most to offer the encyclopedia, I do follow the ANI/AN, RfC/U, and Arbcom rituals very closely even if I don't participate much there. As an admin however, I don't have any axes to grind.
Let's not get too uptight or paranoid about the occasional hat-collector slipping through the net, a system of control over who can process AfC submissions is far better than none at all or one that is accorded automatically based simply on editcount/tenure, etc. Possibly those who work regularly at AfC and its maintenance are more aware of the issues than those who don't, but what we are here to do is ask the broader community for their opinion on, and to suggest, a set of criteria that would largely contribute to improving the quality of AfC reviewing, ensure that all reviewers are singing from the same page, and are friendly to the the submitters. The permission does not grant any further rights or hamper the work of article creators who know what is expected from an article that will survive legitimately in the encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with David here. We have a need to solve the current problem of poor quality reviewing. I believe we need this right, but it should be very low, based on a simple mileage count – then if needs be, withdrawn from poor reviewers, based on the quality of their reviews. Secondly we can achieve this by encouraging experienced editors to take more part (AfC review is not rocket science) and anything that could be seen as "patronising" is hardly likely to achieve that. How many 5+ year / 10s of kedits editors want to be "mentored" by someone who has maybe 6 months of springy-tailed editing inbetween school? I spent a chunk of last week being lectured on 1950s motor racing history by someone who's barely old enough to have a driving licence, but here they have the free time to do a lot of typing, so they get to shout loudly and often. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Buffbills7701, editors with only double digit edits regularly add their names to WP:WPAFC/P list and due to the immense workload we're not always quick enough to do something about it. Last week one registered with the sole purpose of passing their own articles. One of our concerns therefore is for the grey area of editors who review, but whom we are not aware of. I support the idea of a school for aspiring reviewers and I'm currently working with other editors to set one up. I don't believe genuine hat-collectors are very interested in going through the rigours of our various training systems (I completely redesigned the WP:CVUA from the ground up and also set up an NPP school) . One of our standard answers at WP:PERM (Rollbacker) is "Hi, I appreciate your enthusiasm but with only 46 edits to mainspace I don't think you have sufficient experience yet. When you have made at least 200 edits, you may wish to enroll at the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy to learn more about it."Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's what I don't understand about all this. You've brought up this editor who registered an account to "pass his own articles" on a number of occasions. So. What. You act as if this is some kind of real crime against the project. In reality is that once he's a registered user, he has every right to create his own articles in mainspace as much as every other user does. If he wants to clear the duplicate article out of AFC in the process, there might have been better ways to do it, but overall, he didn't hurt the project at all and he certainly didn't hurt AFC one bit in doing so. That argument is completely a red herring and I do wish you'd stop using it. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
temporarily delayed as my suggestion is for auto-testing and auto-confirming *technical* competence at AfC specifically, and kudpung is after *moral* competence and ethical commitment to wikipedia generally
Kudpung and Anne and others have suggested various secondary criteria for the threshold: edit-count, NPP, and so on. Lukeno pointed out that some secondary criteria (like participation bringing something to GA status) have little relevance, because most of the AfC stuff is nowhere *near* that status. Several people have pointed out an automatic-grant-the-bit solution is the best way to minimize bureaucracy, but other people have countered that the human element is crucial, for most secondary characteristics do not really tell us if the candidate will be any good at judging AfC submissions. It is important that they be good at this task, because too many false-negatives will cause a dramatic amount of work downstream, and of course a lot of drama if an 'accepted' article is then speedy-AfD'd the following week. I believe there is a way AfC folks can have their cake and eat it too. We should judge the worth of potential AfC folks, based on how they would do on real-world AfC submissions, compared to current AfC folks on those same submissions.
Candidates wishing to get the authorized-for-AfC bit test their skills against real-world AfC submissions
Threshold should be an X% success rate on a minimum of Y real-world AfC decisions
Example test: on Wednesday evening, Anne Delong judges ten AfC submissions from the queue; I do the same, without seeing any of her decisions
Example math: Anne's answers were yyNNyyNNyy to those ten, and my answers were yyNNyyNNNN , which means I made two mistakes (Anne is perfect -- good work Anne :-)
Example fail: if the threshold chosen is X>=90% and Y>=10_decisions, I satisfied my_Y>=10 but I failed to satisfy my_X>=90.
Example learn: determined to get there, I study Anne's answers (now visible to me after my test-session), and keep trying.
Example win: in my next test-session, I judge ten more of Anne's cases in parallel, and make no mistakes. Now my_Y=20 and my_X=18/20, which means I just auto-passed with my_Y>=10 and my_X>=90%.
Disadvantages:
the test-session itself is duplication of 'real' work (Anne is working -- I'm only *simulating* work she already did)
somewhat difficult to explain the concept of auto-testing in parallel (cf verbosity of this proposal)
may be *quite* difficult to implement the concept of auto-testing in parallel, since Q&A with the submitter is not something we can simulate
likely impossible slash infeasible to really make the 'blindness' of the auto-test secure (if Anne emails me the answers I *will* pass)
even if we posit that security is not a big deal, and Q&A can be elided, still need a dev to write some code for auto-testing (not true of e.g. simplistic editCount>=1000 threshold or similar)
hard to pick the initial Y ... make it too high, and nobody will try, make it too low, nobody will fail
hard to pick the initial X ... make it too high, and *existing* AfC folks will be eliminated, unless grandfathered in
just because you crammed, and memorized the policies long enough to pass a test-session, does not mean you really are good at AfC later on
"Kudpung: Last week one registered with the sole purpose of passing their own articles." Somebody could cram for the test-session with that purpose in mind, too. Only an admin can catch that.
scoring well on the auto-test does *not* necessarily make you a good AfC judge... it depends on whose answers you correctly mimic'd!
Advantages:
threshold is real-world *primary* criteria, not secondary
although no humans are involved with granting the bit once I pass, a real human is doing the testing (Anne is testing me)
as with anything in wikipedia, WP:IAR means that even if I auto-pass, some admin can always *manually* remove my authorized-bit later on
fair nature of the automated testing means no complaints about bias/fawning/etc
easy to auto-grant the permbit when the threshold is met , with a database table of people-who-passed-the-automated-testing
easy to auto-warn an 'official' AfC person when their ongoing work falls below the testing-threshold at any point
easy to retroactively adjust the threshold-values of X and Y upwards to improve quality, or downwards to improve reserve-troop-strength
difficult to explain 'on paper' but in practice easy to explain... watch what Anne does today, tomorrow do what Anne does, if you do well you pass, if you don't you can try again.
p.s. Forgot to mention that I agree that *some* sorts of work should automatically be given the AfC-permbit. Have three years and 10k edits with no blocks in the past year? You get the AfC-permbit without needing to pass the X-out-of-Y-auto-testing-threshold. 42 edits on enWiki, but 10k edits on deWiki? Prolly you have to take the auto-test, as a real-world check on your ESL skill. Have 333 NPP credits? Ditto. Have 10 new articles in existence, each older than a month without being deleted? Ditto. Member of arbcom, passed an RfA (regardless of whether you still hold the admin-bit), surname Wales? Ditto ditto ditto. But these secondary criteria should be, well, secondary. What matters is not your edit-count, but how your judgement matches up against Anne Delong's judgement. Our existing AfC personnel should be the gold standard, both now, and five years from now. Auto-testing is a self-reinforcing metric of 'goodness' methinks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
And in particular, one group that should automatically get the AfC-permbit was mentioned by Anthonyhcole (besides the 1500 admins), namely, the 6000 people with the Reviewer-permbit. Much like I'm suggesting here, there is a trial period. However, the threshold-criteria for Reviewer-permbits are not numerical and automatic, but require an interview process: knowledge of the reviewing-guide & vandalism-policy, familiarity with WP:COPYVIO / WP:BLP / WP:NPOV / WP:OR / WP:V / WP:NOT, and finally "have an account with track-record of routine editing". 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The above suggestion that at first the new reviewer would review "in parallel" seems overly complicated, but there would be a simple way to implement this. A new reviewer could pick out a submission to review, and instead of actually reviewing it, leave a message on the Afc talk page saying something like "I think that XXX is ready to be accepted" or "I think that XXX should be declined with this decline reason ___ and I would leave this message:___". Then any of the regular reviewers could say "Looks good to me, go ahead". That way we'd all be "mentors" and the new reviewer would safely get practice. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Anne, similar ideas have been posited above in other sections. I personally do not support any solutions that will: eiher increase the workload of other reviewers or project editors working at AfC, and/or slow down the reviewing procerss; What this RfC asks for is not alternative solutions, but for a set of criteria of experience. Although the rights Rollbacker, reviewer, template editor, File mover, etc., may in some instances not be a good parallel, thier granting system is not dependent on any form of probation or monitoring of their progress. I think we need to look for a similar, simple 'granting' process here based on experience than can be quickly investigated (edit count, type of edits, talk page comments, block logs, etc.,) rather than look towards implementing a more complex and time consuming process. An AfC Academy has now been developd and any aspiring reviewers who fall short of the criteria that we will set here can be referred to that for training if they are serious about becoming reviewers in much the same way as we have a CVU school and an NPP school - bearing in mind that this latter is generally only used when NPPers (who don't need any quals at all) persistently get their patrolling wrong and are asked by an admin to stop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I've already given my opinion about the qualifications above, but you didn't like that either, so I will go back to reviewing now. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello again Anne, thanks for the comments. Yes, my suggestion is obviously quite complex, to understand and to implement, whereas your mentor-by-humans approach is straightforward and easy to implement. But the worry for Kudpung is that you and the other AfC regulars are *already* overloaded, so mentor-by-humans is going to pull expert AfC reviewers into mentoring (and thus necessarily out of AfC work), and I share that worry. My complex review-in-parallel scheme is designed to let the computer be the mentor, so that a beginning AfC candidate can test their mettle against your known skill, *without* you needing to directly mentor them. Once the top candidates were known, then mentoring would be the next phase. Anyways, as Kudpung points out, my solution is not what this RfC is for... this RfC is for coming up with a bunch of secondary criteria, that can be used for autogranting the AfC kinda-sorta-like-a-permbit-yet-not-really. (My scheme attempts to dispense with secondary criteria, and directly measure How Good The Candidate Is At AfC Work Itself.) Appreciate the criticism, danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
While this RfC is primarily about the criteria, which I fully recognise, some thought into implementation needs to take place lest we paint ourselves into a corner that can't be implemented. A lot of discussion is about a UserRight bit, which has technical issues which Ironholds discussed above. There's also been a lot about restricting scripts and tools. However, while there are a number of scripts and tools available to assist with AfC, they are 100% optional. Everything done at AfC can be done without a single tool in place and was for a very, very long time.
When boiled down to its essence, AfC requires that users be able to 1) Move pages from the "Wikipedia talk" namespace into article space and/or create new pages in article space and 2) Edit existing pages in the Wikipedia namespace. That's it. Every autoconfirmed user on the planet has the capability to do this. Restricting the tooling will just restrict the tooling. It won't actually keep a single user from participating in AfC.
So, the question is this: For this criteria/permission/etc to be meaningful, failure to meet this criteria somehow has to prevent users from creating articles nominated in AfC (which has all kinds of bad second-order impacts) and prevent users from editing articles in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace that "belong" to AfC (ditto). Just how are we going to go about this? -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
"if it isn't a bit and it isn't just the script what is it?" From what I understand, it is a community standard, used by enWiki, to see who is 'qualified' to be an AfC person. It is like the ISO standard for papersizes, where there are tolerances plus-and-minus a few micrometers, but if you are within the tolerances you can say you are ISO-standard-sized A4 paper, or whatever. That does not mean that *every* piece of paper is ISO-standard, nor even that ISO-standardized paper is the best (arguably vellum is the best). It just means that, if you have satisfied whatever threshold this discussion ends up recommending, that you become a Recognized Official AfC Member In Good Standing, subject of course to other admin-actions that might keep you from acting on your over-the-threshold qualifications. Maybe someday it will be a 'real' permbit like the admin bit, where security matters... for at present, methinks it is just metaphorically an AfC-permbit, loosely enforced by community standards rather than strictly enforced by software. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
"For this criteria/permission/etc to be meaningful, failure to meet this criteria somehow has to prevent users from creating articles nominated in AfC" (emphasis added). I think the 'somehow' is going to be, by manual admin intervention. If you have not satisfied the threshold, and you keep submitting perfect articles as AfC, which always pass with flying colors, who cares? If you have not satisfied the threshold, and you 'manually' create articles without the AfC helper-script, sooner or later an admin will make it their business to care, and call you out for disruption. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
So, a completely social-based implementation. How does criteria play into this then? This approach winds up being a no-op and bringing us right back to where we started. Specifically, "If you don't meet our criteria, you can't play in our sandbox" just becomes "If you are being disruptive, an admin will intervene". However, that's already the case. We don't need an RfC or a bit or criteria or any of that to have admins deal with disruptive users. So, I'm quite confused as to what that accomplishes realistically. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Those who do not meet the criteria will be slowed down significantly, and those who make mistakes and are warned and continue to make mistakes can rightfully be called disruptive. Likewise, those who have been given access to the tool and had it later revoked and who come back and "do it by hand" in a substandard way can also rightfully be called disruptive. Wikipedia already had mechanisms for dealing with disruptive editors. Revoking access to the tools for editors who are merely incompetent can slow them down enough to encourage them to think about what they are doing, which will hopefully mean they will have a higher rate of competent reviews. Let's suppose Joe Novice Wikipedian is trying to help out and somehow gets access to the tools and makes 30 reviews in 2 days, but botches half of them. He gets access to the tools revoked but he is determined to help out. Over the next 2 days he does only 10 reviews because he's been slowed down for lack of access to the tools. At worst, we have 10 reviews to re-review and 5 to clean up. But hopefully he'll be more accurate becuase he's working slower (and gaining experience as he goes) and only flub 2 or 3. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I can certainly respect that. In fact, I even support this approach. It doesn't take the gun away, but it removes the fully automatic selector switch. There's certainly precedence for this with Twinkle and the like. However, this begs the question if this actually meets the consensus formed in the original RfC. While I opposed that RfC, many people didn't, and I suspect some supporters might see restricting just the script as being a half-measure. *shrug* Thanks for responding, davidwr. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
There are some very relevant comments in this thread, and I'll just reiterate that the consensus in the previous RfC was There is community consensus for the introduction of a requestable permission which will be required to review articles at Articles for Creation. - nothing more, nothing less, and that is what was asked for. Firstly, I believe even a half-measure is better than none at all, to the exclusion of any arbitrary automated granting of the access. Having a list of users who are 'authorised' to use the script is also a kind of 'half way' that we already have, but as I mentioned somewhere above, we need to get all reviewers on a list. Naturally if they get their flag removed, under the current technological aspect of the process, there is nothing to stop them continuing to do manual reviews; it would certainly slow them down, but we would know who they are. Secondly however, with a couple of thousand submissions in the queue, we don't know who is actually doing the reviews at all - we just don't have the person-power to do a double check on every submission that gets declined, moved to mainspace, or CSDd under an appropriate criterion. But we are diverging here - we need to set the criteria for permission first - and that shouldn't really be too difficult (we have enough examples cited above for the granting of various user 'rights' that do need official WMF approval) , then see how they can be technically or socially implemented. 06:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
As mentioned by me and several other people, it is folly to attempt to separate the criteria from the implementation and it is awkward to attempt discuss one without the other. One impacts the other at a fundamental level. Further, many of the suggestions demand a certain implementation and/or precludes others. So, if we can't talk about implementation, then our criteria options become severely limited to stuff like edit counts and other similar statistics. In essence, the "no implementation" restriction steers down a very narrow set of options -- namely the options that you suggested at the top at the RfC. I think we need to look beyond that scope. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
What Shinmawa raises is a fundamental flaw, this RfC is invalid
A userright represents the ability to use a technical feature. Since this userright won't place any technical restrictions on anyone, there is no point at all in creating it. Access to the common scripts could be toggled with or without a userright. But they could still load the same exact script via their custom JS interface, and we can't stop them from doing that. So in my mind, the prior consensus is irrelevant because it is not possible to implement.
If there is a desire to create a socially enforced white or blacklist, then we should be talking about creating a process for that, and this RfC should be closed and reframed properly, with first a discussion about whether it should be a whitelist or a blacklist, before any criteria are proposed.
A blacklist makes the most sense to me, because there is nothing at all stopping someone who isn't whitelisted from processing AfCs, and if they do it correctly, are we going to really block them for failing to participate in the bureaucracy? Gigs (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion by Davidwr - Leave access to "AFC Comment" unrestricted
Leave the "Comment" button on for everyone by default.
If an editor abuses it, they can be blacklisted.
The kinds of comments editors leave are probably the best judge of whether they should get access to the rest of the buttons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I do not think that new people will bother activating the tool jsut to get the comment button. However I don't think that being able to comment is harmful. After all it is not that hard to edit the article and add a comment, even using the correct afc comment template is not that hard to do. Blacklisting against adding comments I suspect would be about equivalent to a topic ban. Since it is so easy to bypass I would not suggest implementing a comment blacklist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion by Davidwr - Make it a "throttle" like AccountCreator
Tweak the AFC Helper Script so everyone can use the full set of tools on no more than a handful of different submissions in a rolling 2-3 day period.
Those who abuse the tools can be blacklisted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I assume that you do not want to rate limit it for every one, so the users with the permission can review faster. Although I suspect our bulk and speedy reviewers do make some errors too, such as we can see by the number of AFDs and prods that pop up. Also the stuff declined for a weak reason will not show as a problem that way, but just drive away contributors and content. However I do like the idea to do a rate limit for the people with no permission, but then also add their work to a special list for extra review by others. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion by Davidwr - many routes to full access to the tools
There shouldn't just be one route to get access to the full AFC Helper Script.
I'd give access to these buttons to anyone requesting them who:
is a long-time Wikipedia editor with no recent relevant problems
is grandfathered in because of significant recent AFC participation and no recent relevant problems
demonstrated competence through intelligent, accurate AFC comments or direct feedback to editors over an extended period of time and a significant number of articles
demonstrates competence through intelligent collaborative content-improvement in other areas of Wikipedia over an extended period of time and over a significant number of articles
is under the training or sponsorship of another experienced AFC editor, editors, "acadamy," or similar, or has been declared to be competent to have the tools by their sponsor
while not clearly making the cut on any one of the above, goes through a short (1-3 days?) discussion period and get the rights if there is a consensus to give it to them.
Revocation should be relatively easy, with the typical "appeal" taking the form of the 1-3 day discussion period outlined above.
Even after adoption, this list should not be cast in stone. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
This idea has overwhelming support. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This sounds like a reasonable idea. It is better than a hard list of requirements that may seriously limit the numbers of new reviewers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I particularly like davidwr's mentorship idea. When I started reviewing I hardly knew how to do anything, so I just started out asking questions and reporting problems on the Afc talk page and at the Teahouse, and other more experienced editors (usually Huon), would take action and I would see what was done and know what to do next time in that situation. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The mentorship idea is just a special "private tutoring" case of Buffbills7701's school idea (see "his" section above). I'm not sure if the original idea of a training program is Buffbill7701's or someone else's, it's been floating around for weeks if not months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
This is entirely reasonable. MER-C 04:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Support This "many routes" idea sounds like the best suggestion yet. (I assume that, aside from the sixth or "discussion" option, the right could be awarded by any administrator.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Complete and total support - This is the greatest idea I've seen. While there should be some kind of sieve to limit inexperienced or even malevolent editors from reviewing articles and destroying things, you cannot ignore the major backlog of AfC articles. Writing up a rigid list of requirements that admins must dig through edits to find is laborious for all parties involved and will make the backlog worse. The new "right" should be more to keep bad reviewers out than let good reviewers in. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Support, per Brambleberry; this is a really good idea. APerson (talk!) 02:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Support. At this point, it does not seem likely that any one of the proposals at the foot of the page will gain sufficient support for a consensus to emerge; instead, I'll endorse this "open access" or "flexibility" principle as the way forward. If a software-based AfC Reviewer permission is not going to be technically feasible, perhaps restrict access to the reviewing script dependent on being added to an official whitelist, in a manner similar to how access to AWB is currently regulated. SuperMarioMan 02:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Implementation detail suggestion by Davidwr - preventing moves
Withdrawn per "law of unintended consequences" as pointed out below by stefan2 at 13:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC). How did I miss that possibility? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should there be a consensus to prevent non-approved editors from accepting articles, one way to do this is to bot-move-protect the WT:AFC page shortly after creation, then allow the AFC Helper Script to trigger a bot to do any required moves. This would not require any changes to MediaWiki software. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this suggestion. Isn't there more than one way to skin a cat, as ShinmaWa's question-section above points out? Use of the helper-script is optional, and I guess I don't understand why bot-move-protecting the WT:AFC page will add security. Is there really no other way to get an article created (or take an existing stub and get it renamed) without going through WT:AFC at all? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Oy vey... All of these unproductive subheadings and then multitudes of comments about stuff in other subheadings... I can't follow the thread of any of these discussions and this page has gotten way TL;DR overnight. Unless someone who has been following can create a convenience break with an overview summary of all the ideas in one section or get rid of all of the subsections above or re-arrange comments so that comments are in the proper section headings (very bad wiki-etiquette, please don't), I'm afraid I can't contribute to this discussion at this time. I just don't have two days to try and piece mail all of the badly fragmented discussions back together. Technical 13 (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose If moves are made more difficult, then we are likely to get more copy & paste moves which violate the attribution requirement. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with encumbrances necessitated by the weakest link or worst-case scenario. We ought instead to fortify an imaginable breech with effective countermeasures; which do exist.—John Cline (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I was not aware of the existence of the previous RfC and I suspect that many others were not aware either. Consensus can change, so there is no reason why we cannot now discuss whether any new permissions are needed at all. James500 (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Well alternatives could be a whitelist or a blacklist of those who can or those who can't. Other ideas were a series of awards to indicate progress or achievement. And there should be hat for the hat collectors. We already have barnstars and a listing of project participants. Perhaps someone can vet the newly added names to see how they are going. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
That's been dicussed further up. The problem is that currently, no reviewers are obliged to enter their names on that lit, hence we do nots always even know who is reviewing until problems come to light and are brought to the AfC talk page. Most issues are handled locally on the reviewer's talk page: 'Why did you decline my submission?' which begs the question: Why was the creator not provided with more detailed information?.
Hat collecting is an unavoidable but necessary evil. We get plenty of them at WP:PERM but we are fairly good at filtering them out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The 'why did you decline my submission' enquiries occur even if you do explain the reasons when declining. Particularly troublesome are autobiography and WP:COI as a decline (even on material previously declined by another reviewer) often gets a flood of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "but I worked so hard" pleas as to why the author really deserves to have their own article. This will continue even if you create roadblocks to entry for new reviewers. K7L (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't like any of the proposals that have been made, but I think that a blacklist of those who have demonstrated that they are incompetent, compiled by human beings, would be the least worst option. James500 (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Of all the solutions, I found Ross Hill's solution to be the most practical and useful, and hence I propose the following steps for selecting the AFC reviewers, based on a few adjustments I think should be made on it
A selected few active and/or trusted reviewers will be grandfathered in. The exact details of how it will be done will be decided later.
Anyone who wishes to become an AFC reviewer would be submitting their reviews of at least 10 articles currently at AFC. This would be done at a special requests page for
The review must be clear on why it is rejected, and any other such comments.
There must be at least 3 declines and 3 approvals among those submitted reviews
The reviews should be among pending submissions at the time of submission
Once any particular review is submitted, there should be no changes to it.
These reviews are all open for comment from any current AFC Reviewers, who may choose to "Endorse" or "Disagree" with a particular review.
Any article among the list which gets rejected or accepted externally would auto-count as an endorse or disagree by itself.
After a period of time/ after all the reviews have been looked into, a designated person (the qualifications of which will be decided in future discussions) would close the request as pass or fail. In general, 8 or more correct reviews would count as pass, and 6 or less correct ones would be a fail.
[Additional proposal under discussion] Any sufficiently trust candidates who have demonstated enough competence might not be required to go through this process, but handed over the tools directly on request.
This is the general schematic of how I think it should proceed. Every specific point in this suggestion is open for discussion, and would be altered as per consensus and common sense. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Support Because reviewing skill is what matters, so that should be what we test. Ross Hill (talk) 00:59, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC) 00:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Support as ONE way Oppose as THE ONLY way. Anyone who comes in having already demonstrated competence regarding content guidelines/policies and who doesn't have anything negative should be given a pass on this. Basically, any editor who has an edit history that would make them a credible candidate at RfA (I didn't say he would pass, just that he wouldn't be WP:SNOW-closed or otherwise fail miserably) and who doesn't have any thing negative in their recent history should not be required to do more than ask for access to the tools. The same goes for editors who might fail miserably at RfA only for reasons not relevant to AFC work. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I failed to notice this point. I agree that WP:IAR should apply to obviously trusted candidates and they shouldn't have to go through the entire process. But at the same time, I wonder if there is any harm in having them go through this simple enough process. If others also agree to the additional proposal, I'd be willing to add it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Overall those points look good, however the no more than "7/10 one direction" rule is going to jump up and bite a lot of hopefuls. Hasteur (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the intent is for the candidate to have at least 3 approves and at least 3 declines among the 10 reviews, so that his competency on both approvals and declines can be evaluated. A person may be fine when evaluating an article that should be declined but he may routinely over-decline and mis-evaluate things that should be approved, or vice-versa. Too many errors in either direction is counter-productive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem I was trying to indicate is ast least in my experience, I do about 80 to 90% decline simply because it takes a lot of effort to get a submission up to the level that I would pledge my reputation to the submission by accepting it. Hasteur (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Even then, I am of the opinion that there should be some limit of this sort to check for both sides of whether the reviewer knows the policies. If your concern is indeed correct, maybe we could lower it to at least 2, but I wouldn't want to remove it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure, we need proof that the person can approve at least 3, and decline at least 3, and we want to have at least 10 example-decisions to look over. Rather than saying that they must have ten cases, and they must approve 3 of *those* ten, and decline at least three of *those* ten, instead make this the rule: There must be no more than 7 declines or approvals among those 10 reviews The ten selected example-reviews *must* include at least 3 approves, and at least 3 denials; note that the reviewer-candidate often may actually need to review more than ten actual cases, to achieve 3 of each type... but only ten selected cases (including at least 3 approves and at least 3 denials) will really "count" when determining whether the reviewer-candidate passes the examination. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
@74 Does the current wording of the proposal make more sense, or should there be further rewording on it? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks fixed to me. I noticed a spelling error and fixed it, while I was here. That said... I think your idea, like my own suggestion elsewhere on this same page, is testing the "wrong" thing for what Kudpung is really trying to accomplish. See my TLDR explanation below. At this time, I've collapsed mine, for resubmission as part of a future RfC discussion.
The motivating problem (unstated in the RfC-intro-text which was a mistake) seems to be that Kudpung only want editors that are Ethically Committed To Wikipedia's Values to be able to perform AfC-review-approvals. There are incidents where a spammer will create an account, 'review' a small set of AfC submissions -- often given *randomized* answers which is awful for both the submitters and for the NPP folks that have to clean up the mess later -- and then approve ten of their own blatantly promotional submissions. This is particular bad when socking is involved, because without checkuser (which everybody is rightly *very* hesitant to go handing out all over the place), you end up with what looks like one username submitting to AfC, another seemingly-unrelated username adding some cites, a third username reviewing-and-approving using the AfC-helper-script, and then several 'other' usernames which make more changes to the article once it is in mainspace. But it is all the same person, or same spambot!
Very tough to fight, right now. Even worse, the sockpuppet could pass *your* quiz, though, right? Because it only takes 8 out of 10... and then they are free to approve several hundred spamvertisments, before they finally get caught. The same problem applies to my suggestion: a motivated spammer can pass my ten-or-more quiz, just like yours. Anyways, long story short, it turns out this RfC is not about passing the 80%-correct-mark... though that skill is still crucially important, it is orthogonal. This specific RfC is about moral-n-ethical *secondary* criteria (e.g. min-edit-count to prove you love wikipedia), whereas what you and I are testing is technical-n-policy *primary* criteria (e.g. ability to get 8 out of 10 reviews correct). Suggest we submit our ideas to another, future RfC. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I worry that asking potential reviewers to conduct trial reviews leaves too much room for 'instructor creep' and who will assess their performance? One person or more than one? The idea strikes me as fertile ground for creating a 'priesthood of gatekeepers' or turning the process into pseudo-RfA. I think we need to keep the process as simple as possible with a fairly black and white set of metrics to work to. Also, whatever form this permission takes, it should be transparently requestable via a noticeboard in the same way as other permissions. In my involvement at AfC, I have found that reviewers need to be able to demonstrate the following essential qualities:
Must be able to judge what constitutes vandalism, attack pages, and wholly negative unsourced BLPs
Must be able to identify copyright violations
Must be able to recognise WP:ARTSPAM and blatant hoaxes
Must demonstrate a sound understanding of notability, verifiability/reliable sourcing, and the BLP policy
Must be able to communicate with patience and clarity with new editors
I believe that these qualities would be best evidenced against the following criteria:
Must have carried out at least 50 good vandalism reverts -- a common threshold for granting of rollback (includes the speedy deletion of pages as blatant vandalism).
Must have correctly identified more than 5 attack pages or wholly negative BLPs, by whatever means.
Must have correctly cleaned up 20 articles with copyright concerns or correctly nominated 15 pages for speedy deletion as blatant copyright violations.
Must have copy edited/cleaned up at least 20 articles to make them NPOV compliant or correctly nominated 15 pages for speedy deletion as blatant spam/advertising.
Must have participated in at least 20 AfD discussions and !voted/commented with correct policy-based observations that demonstrate knowledge of notability, verifiability and reliable sourcing.
Must have demonstrated a sound knowledge of BLP Policy issues, by whatever means. For example, working at the BLP noticeboard.
Must have demonstrated an ability to help and work patiently with newer editors. For example, tea house host, adoption, help boards, user talk page assistance.
These minimum criteria could be assessed by any administrator patrolling the noticeboard, but should be rigidly applied. In the case of the right/permission being abused, any administrator may remove the right as a discretionary sanction in the same manner as other rights. Pol430talk to me 18:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been an editor and AFC-participant for many years and I don't think I meet all seven of the items on the bottom list, and I know that I have weaknesses in notability in certain subject areas and an inability to communicate with patience and clarity with certain editors. I'm also not as good at detecting advertisements disguised as articles as I would like, but I am getting better at that with experience. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that you have made 50 good reverts in your Wiki career and most of the CSD criteria would be easily evidenced by someone who spent a few months patrolling new pages. Equally, participation in 20 AfD discussions is not hard for most long-serving Wikipedians to evidence. Knowledge of BLP policy can be demonstrated by various means and I think your interaction with users on your talk page demonstrates point 7 just fine. I think notability is an area that AfC can sometimes get a little hung up on. In terms of notability, AfC's job is to keep out articles about obviously non-notable subjects; this includes cases where a very solid policy-based argument for not including a subject can be made. Where notability is borderline, then articles need to have the opportunity to receive community discussion about their inclusion in Wikipedia, this means accepting a submission without prejudice to it being nominated at AfD. In cases where notability is difficult to establish because of the specialised nature of the subject area then help may be forthcoming from a relevant Wikiproject. If not, we still have an obligation to AGF and accept a submission without prejudice to an AfD nomination -- that is where the responsibility for ruling definitively on a subject's notability lays. Pol430talk to me 16:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Huh? First you said "keep it simple" and then you came up with the most complicated possible process. You laid out seven specific numerical criteria which you think should be "rigidly applied". Who in the world (either applicant or administrator) is going to go through histories counting how often someone has cleaned up copyvio or identified attack pages? This process would be unworkable, and furthermore it is not based on any evidence that these things would matter. I agree with "keep it simple", namely, let administrators review the person's contributions and decide if they seem competent enough for the task. Period. --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Good luck with trying to search my 30,000+ contributions to check that I pass all seven "must have" criteria. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I recognise that cross-checking those seven criteria would be laborious, but I thought the purpose of the exercise was to ensure high standards rather than dish out a new hat as quickly and widely as possible. I have struck out the criteria that were so evidently wide of the mark. Thanks for your feedback. Bellerophontalk to me 00:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (formerly Pol430)
The list of articles waiting to be reviewed is backlogged enough, so while I agree that we do need something to make sure reviewers are qualified, those standards should not be so high that only a select few can access them. I think that the criteria should be rather vague, leaving it up to a case-by-case basis. There can be a few strict ones, like a certain amount of article space edits, but things such as "must have rollback and/or reviewer rights" seem a bit too constricting and would be thoroughly unconstructive to the main purpose: reviewing articles to add to Wikipedia. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 23:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this. The process should be simple, not stringent; we are simply trying to stop the current situation where unsuitable and/or inexperienced editors are trying (mostly in good faith) to review at AfC without sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policies. IMO the AfC Reviewer right should be awardable by any administrator who believes the user has sufficient relevant experience to know an acceptable Wikipedia article when they see one. We trust administrators to make far more difficult/controversial decisions than this, and I don't really think Wikipedia will suffer any harm from letting them use their judgment in awarding this right. The qualifications for Reviewer, as listed at the top of this discussion by Kudpung, would serve equally well as qualifications for AfC Reviewer, but the one should not be a prerequisite for the other. As for Rollbacker, that right is both trivial and annoying; personally after having it (and cussing at it) for six months I asked that it be removed. Presence or absence of a Rollbacker right does not in any way reflect the user's ability to review submitted articles. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Part of the reason for the backlog is that many experienced users will not participate. One reason is the many useless, complicated ,and counterproductive procedures in the AfC process, for which see my user talk special archive. But the main reason is that unless most reviewers are moderately competent, what a good reviewer can contribute will be wasted. there's no point in contributing to processes which work poorly and on which one can not make an impact. Otherwise there is a much higher priority for anyone who knows what to do--which is checking their work, and trying to teach those who most need it. Ten good people without interference from the unqualified can do the process better than ten good ones trying also to cope with fifty unqualified.
If we cannot get high standards, we will need to see this only as a first screen, and the accepted articles are going to have to go into NPP so they will be checked a second time. As for the wrongly rejected, they will mostly continue to be lost to us. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
If the commonly used tools do not maintain a log page, they could be modified to do so. Gigs (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
DGG, a very accurate summary, and so much of it applies equally to NPP. Allowing them through to NPP would be counter productive, the NPP system has the same kind of flaws as AfC and there is no guarantee that the patrollers, who need no qualifications at all, will pass or tag such an article correctly. Most worrying of course, are the 'lost' incorrectly rejected articles, while a significant concern is whether articles are correctly checked for spam or copyvio etc. (BTW: I have taken the liberty of correcting the link to your talk page archive - that thread is very important and although long, I would recommend the participants here to read it). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A quick note regarding wrongfully rejected articles – that is also an editor retention issue ... if newcomers are being encouraged to send articles to AfC under the guise that "an experienced reviewer will double-check everything before sending it to mainspace" (which is usually what they are told at places like the Teahouse, and I at times am the one telling them that), then that is a problem. I think DGG's comment regarding sending pages to NPP may have a valid point, however agreeing with Kudpung, NPP draws inexperienced reviewers as well, but at least if you have two chances to catch a problem, that is better than only one. Nevertheless, the more I read about this and think about this, the more I am convinced that the new AFC academy is a good idea if people actually use it and have a desire to do things correctly, and frankly, perhaps a user right is in order. I would think anyone trusted with reviewer or autopatrolled would have necessary qualifications to review new articles, but I don't know for sure. I know user rights mean more bureaucracy, and a manufactured debate over the haves and have nots, but at the end of the day, bad reviewing of AfC and NPP has ramifications on copyright, editor retention, and, perhaps most importantly, missing content that can fit into the breadth of the world's knowledge; that is what we need to protect in these discussions. We can discuss whether someone should have 500 edits or 750 all day long, but that is not what is important. We need people who simply know what they are doing, and if they are doing things wrong, we can firmly, yet gently suggest they utilize training of some kind, and if they refuse that, they simply must be told to stop, as they hinder progress. I think the best way to maintain our NPP and AFC processes would be if experienced editors – article writers, content gnomes, admin, etc. – would all simply commit to reviewing x articles per week, and keep up with it. That would prevent massive backlogs, improve the quality of the reviews, and reduce potential ensuing burnout from one person trying to simply bust the backlog on their own. GoPhightins! 10:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Another very appropriate comment. However, have you tried herding cats? It works, but you have to give them something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the technical details of a right, how it is implemented, what the threshold is, etc. But I am worried, in general, about the impact of AfC on new users. The difference between a constructive, welcoming review -- even if the article isn't really up to par, a constructive review can still be made -- and a snarky or brusque one (made for whatever reason, including working fast because of the backlog) is huge for a new contributor. If a right can help with standards-setting among AfC reviewers on interacting with new users -- and maybe even make AfC a more attractive place to participate for experienced editors -- then I'm all for it.
I am well aware of our backlogs and the huge amounts of spam etc. But AfC is also a touchpoint for hundreds of new contributors who if they make it to AfC in the first place are generally also well-meaning and interested enough to perhaps be converted into active editors. Currently, AfC is sort of a Wikipedia backwater, and I feel like it should be front-and-center as a place for us to triage and work. I think a right if done well *might* help with this -- so to the extent it does, I'd support it. (If, however, it turns into simply 'one more collectible thing' as someone else pointed out, or somehow limits participation in AfC by existing helpful reviewers, then I wouldn't). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I certainly agree that it should be a 'front-and-center' operation and akin to the importance of NPP which was granted a complex set of tools by the Foundation. However, alone the 60,000 abandoned G13 drafts, of which I have physically deleted several hundred, demonstrate that what comes through AfC includes a vast amount of totally unacceptable junk, often far worse that what comes through NPP, and the fact that the creators have gone through the Article Wizard or AfC does not prove at all, unfortunately, that they are all good faith submissions. At AfC there is a cohesive and supportive dedicated team driving things forward; NPP has nothing of the kind bar its instruction page, has a talk page that sees a message once in a blue moon, needs no qualifications, and suffers from the same ailments as AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
NPP has one advantage over AFC: By definition, every page they looked at was created by an autoconfirmed or confirmed editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
by G13 drafts you mean random userpage drafts, right? 1) If so, I don't know why you or anyone else would delete these; userpages are meant for drafts, and perhaps except in extreme libel situations or similar are doing no one any harm even if they're not destined to be good articles. 2) Not sure how this relates to the good-faith-edness of AfC. When I teach people how to edit, I tell them to start in their sandboxes. By your measure, if their userpage drafts aren't up to speed they're not contributing in good faith? That makes no sense; these are two different measures. Good faith is largely unrelated to whether the article is complete, referenced, notable, etc. And I've looked at enough AfC submissions myself to be pretty sure they're not all "Johnny sucks" or similar. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
SeeWP:CSD#G13, a relatively recent speedy deletion criterion which specifies that AfC submissions which have not been edited at all (not even a keystroke) in more than 6 months may be deleted. DES(talk) 16:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there are many good (or eventually good) submissions to Afc. As well as beginning editors, it's also widely used by COI editors who want to make sure that their articles won't be deleted as advertising. Afc reviewers help tone these down. To date there have been over 34,000 successful accepted submissions, and most of them left Afc in far better condition than when they arrived. Here are the ones accepted this month: CatScan report Also, articles eligible for deletion under the G13 criteria aren't always deleted; there are a number of editors who are checking through them and picking out ones to improve. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to the CatScan tool Anne. That's very useful. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 05:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey all. I don't have an opinion about the RFC in question, at least in an official WMF capacity. However, my team is just barely beginning to explore potential improvements to article creation. As a part of this, myself and our research scientist are working on measuring the current state of article creations and creators each month. That includes the volume at AfC, which though unique to English Wikipedia, is obviously an important route for new authors here. If you can help us think of strategies for accurately measuring the number of submissions, as well as decline/accept rates, that would be most welcome. Our notes are at Research:Wikipedia article creation. Many thanks, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 05:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
As one Foundation staff member has emphatically suggested that AfC is niether in the interest of nor within the remit of the WMF, I'm rather surprised to see this. AFAICS, the community has therefore accepted to investigatigate the possibilities of its own local solutions for improvement to AfC. However, any research that can save volunteers' time would be most welcome. That said, the project you linked to may appear to be a duplication in part of the buried(?) project here and here which, along with Page Curation, was offered as an olive branch to WP:ACTRIAL; it saw no further development. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I don't mean to suggest that we're interested in making software updates to AfC as it exists now. Rather, that any new article creation software support we build needs to take in to account lessons from AfC, and the beginning of that is understanding the volume of submissions, the success rate, and so on. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
@Steven (WMF): The feedback from en's AFC team to you would probably be best done in a central location. Where would you like us to do it? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
@Steven (WMF): - then perhaps you should take a look in your talk page archives at the thread you allowed to die out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Stevan, we do not want or expect the WMF to know how to improve page creation, except by implementing whatever requests for technical features the community here decides on. But it is always helpful if people new to a problem take a look at it, because they may well see things those of us who have been specializing in it may miss. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that A) many people at the WMF are community members B) we spend countless hours doing research in to the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of activities like article I think you probably would be surprised how much we know about activities like page creation. ;) We're not just janitors sweeping things up and taking requests these days. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
What if, were this change to be implemented, we only allowed people with the AFC reviewing userright to view the AFC submissions, not just review them? Because they can be potential copyright violations, and, given that anyone can create one, may also contain defamatory material. Jinkinsontalk to meWhat did he do now? 23:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
This would "break the wiki" - even if those who had edited the page before were allowed to see it, if I submit an article with a dynamic IP address then come back the next day with a different IP address, I would be unable to improve the submission, defeating the whole point of AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Back on track, or partly - because there are mixed opinions whether an MedWiki-independent solution could be achieved, there is something for our resident programmers to look at: here. Other ideas may be coming soon, but I still feel that a set of criteria comes first, then to see how they can best bee implemented. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
In looking at your question to this user, you specifically asked We are having a discussion on how to implent[sic] a local user permission system for a script that is used at WP:AfC. (Emphasis mine.) I'm sorry, but when did this discussion get reframed to be just the script? That is a broad departure and narrowing of the stated purpose of both this RfC and its predecessor. Additionally, you keep saying that we should not be talking about implementation (even though 3 of the 5 of your own examples at the top speak directly to implementation), but then you frame this RfC as an implementation discussion (and specifically, your preferred implementation) to people like West.andrew.g. Frankly, this RfC is fundamentally flawed and really needs to be blown up and redone. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I can't agree. This RfC is about setting a suitable criterion or criteria for permission to review article submissions at AfC. You have incorrectly interpreted the examples of permissions cited in the preamble as being suggestions for the creation of a MedWiki solution, which the Foundation has clearly stated will not be entertained anyway. I have repeated many times that when those criteria have been agreed on, then we should look at how they could be technically or socially implemented. Any preemptive research into possible local or non MedWiki technical solutions has nothing to do with setting the criteria. And BTW, there is more research going on than only the message to Andrew. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
"You have incorrectly interpreted the examples of permissions cited in the preamble as being suggestions for the creation of a MedWiki solution". No, I didn't. Not once. Not in thought, not in words. That's a complete fabrication on your part. I was actually referring to the fact that your background examples include implementation details such as admin interaction, script developer interactions, and whitelists, which conveniently enough seem to overlap with the implementation solution that you are "preemptively researching". Funny that. However, in addition to completely fabricating my words and intent, you have also failed to address my main point that you have framed this discussion externally as how to "implement a local user permission system for a script" while at the same time insisting that no one else discuss any competing implementation ideas, which seems to me that you are using this RfC as nothing more than a thin facade of consensus building to force the implementation of your preferred solution. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 05:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a preferred solution other than hoping that the community will come up with some criteria for sufficient experience for reviewers. All I have done is cited some examples as possible leads, but they are absolutely neither my recommendations nor preferences, I simply made the first suggestion to get the ball rolling, and I am as entitled to make a suggestion there are you are. Having reviewed every further comment I have made, I don't see me insisting on them; more to the point, I have simply attempted to keep this discussion on track. I stress again that any possible implementation of such criteria should/would come later. There is no harm whatsoever in looking into how permissions for Stiki, Huggle, or AWB are locally implemented - it's called 'gathering knowledge'. I don't see how you or anyone can suggest I have claimed otherwise. I am tempted to view your accusations as lacking in good faith. If you have some suggestions for criteria, please make them, but this RfC is not for redebating whether AfC needs competent reviewers or not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Where have I redebated whether AfC needs competent reviewers? Again, you are putting words in my mouth. While I came to this discussion assuming good faith, you have shaken that assumption. I am moving on to other things and will no longer participate here as this RfC is not a request for comments but a request for confirmation. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
ShinmaWa, methinks I can understand the ongoing back-and-forth here. I was personally confused about what Kudpung was trying to accomplish, myself, also, but believe I'm on the same page with them now. (Due to my confusion, earlier, my suggestion-by-74 above absolutely positively demands a very specific implementation -- very different from what Kudpung envisions I will not -- but more importantly solves a completely different problem!) See deeper explanation below. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, *this* discussion, on *this* page, is about trying to find consensus for a reasonably *specific* set of secondary criteria (like edit-counts) that are specific to helping guarantee that editors that sign up to be AfC reviewers are morally competent for that role. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The motivation is, reading between the lines, there are plenty of examples -- of increasing frequency if I correctly read between the lines -- of new editors with WP:COI difficulties signing up as AfC-reviewers, and then approving the blatantly-policy-violating-articles of their buddies, or in some cases of themselves. To stop such shenanigans, we need to agree on a set of secondary criteria (minimum edit-count being the most obvious). Then, once we have got consensus on the thing we will be using to secure the AfC process against abuse, there would be a discussion about how to best implement -- in software or in human-administered-policy or whatever -- some sort of security mechanism that *enforces* those secondary criteria.
The mechanism itself, Kudpung does not wish to get bogged down in, as yet... but that topic is supposed to be the very next RfC, right after this one! Also, since Kudpung is not a programmer, that makes it hard for them to be the host a mechanism-oriented discussion (as opposed to this current policy-oriented RfC). But the point is, that the nuts-n-bolts implementation mechanism... although it will clearly have *something* to do with software that *some* sort of programmer will have to mess with at least some of it... would ideally be out of scope (aka "off track" or perhaps rather "cart ahead of the horse" or somesuch homely metaphor), at least until we decide upon what specific secondary-criteria we are actually trying to secure! Note well the careful use of ideally. Furthermore, we do have a few relevant facts, that are "implementation" facts, but which may influence our discussions here about "criteria-slash-policy" decisions.
First, the WMF will not be footing the bill. That means, the implementation has to be simple enough that volunteer hackers, here on enWiki (like perhaps User:mabdul) to implement on a spare-time no-pay basis. That is why suggestions to modify mediawiki are out of line: we do not want to fork mediawiki just for enWiki's use!
Second, *most* of the folks already working in AfC today, are already using the existing javascript-based AfC-helper-script-gadget (which is maintained by User:mabdul and others), and it makes sense that whatever secondary-criteria-security-solution we come up with, should interface with our existing wiki-tools. That is the 'script' that Kudpung speaks of, nothing more, nothing sneaky going on here.
Third, and finally, it is a plain-and-indisputable-fact that we would like whatever 'implementation' mechanism is chosen to be low-bureaucracy-required, because there are literally thousands of AfC-submissions pending in the queue, and anything that takes our AfC reviewers away from that queue, is a Bad Thing. That is why any solution involving laborious additional tasks for the existing AfC reviewers is seen as strongly counterproductive; they are already under too much pressure now, and adding these criteria cannot help, and might easily hurt.
Finally, in terms of out-of-scope discussions, we have my own suggestion, which I now understand is "off topic". The separate issue, which I concentrated on in my suggestions, is whether it is possible to assess *primary* criteria, namely, whether a given AfC-reviewer-job-candidate is actually any good aka technically-competent at performing reviews (without later getting reverted for mistakes). This is my main concern... but this question is utterly orthogonal to the question of whether an AfC-reviewer-job-candidate is any Good aka morally-competent at performing reviews (without later getting banned for abuse). Both types of competence are important, sure... but only the morally-competent secondary-criteria are under discussion here. Well, that is to say, those are what ought to be under discussion here.
Kudpung tried valiantly to explain what was going on, but most people misinterpreted the actual intro of the RfC, which used examples in a way that looked like preferred-outcome, and which failed to inform newcomers like myself that the motivation for the whole shebang is prevention of WP:PUPPET folks abusing the AfC queue. Stopping that sort of behavior requires moral-competence, and technical-competence is a distinct issue. Most discussions above are trying to solve all three problems simultaneously: implementation details, technical prowess at AfC duties via primary/secondary criteria (in the relevant decision-areas), and moral competence at AfC duties via secondary-criteria (in terms of ethical-commitment-to-wikipedia-metrics).
Anyways, while I disagree that Kudpung has tried to ramrod some particular implementation down our throats, I cannot disagree that the current RfC is in trouble. Either we need to have an arbitrary-section-break, with a rewritten-motivation-and-examples section, so we can then copy the proposals down there that *specifically* address the moral-competence and the ethical-commitment-to-wikipedia angles (only!), or alternatively, maybe even take ShinmaWa's suggestion to deploy the WP:TNT, and reopen round-two of this RfC with the rewritten-motivation-and-examples. I will ping ShinmaWa about this long-winded explanation, and hope that they return to assist us. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It's outlived its usefulness and is run by a clique of editors who treat it like a personal fiefdom operating under its own rules, ignoring rules that govern the project as a whole, and beat away those contributors who think differently (despite being well-supported by those ignored policies and guidelines). If anyone wants to create an article, let them open an account and create the article already--let speedy deletion or AfD deal with it if it should be deleted. Clear out the backlog, get rid of the endless drama and fiefdom-ownership politics, and let this dinosaur finally die. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
We've had the discussion, now it's time to gather consensus. To reiterate, the above discussion was about setting criteria for allowing users to review pages submitted to AfC. There was no mention in the proposal that the methods of implementation or other methods of reviewer control were up for discussion. It was stated that the criteria should come first, then the community can discuss how best to implement them. This straw poll is not for discussing the implementation either. The criteria mentioned in the preamble were cited strictly as examples only and were not suggestions either for what we should do, nor for a traditional 'user right' implementauion.
There are two major issues concerning reviewing at AfC:
To review pages at Articles for Creation, users should have made a minimum of 500 non-automated edits to en.Wikipedia mainspace, with an account registered for at least 90 days.
Support - a sensible amalgamation of the aforementioned ideas. Not too stringent, not too lenient. Ultimately, I think this is the best way to go. GoPhightins! 01:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Support Let's take into account that before this, there was basically no requirement. This proposal screens out obvious new users and does not create an opportunity for a backlog to occur of those seeking the AfC reviewer permission and is objective, not subjective. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 03:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose any requirement on second thought. If someone wants policy-violating material in the mainspace, they can simply create it themselves. autoconfirmed to move the page is enough and is more than the requirement to create articles the normal way. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 18:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Support - It's simple, unambiguous and straightforward, and anyone who doesn't meet the criteria can do so with time and experience. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Support - I like it because it assumes good faith and allows everyone with a little experience to take part. There needs to be a way to prevent misuse, but there is already the "topic ban", which could be used in case of problems with specific editors. I assume that these would be 500 undeleted edits, so that spam and copyvios wouldn't count. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as I feel this is too lenient. See proposal 3 below (as much as I hate to make another proposal splitting up the votes...) Technical 13 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Support. It's a low bar, but at least it's a bar. The documentation should indicate somehow that this is not an entitlement to review. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Support - A nice bar that will allow anyone with good faith and a decent handle on Wikipedia to work. Will prevent an insane backlog from forming. Nice and simple. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 16:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Support, as the lowest proposed bar. Ironholds (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Support low bar with minimal "overhead". All it requires is a "filter" to be added to the AFCH script that simply checks the user's mainspace edit count and registration date. It doesn't add to the workload of the existing reviewers. This criterion will also be easy to carry over to whatever review mechanisms will be implemented for the upcoming Drafts namespace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Support- minimal standard. Rankersbo (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Support with one addition, namely this: any two approved-at-the-time AfC reviewers X and Y, can by mutual agreement, appoint a third person Z, thereby making Z an AfC reviewer, despite Z not meeting the criteria. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is certainly not burdensome, and if anything is too lenient. I think the second proposal, just below, would create additional workload for whoever does the reviewing, and the third proposal really isn't a significant improvement on this one, so I support this one as a step in the right direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Monumental oppose for the reasons I have given in proposal 5. James500 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Support, This is the only practical workable proposal I see. Alanl (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Support - Quite simple, users with these requirements show knowledge in the policies and guidelines. ///EuroCarGT 00:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose . A good idea, but would overload an already hugely overloaded existing pool of reviewers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Kudpung There is no overload on the existing pool of reviewers, if you look at the proposal carefully. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Too complex and someone still needs to control it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
My now-collapsed proposal is very similar to what OriginalSoni proposes, except fully automated (no burden on existing AfC folks at all)... but therefore dramatically more complex (adds burden to mabdul/Technical_13/Theopolisme/etc who are the AfC devs right now. See below, suggest we finish implementing the Kudpung approach, and then later open another RfC about the OriginalSoni approach, as complementary (not conflicting). This is not a zero-sum-game, we can actually have our cake an eat it too, in this rare case. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Too stringent and long and creates the opportunity for a backlog to form. It is also subjective, and not objective. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 03:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as I feel this is too stringent. I agree that it requires too much reviewer time UNLESS there is someone (like me) that doesn't spend a lot of time on reviews and focuses on AfC project management (like helper script development) that has the time to go through and review these users. See proposal 3 below (as much as I hate to make another proposal splitting up the votes...) Technical 13 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we start a new proposal for a "reviewer reviewer" hat? Noooo..... —Anne Delong (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Defer proposal#2, for consideration as a future RfC. The point of OriginalSoni's proposal is to grade potential reviewers on the *merits* of their technical proficiency at reviewing. If they are good at it, they will get 9 out of 10 correct, on the quiz. This is not only different from, but orthogonal to Kudpung's proposal, which is primarily intended to prevent *abuse* of the AfC reviewer infrastructure, by folks that are not committed to the long-term goals of wikipedia. 500 edits and 90 days is a security-system, in other words. Getting 9 out of 10 correct is a competence-check. As Technical_13 points out below, it is theoretically possible to perform 6 spelling-corrections each day for three months, and thus "pass" the security-system, yet still be Not Very Good at correctly reviewing submissions.
But my suggestion is that we should be careful to neither confuse nor conflate the two goals. Testing competence at correctly reviewing submissions should be *ongoing* and not just an "interview" which means there is a need for what OriginalSoni is proposing, that directly test competence in actual reviewing-work. At the same time, plenty of COI sockpuppets will be able to pass the 10-question-quiz with flying colors, so we also need some sort of morality-quiz that proves a minimal dedication to the five pillars. This necessarily will have to be a secondary criterion: 90+ days editing, and 500+ edits, seems like a reasonable proxy-for-commitment. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Monumental oppose for the reasons I have given in proposal 5. James500 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose . A good idea, but alas we don't have enough experienced reviewers doing AfC to devote to do the auditing. Alanl (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Support as proposer. Technical 13 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I think this is too restrictive. Spelling fixes may be marked as minor edits, but they're most definitely helping the project. What's "regular activity"? I took a Wikibreak in April this year - would that count against me? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
What's the point of a 90 day requirement if the user creates an account, makes a couple hundred punctuation fixes, goes away for 85 days, comes back and gets their edit count to 500 fixing spelling and what not. There are no significant edits and they have maybe 10-15 days of editing. I think we gain nothing by this, and this minor adjustment to P1 rectifies this. Technical 13 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you think that's a likely scenario? Anyone can game the system if they want. You can run for RfA the minute you score 500 on Scottywong's tool - it doesn't mean you'll succeed! For those people, we can simply nudge them in the right direction, and topic ban them if necessary. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
When I first had 500 mainspace edits on the English Wikipedia, I would've had no place reviewing AfC submissions. I think it is a very likely scenario. If there are going to be count and time restrictions, let's make sure they actually do something other than look pretty. Technical 13 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment (edit conflict) - I don't think that this proposal is significantly less lenient than Proposal 1, since the user chooses whether or not to mark edits as "minor". Please explain why you think that evenly spaced edits are better than bunched-up ones. I suppose that you are hoping to ensure that they are five hundred substantive edits (rather than, say, adding a piece of spam to 500 articles...) —Anne Delong (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Anne, I do believe you misunderstood what I wrote about minor edits. I did not mean necessarily edits marked as minor, I meant edits that qualify as minor in that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. Whether or not the editor knows how to properly mark such edits may be out of scope (other than I would question a user with the first 500 sequential edits and having none marked as minor as really having any CLUE about policies and how to review articles). Technical 13 (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, after the above explanation. Not because I disagree with with anything you've said above, but I wouldn't be willing to do the work of measuring the value and complexity of hundreds of edits, so I can't !vote to put that work on someone else. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Administrators already do this at WP:RFPERM to hand out rights like reviewer and rollback. (Personally I don't think any rights should be necessary to review AfC nominations. If you wish to clamber through Wikipedia's crap pile to find the odd gem, have at it. Rather them than me.) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
OpposeAnybody at all can create articles. Anybody. So why would you think someone would try to game the system as you said above and accept or deny a review if they can go ahead and create an article. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 18:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Monumental oppose for the reasons I have given in proposal 5. James500 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
We already have two user rights we give out to people who have reached minimal competence with Wikipedia: pending changes reviewer and rollback. Because of the potential for hat collecting, it seems generally preferable to not duplicate entities beyond mere necessity. At a time when we have few enough people willing to delve through the ever-regrowing crap pile not only at WP:AFC but at a wide number of backlogs across the 'pedia. The main problem with AFC isn't bad reviewers, it's no reviewers. Adding another layer of gate-keeping on the front of an already backlogged process seems rather pointless. Instead, use the existing permissions structure: rollback, or pending changes reviewer. This isn't unheard of: when Article Feedback Tool v5 was still in operation on English Wikipedia, we reused the "reviewer" permission for reviewing AFT5 comments.
The advantage of this: administrators don't have to start handing out new permissions. The number of hats on offer is kept to an absolute minimum. We neatly sidestep the addition of more bureaucracy. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Support As proposer. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: This RfC does not discuss how this threshold will be granted and/or implemented. That will be the topic of a further discussion, when the threshold itself has been established. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Kudpung, I do not think Tom made any statement towards that context. All he stated was to use a simple Reviewer or Rollbacker as the required permission threshold. (Correct me if I'm wrong on the reviewer-rollbacker part.) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Support This proposal neatly sidesteps any possible hat-collection issues we had, while still solving our basic competence requirements, like Proposal 1. It also makes it technically simple to implement any such requirements. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Question. What is being suggested here, exactly? That we dramatically reduce the count of viable candidates for AfC duty? Or that we dramatically increase the count of people with the R&R userRight?
explanation of my question
Proposal#1 sets the low-but-not-too-low bar of 500+edits and 90+days, not to increase hat-count, but to keep out spammers that approve their sockpuppet's spam, and buddies who approved their friend's non-Notable garage-band. It is basically a minimum-morals qualification-criteria, indicating some level of commitment to wikipedia's goals. It is one step up from autoconfirmed. Now clearly, the current user-rights of reviewer && rollbacker *are* morally qualified. But currently, it is a *lot* more effort than 500 edits, and a lot more time invested than 90 days, before an editor is "whitelisted" by being given the R&R bits. Are we setting the bar too high, for being an AfC reviewer, if we demand only R&R-quality folks and above?
How many of our existing hard-working AfC reviewers have the R&R bits, right now today? More pragmatically, I will point out that we already have plenty of folks with R&R bits... and any of them, or all of them, would be welcomed with open arms, if they showed up to help with the AfC queue tomorrow morning. And yet, there are still well over 1k articles in the main queue, and well over 10k in the G13 backlog. If we want those backlog-numbers to decrease, we would need to vastly expand the number of people who are given R&R bits. I think there are two possibilities for what proposal#4 means.
Possibility#1, Tom_Morris is putting forth Proposal#4, and saying that only existing R&R bit-holders ought be allowed to become AfC reviewers... in which case, I oppose proposal four, on the grounds that there are simply not enough existing R&R bit-holders to solve the AfC backlog. 5992 reviewers and/or 4981 rollbackers, with significant overlap, plus 1423 admins that have those powers and more. Only 45% of admins are "active" aka ~15+edits/mo... conservative assumptions about overlap & activeness, means we might have 2700-to-3700 active R&R folks today, plus 600 active admins... aka roughly one R&R-or-admin for every 7 active editors. We also have 3000 very-active-editors making 100+edits/mo,[1] and an educated guess is that these 1-to-9-folks are the basically the *same* editors as the 1-to-7-folks that already have the R&R user-right.
Possibility#2, Tom_Morris is suggesting that we dramatically increase the number of people who are given R&R bits... and in fact, might even be saying that every person with 500+edits and 90+days should automagically be given the pending-changes-reviewer bit, which could then also double as the AfC-submission-reviewer bit. Possibility#2 is something I could support... but as Kudpung says, that is an implementation question (we could also implement the 500-n-90 restriction purely as a jscript hack inside AFCH or as a custom server-side PHP kludge or as a pure social system using moral suasion or in various other ways). It's not clear that it will be easy to gain consensus for dramatically lowering the traditionally-pretty-dern-high level of experience that R&R bits have demanded in the past, to just 500-n-90. Therefore, if possibility#2 is the aim, in that case I would suggest deferring proposal#4 as an implementation-question, to the next phase of this RfC-sequence. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
My point is that "500 edits + 90 days" (plus a quick manual check to make sure they aren't mad as a hatter) is about the rough guideline that admins use to hand out rollback or reviewer. I'm simply saying that we already have a process to determine whether or not new users are sensible enough to start reviewing (and indeed rolling back) other people's edits. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Remember that anybody can create articles with an account. Suggesting that you need rollback and reviewer is kind of too much. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 18:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Ramaksoud2000, this discussion is for who can review AFC submissions. I think a large number of our current AFC reviewers will have either of these priviledges, and almost all of the rest would be given the permission should they request it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying what's the point of making the requirement so high when they can just create the article another way. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 05:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Ramaksoud2000, AFC Reviewers do not write the articles. The articles are written by newcomers, and reviewers "review" them, thus approving or declining the article. As I said, most current AFC reviewers alaready have this right. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
In all fairness, there is no difference in principle between accepting an AFC submission and creating a new page from scratch. James500 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Monumental oppose for the reasons I have given in proposal 5. James500 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Proposal 5: Maintain consistency with rights to create articles from scratch
Any registered user can accept an AFC submission. Only users with either the reviewer or rollbacker user right can decline an AFC submission.
Support as proposer. It would be absurd to prohibit users who can create new pages in the mainspace from accepting an AFC submission. It would not be consistent with existing user rights at all. James500 (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC) In fact you could argue that, in order to be completely consistent, only admins should have the right to reject an AFC submission, because they are the only ones who, at present, have the authority to remove an article from the mainspace by deletion or otherwise. James500 (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as that is entirely inaccurate. Any autoconfirmed user can move a page from mainspace to a subpage of a user's space or to Draft: effectively removing from mainspace. Allowing any user to accept, is also counter productive as AfC is intended to help new users create an article with out it getting speedily deleted half a dozen times for simple issues like promotional tone or lack of indication of importance, allowing all users unable to see these things or whom are unfamiliar with the policies/essays/guidelines that can give constructive feedback is a bad idea. Technical 13 (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagee. What WP:USERFY actually says is "Except for self-userfying and obvious non articles such as accidentally-created user pages in the main namespace, it is generally inappropriate to userfy an article without a deletion process". The recommended process is AfD. So, assuming the essay you have linked to is accurate, a non-admin cannot userfy an attempt at a proper article that someone else has created. James500 (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC) And the other limb of your argument is absurd. James500 (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC) And "promotional tone" is not a criteria for speedy deletion. What is required is blatant advertising. James500 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Any confirmed user can move an article out of Afc and into mainspace to create an article (at risk of being reverted, or course). The above proposals 1-4 won't prevent that. They are only about limiting the use of the Afc reviewing tools and Afc review templates which give the appearance that the person placing them is an experienced and knowledgeable editor, and not someone who joined Wikipedia last week. There are exceptions, of course; a use with a new account could have been editing under another name, or as an IP, for years, but as usual the application of the criteria will be tempered by common sense. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, a page move from AFC to the mainspace cannot be reverted without a deletion process (such as AfD), except in very limited circumstances. James500 (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC) If the proposals above are only about access to scripts and templates, their wording needs to be made much clearer. I can't actually find a project page that defines the meaning of "review" and "reviewer" in this context. It sounds like "move into the mainspace". It is clear to me from the foregoing discussion that I am not the only one who thinks this. James500 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope some others will weigh in about the meaning or "reviewer". And yes, you are right; I shouldn't have said "revert". The more likely (and more serious) results of an inexperienced editor moving a draft prematurely to mainspace would be: (1) speedy deletion under a number of categories from which the draft submissions are protected so that the problems can be fixed, and (2) being dragged to Afd. In either case the poor draft creator, usually a beginning user, could be very bewildered and have an unnecessarily negative experience, all so that some other new user can have the freedom of creating an article out of someone else's draft without having to take the time to learn any of Wikipedia's policies. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Prohibiting "inexperienced" users from moving drafts into the mainspace might help deletionists in their mission to prevent the creation of perfectly valid stubs. James500 (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as already detailed by Anne and Technical13. The need for this RFC is to make sure AFC performs better in making sure it's articles survive Mainspace, not the other way round. The current proposal is detrimental to the AFC process, and will work against getting better articles out of here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. It is clear to me that AFC reviewers are rejecting submissions that would survive (and have survived) an AfD. In any event, if you are worried about articles on valid topics surviving in the mainspace, what you need to look at are the deletion processes, because that is where the problem will be. James500 (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I seriously doubt any AfD proposal will survive, and there been many attempts over the years. There are enough orphaned stubs out there in mainspace, and as a mature project, the whole point of AfC is to improve the quality of new articles. If you allow this, then you might as well disband AfC altogether. Alanl (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Proposal 6: Complete consistency with other deletion processes
Any registered user can move an AFC submission into the mainspace, whereupon it will be treated like any other article. Only users with either the reviewer or rollbacker user right can use AFC scripts and templates. Subject to the following exception, only users with the admin user right can decline an AFC submission. The exception is AFC submissions that are clearly not intended to be articles (ie those that , if created in the mainspace, could be legitimately userfied by a non-admin). Non-admins can nominate an AFC submission for rejection, using a template created for this purpose.
Support as proposer. This is probably my first choice on grounds that rejecting an AFC submission is equivalent to deleting an article from the mainspace. James500 (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Strong Oppose This isn't even consistent with deletion processes as your title claims. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 05:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This is proposal is exactly consistent with deletion processes. In what way is it not consistent? James500 (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely Oppose the proposers completely erroneous claim that "rejecting an AFC submission is equivalent to deleting an article from the mainspace" only shows that the proposer has no clue at all about how AFC actually works. An AFC rejection is simply: "this draft isn't ready yet because of this problem, here is a guideline on how to fix it. When you've fixed it please resubmit it. If you need further assistance you can get it here". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
My claim that "rejecting an AFC submission is equivalent to deleting an article from the mainspace" is based on similar reasoning in WP:USERFY, and I don't believe that there is any difference in principle. Bear in mind that rejection also facilitates CSD G13, so we don't want it done in error. G13 does not, in express words, require the admin to vouch for the correctness of the rejection. It seems to me that he could just rubber stamp it. So, if you allow reviewers and rollbackers to reject submissions you are potentially giving a user with 500 edits the power in effect to speedy delete large numbers of articles at his discretion with no questions asked. James500 (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Amend CSD G13 so that it authorizes the speedy deletion of a rejected AFC submission only if that submission was correctly rejected.
Support as proposer. This would remove what is, in my view, a potentially serious problem with allowing non-admins to reject AFC submissions. See my comments under proposal 6. James500 (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The consensus is clearly to keep the article, regardless of the technicality of whether the subject passes GNG. Since there are enough reliable sources for the resulting article to pass WP:V, I see no justification or policy-based reason to override the overwhelming consensus to 'keep' that formed in this discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to keep this simple and just look at the sources. I think the article is artfully written, but it is stretching references that just aren't there. Let's go through them.
Reference #1: Is this one from the Theodore Roosevelt Center. It's just a simple listing of the poem itself with a brief description, just like the site lists all the other letters and things written by famous people. It doesn't really confer anything to notability at all.
Reference #2: Is this from the Presidential Collections. And it's basically just a copy of the Roosevelt reference, it links to it and everything. Nothing to do with notability here.
Reference #3: Is this from an old 1903 printing of the poem in the Dispatch. It's just a printing of the poem with no commentary at all. It adds nothing to notability.
Reference #4: Is this book that has a single sentence on the poem. Very much trivial coverage.
Reference #5: Is this book, which does't appear to mention the poem at all or even obliquely, unless i'm mistaken.
Reference #6: Is this book, which also doesn't appear to mention the poem at all.
Reference #7: Is this book, with yet again no reference to the poem.
Reference #8: Is this book, which is actually the best reference so far, with a full three sentences on the poem. Which is pretty much nothing and really still just trivial coverage.
Reference #9: Is this news article, which is actually directly about the poem. It is a 1929 article from the Evening Tribune. But it is far more about the incident of it being read and then struck from the record than any real commentary about the poem. That and the datedness of the source really just makes it seem like a minor event.
Reference #10: Is this news article, which is paid-locked, so I can't judge it on quality. But the title has nothing to do with the poem, so I can only assume the coverage in it is trivial. And, again, it is a dated 1929 source.
Reference #11: Is this, which is the same as reference #1, just in image viewer format.
Reference #12: Is this, which is the same reference as #1 and #11.
Do note that the article is subject to change. So the references align with this version of the article, which is the one I was reviewing.
Now, onto the Bibliography section.
Number 1: Is this book, which is not in a readable format. But when I put the name of the poem into the search bar, nothing comes up. It doesn't appear that the slur "niggers" is even used in the book.
Number 2: Is this article in JSTOR that is about the White House dinner that the poem was a response to. But the poem is not mentioned in this article at all.
Number 3: Is this article, another from JSTOR about the dinner. Again, no mention of the poem at all.
Numbers 4, 5 and 6: I'm not going to read, because they're pretty long. But they both appear to be about the dinner as well. If the poem is actually mentioned in them, please let me know, but i'll assume it's not.
External link #1: Is this article, the one and only external link and actually a recent news source! That doesn't mention the poem at all. Okay, moving on then.
So, in total, we have a bunch of sources that don't mention the poem at all, a few sources with a single sentence on the poem, and then a tie between the dated 1929 news article on the poem that is more about the incident and the three sentence bit about the poem in a book. You pick which one you think gives more notability.
But, all in all, there doesn't appear to be any notability of significance here. Maybe enough to have a single paragraph in another article, but certainly not enough to have one all on its own. Thus, I think this article should be Deleted.SilverserenC 06:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Not sure: although the sources seem to be of poor quality, it seems to me that the article is on important history of the US, and thus possibly notable. Why not slap it with a refimprove instead, and give the creator a chance to find better sources? HandsomeFella (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I of course wrote the above before I read Bonkers' mature input on the talkpage of the article. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment I have access to the NY Times article "White House Tea Starts Senate Stir". New York Times. June 18, 1929 (reference 10 mentioned in the AfD nomination, and currently reference 9), and it does note that this poem was included in the Senator's racist motion, and its inclusion was directly criticized by two other senators and eventually struck from the record of proceedings after a debate, so it is relevant to the topic of the article and provides substantive coverage (about six paragraphs) on the poem and its reception. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Speedy close as keep For the love of all things nigger... but seriously, we do not expect this to have staggering coverage. Just this much coverage is enough to warrant a decent article. Furthermore, it passed a stringent DYK review and is currently on the main page. You can't go against us. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that the DYK nomination was unusually "stringent". The reviewing editors did their jobs well, but there wasn't anything beyond the norm. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
However I feel that most DYK noms are stringent, and some drag for weeks before they can get approved! ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
And what coverage is that, exactly? Almost all of the sources don't even mention the poem or have a single sentence on it. SilverserenC 17:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I'm surprised the dinner that set this in motion does not have an article itself. Is there a section on it somewhere? I distinctly recall learning about the dinner in high school, and given how long ago that was, it must have been covered to quite an extent. If it turns out the dinner is notable enough for its own article, then this poem may fit better as a section therein. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
But this poem surfaced at two dinners. Not just that dinner, so it would not seem right. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Notability is not temporary (regarding the old sources), and by gosh there's a heck of a lot of controversy. This goes into some detail as well, as does Life. Likely quite a few offline articles as well. This reminds me of "Langit Makin Mendung" in a way: a controversial work of literature that is terrible as literature, but notable as a social artefact. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is all of that coverage is about a single event and barely about the poem at all. SilverserenC 17:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep. I have added another reference. There are lots out there, and it is a significant historical artefact. StAnselm (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You added a single reference about an event. It's certainly better than all the other sources, but there is no evidence of ongoing coverage or any critical coverage at all or discussion of the poem outside of the event itself. This gives the event notability, not the poem. SilverserenC 17:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep - it appears notable, sadly, and has been preserved by the Library of Congress. GiantSnowman 12:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain how it's notable, exactly? Especially when almost all of the sources don't even mention the poem or have a single sentence on it? SilverserenC 17:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
AbstainWeak delete While notability is not temporary, I don't see how article meets the lasting effects, geographical scope, depth and duration of media coverage criterias from WP:EVENT guideline. It seems to be century old WP:SENSATION. Article has serious issues with sources, including citations to material that does mention the subject matter at all. Unless refimprove'd, I'm inclined to delete per nomination. jni (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, even a mention (not a citation) 70 years later (1996) is already better than most newspaper publications get. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Still marginally important subject but sources have improved somewhat so I'll capitulate before the keep-camp. jni (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep. The poem appeared in several places (including, temporarily, the record of the US Senate), and the Baltimore Afro-American printed (most of) the poem in covering the Jessie De Priest incident, along with commentary on the abhorrent racism displayed by the poem. This seems to be a small, but significant, item in U.S. history, and helps to build a picture of US Society in the early 20th century, with numerous sources mentioning it (some in the article, some noted on this page, and also others). Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. -- 101.119.29.159 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Expand and rename into an article whose main topic is that White House dinner with Booker Washington itself, which appears to be a lot more notable, and to which the existence of the poem is basically just an historical footnote. Fut.Perf.☼ 13:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I would be perfectly fine with that. There's certainly enough coverage for the dinner to be notable, but the coverage of the poem is severely lacking. SilverserenC 17:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep Due to Bonkers' very mature comments relating to the article, I wish it could be deleted. It's notable, though, so it has to stay. Future Perfect at Sunrise brings up a decent point also, but we can discuss at talk. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain why it's notable? Almost none of the sources even mention the poem at all. SilverserenC 17:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep, per Crisco, I think this is a historically notable subject and should be kept. Personally I think that the poem's unmitigated dreadfulness on every conceivable level makes it a subject worth keeping a record of. Removing record because of fear of causing offence also contributes to these things being forgotten. —Cliftonian(talk) 14:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You haven't explained why it is notable, especially when most of the sources don't even mention the poem. Just because you think it is of historical import isn't a policy-based argument of any kind. SilverserenC 17:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep, historically notable, passes GNG, possibly expand and rename per User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's suggestion. Cavarrone 15:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It passes GNG because of articles from 1929 that are about an event? That gives the event notability, not the poem. And there is no evidence of all of enduring notability or continuing coverage separate from the reactionary coverage just after the event. SilverserenC 17:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Expand and rename as per Someguy1221's and Future Perfect at Sunrise's suggestions. Not notable enough in its own right to merit an article, but a legitimate component of an article on the actual event. Awien (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep and topic ban Bonkers from articles related to race for lack of competence. The amount of commentary on this more than 100 years olf poem establishes notability fine. SilverSerens argument that the coverage is not substantial is not convincing, clearly it is not comparable to the amount of coverage expected for high literature but for the kind of satirical/racist poem it is it is clearly substantial. Its not as if we could expect someone to write a book about it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think asking for a single article on the poem itself and not on the event is asking too much. Or evidence of non-trivial ongoing coverage beyond 1929. SilverserenC 17:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Speedy keep this is obviously a notable historical item, and well worthy of an article. Technical 13 (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
And yet you give no explanation on why it is notable. You don't discuss the references, you don't refute the statements made in my nomination. You haven't called forth any policy argument whatsoever. SilverserenC 17:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep deletion serves no purpose but to hide information that is valuable and of real historical interest. I see no reason why it should be renamed. Paul B (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
And yet another non-policy based argument that doesn't address the nomination statement or any actual policy reason for keeping the article. SilverserenC 17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The poem is only marginally notable, for sure, but there is no reason not to err on the side of inclusion for the reasons I gave. We are not a bureaucracy. And, frankly, I doubt anyone believes this would have been listed for deletion were it not for the title and content of the poem, even though your nomination does not say so. Paul B (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep -there's work being done on it AWS, and it shouldn't be too difficult to bring the article up to scratch. Basket Feudalist 16:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not an argument at all. You haven't addressed the nomination argument, you haven't brought up a single policy or reference to back up your claim of keeping it. SilverserenC 17:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You go ahead, girlfriend. Another non-policy based and pro-'I don't like nathty wordth'-based criticism... How many time do you wet yourself when Boyz n the Hood comes on?!?! LOL if you don't hack the lingo bredren Cheers! Basket Feudalist 09:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
What the hell? I didn't even make a single argument about censoring. It has nothing to do with that, but the utter lack of good references. SilverserenC 17:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I sense your frustration Silverseren! I think this is going to be one of those times you'll regret expending so much good effort on folly; but I think you've undertaken a fool's errand. I didn't include a bunch of interlinks to policy because it is my nature not to template an editor as regular as you; and I didn't link fool's errand either for the same respect in your competence. Frankly, I don't want to delve into this subject beyond the cursory review I'd done in proximity of the article's creation. And I do remember seeing enough to warrant the subject's inclusion as having met the burden of wp:gng.
12 online accessible links from wp:rs and 6 book citations is overkill in suggesting it relates to the threshold of significant coverage. Personally I think three solid references are sufficient to secure verifiable notability for a subject, and the additional references are for verification of the article's content; which I'm certain that you know the threshold for content inclusion is less stringent than the threshold for notability.
I'll keep an eye on the emerging consensus in this discussion and if deletion becomes viable by some measure, I'll compile a more specific argument; but this discussion answers itself from a rudimentary level, and I think you know this as well. I also took a very close look at your AfD contributions and do get a sense that a politically correct element exists within this nomination. And I think you mean well by your manner; but it's folly I tell you, and avoiding folly is a divine utterance to my understanding.—John Cline (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Addendum - By the way, I agree with Maunus that Bonkers The Clown is disrupting the discussions I've seen regarding this topic and I wouldn't suggest suffering his malfeasance much longer.—John Cline (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you realize that Bonkers is the original creator of this article? Too bad he disrupted us by creating content. Not everyone here cares if someone uses the nigga word in talk. jni (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes I realize "Bonkers is the original creator of this article" and I did not attempt to speak for everyone, particularly by prefacing my comment with "I agree" and "I wouldn't suggest".—John Cline (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep Do not attempt to remove history. Most here agree the name is abhorrent and John Cline has rightfully pointed to the folly of whitewashing everything in the name of political correctness. I do disagree about topic banning our court jester as throughout history black comedy has been used to draw attention to issues we may have other wise ignored. Bonkers in his demented way has accomplished that here. 172.56.11.197 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Notable, WNC, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, really? Is it that hard to make a policy based argument or at least discuss the nominator's argument? You do know that the closer is meant to disregard any non-policy votes, right? SilverserenC 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
And you know that having the nominator respond sarcastically to every "Keep" is rude and annoying, right? As for your complaint WP:NOTCENSORED and [WP:NOTABILITY]] are policy-based !votes, and that you, as nom, don't get to limit the grounds on which other editors based their decisions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Merge to an article about the dinner itself, the one given by TR with BTW as a guest. The dinner itself is the important thing. The "poem" is reaction to this event. The effect of this article is to give undue weight to the negative views while just barely mentioning the positive. BayShrimp (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep per nom. And yes, this is what I meant to say: the nominator's given multiple reliable sources that cover this poem sufficiently — the nominator's tone, together with the "hurry let's get it down immediately" tone of the WP:AN thread that brought me here, make it appear as if the nominator's ultimately motivated by dislike. Citations such as #9 are from established news media, and unlike WP:NOTNEWS-violating stories on the latest events, this article uses news media from years later to demonstrate that the poem remained a topic of interest decades later. "Datedness" is no reason to reject a source, unless it's something scholarly that's later been shown to be wrong; this would have passed our notability criteria eighty years ago, so it remains notable now. Meanwhile, the nominator's making irrelevant objections about certain sources not discussing the subject at all: they're given for background purposes, and they don't hurt the article. We have enough coverage to write about the poem itself, and we have enough background information to place it in context, so let's allow it to remain a separate article. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that any of the sources that discuss the poem in a non-trivial manner are the 1929 ones about the Senate event. That would give notability for the event, not for the poem. There is no evidence at all of enduring notability here. And please keep your assumptions about my motives to yourself. SilverserenC 18:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, delete this article or bury it in the test of another article where no one will find it. No one wants to point out the Jim Crow racist history of the "Democratic" Party and make it easy to find for those interested in non-revisionist history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.124.242 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC) — 74.83.124.242 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Merge this poem is by an anonymous author written over 100 years ago and is of no historical significance except as a reaction to the dinner hosted by teddy roosevelt for booker t. washington. It belongs in a section labeled as "reactions to the dinner." Agree with Bayshrimp. — Dadahorse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC).
Keep. Please assume good faith about my DYK review. I resent suggestions that I failed to review the sources. I did review the sources, and I agree that some added context without directly discussing the poem. As others point out, however, the poem is discussed directly in multiple sources from the article. Is that level and amount of discussion up to Silver seren's standards? Obviously not, but the detail in coverage necessary for an article (per WP:GNG) is something that reasonable people can (and frequently do) disagree on (and consequently a prime ground for discussion and consensus-building). Bonkers has behaved embarrassingly throughout this process and I would support a topic ban if anything like this continues (Silver seren himself is starting to bludgeon the process as well). Nevertheless, the poem is notable. Others have mentioned a merger, but there is no article to merge to yet, and that discussion should wait until there is such a target. The fact that the poem was republished for a second historical event makes this seem unlikely. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You haven't explained how it is notable. I clearly pointed out how, out of the 12 references, 4 are just a catalog listing of the poem, 1 is just a reprinting of the poem itself, 3 don't mention the poem at all, 2 have trivial 1-2 sentence coverage of the poem, and 2 have coverage of an event in the Senate in 1929 that has more to do about the event than the poem itself. So, where is the notability? SilverserenC 23:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That's simply not true; several references discuss the poem, particularly in the context of it having been read in the US Senate in 1929. And I would strongly oppose making the article about the dinner, since that means erasing the Senate episode from the article. -- 101.119.28.204 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Which one(s), 101.119.28.204? Awien (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Comment I totally agree with Silver Seren: in all the references that mention the "poem" at all, it is as a passing glance in coverage of the actual events. None of them (barring oversight on my part) are about the "poem" itself, which is what would be required to demonstrate notability. Awien (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Speedy delete. "Of course there is satire... The white presidential family and the niggers are heavily ridiculed in the poem. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ " If there is a valid topic here, the article needs to be deleted in its present form as a racist attack page and re-written from scratch by disinterested authors. --86.181.17.180 (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)— 86.181.17.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Fortunately, the article has been largely rewritten. -- 101.119.28.204 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Merge into article about the dinner. I agree with FutPerf. The dinner was the notable incident that got most of the attention. The poem is historically significant and deserves to have its own section in the main article, but the main article should be on Teddy Roosevelt's invitation to Booker T. Washington. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Nope, a merge is not ideal per reasons laid out by IronGargoyle above. Also by merging content definitely will be swamped. Let it stay as an article on its own and perhaps include a "See also" link to this article if there is an article on the Washington/Roosevelt dinner. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
KEEP The article is well sourced and is notable because it demonstrates the level of Racism in the United States at that time and 30 years later when it again raised its ugly head. The varying reactions of the notable politicians of that time also establish notability. We cannot delete history because we do not like a word no matter how inappropriate it sounds. Deleting the article would be foolish from a sociological and historical perspective. I am sure the reason to delete is well intentioned (but misdirected) but we all know the expression about good intentions. It is simply to important in the history of racism in America to try to bury it. The tone of the article does need to be watched carefully and possibly the article needs to be locked down. My opinion is some articles (due to their controversial nature) should only be edited by vetted academics with expertise in the subject area. That would not hinder submissions but additional editing. The problem with wiki is any fool or agenda pusher (and there are many) can edit but that should have no influence on whether to keep an article or not. That is why wiki's credibility as well sourced, academic tone and neutral point of view have yet to be established. 172.56.10.211 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep, while I wish we could delete the horrible racism from this period of American history, that is unfortunately not a possibility. This is an artifact of that history that received significant coverage and attention on several occasions from the US Congress. It's a subject we can have an encyclopedic article on, and we should. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
A simple request - Can anyone show me a single reference that has non-trivial coverage of the poem that is not printed directly after and is not about the 1929 event? That's all i'm asking for. SilverserenC 23:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you take this page off your watch list and find something else to do for a few days. The nomination states your case well enough that you don't need to badger respondents. An admin once told me to do this when I was getting increasingly annoyed and frustrated with a policy discussion. I didn't realize my behavior was rapidly becoming disruptive and confrontational, and it probably saved me from my first ever block. Sometimes it's best to just let things go; this is doubly true when you find yourself compulsively and angrily replying to policy discussions. It's not worth it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Restructure -- The incident, about which the peom was written, was clearly notable and we should have a WP artilce on that. The amount of reaction to the WP article makes clear that this touches a raw nerve with a lot of people who do not like it. I would prefer to see an article written mainly about the events that generated the poem, with the poem discussed near the end of the article, rather than an articel on the poem, which would merely be a fork of that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep Enough non-trivial coverage about the poem itself from independent sources. You can't exclude all coverage of the poem just because it was written when the poem was of public interest, especially when that was 20 years apart.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Except that the coverage of the 1929 Senate event is mainly about the event. The mentioning of the poem is not about the poem so much as it being read in the Senate. So, as an event, that might be notable. But the poem by itself is not. There is no critical commentary whatsoever that's been shown about the poem. And there is practically non-existence coverage of the poem when it was first made, other than a sentence or two in articles or books that are otherwise discussing the White House dinner. Again, all i'm asking for is a single article that is actually focused on the poem itself and not the Senate event. Finding a single article shouldn't be that hard if the subject is actually notable. SilverserenC 22:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I will repeat the above warning: I suggest you take this page off your watch list and find something else to do for a few days. The nomination states your case well enough that you don't need to badger respondents. An admin once told me to do this when I was getting increasingly annoyed and frustrated with a policy discussion. I didn't realize my behavior was rapidly becoming disruptive and confrontational, and it probably saved me from my first ever block. Sometimes it's best to just let things go; this is doubly true when you find yourself compulsively and angrily replying to policy discussions. It's not worth it. 208.54.40.240 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Repeating yourself doesn't actually make you more right or more convincing. You can ask for whatever you want, but I'm free to decide that policy doesn't demand that I give it to you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete or merge into an article discussing the dinner. Clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria... 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." Coverage is trivial. No "keep" voters have addressed this fatal flaw, and none has given a reason to ignore the guideline. It doesn't surprise me in the least that so many here would vote to keep an article with this title that clearly fails GNG. yuk! Awesome! heh heh! Niggers in the White House! Woah! heh heh! NOTCENSORED! Yay! "Nigger nigger nigger!" "We can so we will!"
Well, this time you can't. It doesn't pass GNG. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Added "or merge" 18:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Attributing childish motives to keep editors is utterly unsupportable, (with, I concede, the possible exception of "Bonkers the Clown"). The childishness exists only in your own last sentence. On the contrary, the reason that "keep" voters have repeatedly given is the fact that this is a significant and striking aspect of US history. The poem was printed and discussed in numerous newspapers from 1901-3 and in 1929. If this were an event happening now - some brouhaha in current newspapers about comments made by a US senator - there would be no doubting we'd have an artiocle on "X's comments controversy", of which there are many such. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Or do you miss the point that its discussion at the time(s) forms part of its reception history by sources. Paul B (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Did you miss the point that its discussion at the time(s) was as a mere footnote to a larger incident? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. It was involved in two quite separate incidents, which is why it is not a good candidate for merging into an article about the dinner. Of course such an article does not exist, so the suggestion that it should be merged into it is really rather meaningless. If such an article is created, a possible merger might be discussed then, though there are, as I have said, good reasons to oppose such a move. Paul B (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Then mention it in both articles on those topics (if either or both topics pass GNG) or simply delete it. Sorry. This poem doesn't pass GNG. If the one or two incidents around it don't have sufficient coverage for their own articles, then that just reinforces the poem's insignificance. Sorry. Go spray it on a fence somewhere, not on Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This argument is nonsensical. There is no doubt that the dinner could have its own article (there are whole books about it as well as an opera by Scott Joplin!). The fact that no-one has created one yet is not an argument that an article on a topic related to it should not exist. That's like saying we should delete an article on the deputy prime-minister of country X because no-one has yet created an article on the prime-minister. Many editors diagree with you about GNG, so just reasserting your belief more dogmatically, but with no coherent argument, does nothing of value. Your last childish sentence just indicates that GNG is not the real issue for you. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Great. So write an article about the notable dinner and, if you like, mention the otherwise non-notable poem. As for many editors disagreeing with me: eh? This place is full of fools and bigots, many of whom will flock to an AFD like this for the lulz and worse. That's why these things are not a vote. This poem does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, hence it is not notable. By all means mount an argument to support ignoring WP:GNG in this instance, but so far no one has chosen to do so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Referring to editors who have given coherent arguments as fools and bigots is both foolish and bigoted. No-one with half a brain can believe that the people who support the existence of this article are doing so from bigotry. The only "bigotry" and prejudice I see on this page comes from the opposite POV. Paul B (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
No, we are fools and bigots. You can never win a fool or a bigot in an argument, Anthony, so just drop it. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're not all fools and bigots. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete (or merge into an article about the dinner(s)). I find no compelling arguments here as to the notability of the poem. As has been mentioned many times, the references that support this article at best demonstrate the notability of the dinner that inspired this poem. The keep votes here appear to be, without exception, ignorant of either the notability guideline or the content of the references. This forum of course has the power to carve an IAR-based exception to the GNG (this is how little hamlets got kept at AFD for years before they were explicitly declared notable) - but it's tiring to see people pretend that this topic meets the guideline when it plainly doesn't. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The "keep" !voters here are quite aware of the sources and of the GNG. We have the subject of the article discussed repeatedly over a substantial period of time, with a substantial discussion in, among other sources, the Baltimore Afro-American. I find it very disturbing that some editors want to refocus the article to be solely about the dinner, thereby removing the perhaps even more significant 1929 Senate event. One can't solve racism in the present by pretending that racism in the past didn't happen. -- 101.119.29.15 (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Not a single person on this page is pretending that racism in the past did not happen, so I have no clue why you are trumpeting that line. You are also disturbed about something that isn't happening, since no one has suggested that the article be solely about the dinner - rather, the consistent suggestion is that the article on the poem become a part of an article on the dinner. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, and since the 1929 Senate event involves the poem but is completely unrelated to the dinner, it would get quietly swept under the carpet. -- 101.119.29.17 (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
We now have an article on the 1901 dinner, and an article on the 1929 tea party/Senate reading. Both cover the poem, and that is where it belongs. There is significant coverage in multiple sources of those two events. There is not significant coverage of this poem in multiple sources. It is mentioned once, in a footnote, of a biography of an African American Evangelist. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep. There's obviously enough sourced material here about the poem in particular, on multiple occasions, that it can't be merged into an article about a dinner, and of course we should not consider deleting it. Yes, there is a deep racial ugliness to it - conveying the truth, however, is our mission here. I wish that we had made more progress faster against racism, so that by now this would be a "Yankee Doodle" that folks of all races at the White House could sing over 'sparkling wine' to mutual laughter. But the time will come... Wnt (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
What sourced material about the poem in particular? Give me a single piece of critical commentary on the poem itself. SilverserenC 05:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
How's this for critical commentary (from the article): "Republican senator ... Hiram Bingham (from Connecticut) ... described the poem as 'indecent, obscene doggerel' which gave 'offense to hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens and [...] to the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.'" -- 101.119.29.35 (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Weak keep It does seem to just meet the bare minimum for WP:GNG with reference eight being compelling as a source mentioning the poem a hundred years after it was published. A merge doesn't seem appropriate since one event associated with the poem doesn't concern the only viable merge target.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 05:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment: additional references to the 1929 reading of the poem can be found in Pan-African chronology III: a comprehensive reference to the Black quest for freedom in Africa, the Americas, Europe and Asia, 1914-1929 (Everett Jenkins, McFarland & Co., 2001) and The New York Times. -- 101.119.29.35 (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Where? I've searched the text of that book and can't even find a mention, let alone significant coverage. What pages? Do you have a citation for the New York Times's significant coverage of the poem? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep - has passed a DYK review. enough sourced material. I see no reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Speedy KeepWP:IDONTLIKEIT is never a valid rationale for deletion. (I don't like it either.) If it didn't meet WP:GNG at the time of this nomination (which I believe it did), it certainly meets it now.Joefromrandb (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
And since neither article is a superset of the other or has rightful claim to be the article on this poem, that indicates that we should have an article on the poem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The poem itself isn't notable. It was reproduced several times in 1901-3; one newspaper article discussed it in detail in 1903, and it is mentioned in the footnote of a biography of an evangelical minister. There isn't significant coverage in multiple sources addressing the poem. All of the "further reading" and most of the citations in the article cover the White House dinner and tea party without mentioning the poem at all. This is a puffed-up piece of trollery. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
You left out several sources, such as the mention in the Joplin book, and did you perhaps forget about the poem's 1929 reading in the Senate? That received widespread coverage in 1929, and is also discussed in books on Afro-American history. I'd add Life Magazine's coverage to the article, except that someone would claim it was WP:OR when I pointed out that they're being sarcastic when they call it "a pretty little poem," and call Blease himself "chivalrous." This is a notable event in US history, though one I guess many people would prefer to forget. -- 120.144.24.102 (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The Joplin book says, in total, "The Sedalia Sentinal printed a poem on page one entitled 'Niggers in the White House,' which concludes with a black man marrying the president's daughter." That's it. That is a trivial mention. We're looking for significant coverage.
Where is the Life article? I am open to persuasion, you know. Just show me some actual significant coverage. The 1903 Baltimore Afro-American article I alluded to above is the only significant discussion of the poem per se that I've been shown. Bring a few more like that to the discussion and you'll have made the case. I've been looking very hard and have found nothing. Every source, except the Afro-American article, is either trivial or about a single event - the reading of Blease's Senate resolution - not the poem, per se.
The 1929 reading in the Senate is an event, centering on the behavior of the notable Coleman Bleaze, and it is dealt with, in detail, at Coleman Livingston Blease#Blease as Senator, where it belongs.
What "books on Afro-American history" give significant coverage of the poem, and why aren't they cited in the article? If they exist, why are you edit-warring to keep a list of books in the "Further reading" section that don't even mention the poem? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
It's going to be kept. At this point we would all do better to focus on improving the article rather than continued bickering here. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
If you remove that list of "Further reading" that doesn't even address the poem, that would be a start. Then perhaps you could find one source, other than the Afro-American article, that critically addresses the poem (more than one sentence from an outraged legislator.) I've been looking, and failed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Removing the "Further reading" section is a matter to be discussed at the article's talk page (I have commented there). As for finding more sources, that would be wonderful, but there's certainly consensus here that the article, as it stands, meets WP:GNG. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
That's been asserted, but anyone who's been challenged to point to the exact sources that contain significant coverage of the poem as opposed to trivial mentions (apart from the Afro-American article) has failed to do so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Failed to do so to your standards.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete. The significant event is the dinner, the poem is a bit of historical detritus connected to that, but insignificant itself. This is original research synthesis, stringing a bunch of sources together, many of which don't even mention the actual subject of this article, to create a facade of notability. Gamaliel (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete. As per nom and Gamaliel's points above regarding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The references do not establish notability for the poem in of itself and amount to merely trivial coverage at best. Perhaps merge some content to the article on the dinner as appropriate. As I understand it AfDs aren't straight votes per se, but based on the arguments made as well, so the point being asked above about what supports significant, non-trivial, coverage seems valid. Also think the assertions that the nom is merely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT to be a bit against WP:AGF when there is a reasonable rationale and argument provided as the basis of the nom. Number36 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I cannot agree with the nominator's discounting pre-1930 sources, since notability is not temporary. If anything, readily available sources for a century-old subject are likely just the tip of the iceberg. So I think this does edge past the notability bar. But if it is the dinner that is truly notable, it may be best to redirect this to an article about the dinner, merging a small amount of relevant content. Rlendog (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Just on the point about Notability not Being Temporary, reading WP:NTEMP that wouldn't appear to necessarily mean that early coverage of that nature (and as you say it's in the context of the dinner in any case) necessarily establishes notability. As per the example there "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." (Reading 'subject' for person, and 'article about that subject'), this would seem to be applicable in this case where it was mentioned only in the context of a single event. So I agree with your point regarding redirecting and merging with the article on the dinner.Number36 (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Hold on. This article will survive or not on the basis of whether there is significant coverage of the poem in multiple sources. I've read, I think, all of the sources for this article now and don't believe it passes GNG. I will collate them - those that actually mention the poem (the vast majority just talk about the dinner, the tea party and the senatorial rebuke) - with a transcript of every word addressing the poem, and hopefully that will make the question of notability clear, one way or the other. Presently the above consists of a lot of disputed claims regarding the nature of the sources. However, I won't be able to get to this for a day or so. So I would appreciate it if anyone contemplating closing this could wait a bit until that's done. (Anyone who wants to make a start is welcome to do so.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll get to this in the next day or so. I'm traveling. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep or merge into articles about dinner - the article as stands, presents a reasonably good analysis per the sources. Generally, it meets notability beyond the momentary coverage. However, the arguments towards upmerge also suggest a much better (and more thorough) article should subsume this one, Sadads (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
As noted above, a merge is not ideal, as the poem was involved in two significant events at the White House. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I think there is room, though, for the article about one dinner to hold the main discussion and the second to have another section referring with a See also, to the original section. Sadads (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Silverseren's nomination statement does a very good job of dismantling the referencing. The title is utterly horrendous, and the DYK hook that was tied to it even more so. Beyond that, there is a serious issue here that most of the keep !voters haven't even attempted to look at the sourcing properly; they've looked at the number of citations, and concluded that this must be notable. Notability isn't temporary, that is correct; however, the notability is for the dinner (which has its own article at present) and the tea, not the poem. Now, what we're left with is a poem that has a lot of mentions, but that's all they are; passing mentions. The events are notable, but the poem is not. For obvious reasons, the title is not appropriate for a redirect. I seriously hope that the poor sod who eventually has to close this can see through the non-policy based !votes on both sides, and give us a proper result one way or another; one that isn't no consensus. There may be some content that is worth merging into one of the relevant articles, and if there is, that should be done. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 22:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
There are in fact multiple sources describing the poem and its being read out in the Senate (including sources in the article, other books, and Life Magazine of 1929); this is a separate issue from the dinner and tea (though done in reaction to the tea). The title is indeed horrendous, but WP:NOTCENSORED. There's no point whitewashing the past: someone did write this poem, multiple newspaper editors decided to print it, and a US Senator read it out aloud in Congress. No doubt many US editors are ashamed of this, but Wikipedia's job is to present the historical facts in a WP:NPOV way. -- 119.225.153.211 (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Cut the bullshit about "not censored" and "whitewashing." The notable things here are the events, not the poem. The sources have been completely and utterly taken apart by a very accurate nomination statement, and it is clear that the mentions are only in passing, and that there is no independent notability whatsoever. And I'm not a US editor, so playing that card is wrong. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 07:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
If you want us to cut the "bullshit" about not censored, cut the bullshit about "the title is utterly horrendous". That's censorship talk, pure and simple.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not "censorship talk", racism is NEVER acceptable. Regardless of that, the IP was using the fact that Wikipedia isn't censored as a reason for keeping the article; the issues extend far beyond the title. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 08:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who begins a "delete" vote with, "The title is utterly horrendous", has no business telling anyone to "cut the bullshit". That's an "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" vote, plain and simple. Especially when it's followed by the baseless and false, "For obvious reasons, the title isn't appropriate for a redirect". Niggers in Paris is a redirect. Nigger Jack is a redirect. And we have other unpleasant redirects, such as James the Shit, which redirects to a featured article about a very well-known king. WP:NOTCENSORED is often misapplied, but it applies perfectly here. Get over it. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Fuck off is it a "IDONTLIKEIT" vote. Unlike the majority of people in here, I've actually used some policy-based arguments. Which you are either blind to, or just want to ignore. Read what I wrote properly, or go away. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 10:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I did read what you wrote; so will others, which is obviously why you're so upset. So, no thank you. You are free to "fuck off and go away", though. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
No wonder you got RFC/Ued... You clearly didn't read any of what I actually wrote, other than the bits you wanted to. Otherwise you would know full fucking well that it wasn't an IDONTLIKEIT vote. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 10:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
LOL. Repeating that again and again won't make it true. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Question: On a scale from George Washington to Barack Obama, how much did the word "nigger" influence your decision? If the answer is any higher than Andrew Jackson, you probably have racism and language on your mind. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia has very extensive articles on the words "nigger" and "fuck". It is possible to have a valuable article that educational, historical, and profane. Just because the title makes schoolchildren laugh does not mean that it's bad. —Zenexer [talk] 10:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
For some of these people, it's higher than George Washington. It's John Hanson. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Despite what some people are trying to portray (and my attempts to close the conversation have been spitefully and pathetically reverted, not that I expected anything else from that user; it's their modus operandi), it is very much a tertiary factor. The simple fact of the matter is that the referencing is an attempt at "look, we have loads of references, it must be notable" when, in fact, many don't mention the poem, and even those that do usually do it in passing. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 10:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
For me, it's the motive of the guy who wrote it - he knew that if he put "nigger" in the title of an article it would get lots of hits when it appeared on Wikipedia's front page (and he'd lined up 2 more "nigger" articles for the front page), and the fact that it's not notable - there is only one source that gives the poem itself significant coverage (the Afro-American journal mentioned above). Tomorrow, I swear, I'll summarise the sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for coming out and admitting that your dislike of the article's creator is the real reason you want it gone. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't dislike the author. In fact over the last couple of hours I've warmed to him considerably. He was trolling, though: referring to African Americans as "niggers" in conversation and wearing that swastika. No, I'm beginning to think he might be quite something, actually. It remains to be seen of course. I think he may have actually been genuinely oblivious to the degree of offense that behaviour would cause.
I'm not worried that white or Asian schoolkids would have sniggered at seeing the title, Zenexer. I'm concerned for the black children who wouldn't be sniggering. But this is closing the door after the horse has bolted. It's already had its day in the sun. If the thing was worth keeping, I really wouldn't be bothering with this. It's just that there is the notability problem. So it was the obvious dubious intent of the author that got my interest, but it's the notability problem that's kept me here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
"I'm concerned for the black children who wouldn't be sniggering." That is, IMO, a fundamentally misplaced view. Absolutely. Black children hear the word "nigger/nigga" all the time, especially in the music many of them choose to listen to. This is not a question of "protecting" vulnerable people. This article epitomises what Wikipedia should be about. This is the kind of article that will help children, black or white, who are studying the history of racism. It is an article that they and their tutors can use to explore the difference between the White House of Roosevelt and Obama. It draws atention to a moment of cultural history in a way that a more conventional article would not. The article brings together disparate moments of history is a way that makes them 'live' more vividly. It matters not one jot what motivated Bonkers. Maybe the person who created the "penis" article did so because they got a thrill from writing the word "penis". Who knows? It doesn't matter. All that really matters is whether it is useful, properly referenced and informative. This article gives the context clearly. Ironically, this whole outrage is topsy-turvy. Anyone could upload the poem without any of the cultural context and commentary to Wikisource (since it was published befiore 1923), and there would be no "policy based" arguments for deletion at all. It would be there in all its "glory" for anyone to read. Yes, its notability is borderline, but we should err on the side of inclusion in cases such as this, since the historical significance of the topic is clear. Paul B (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
All good points. That tally of sources is looking borderline now - and I haven't finished.
I'm merging the articles about the dinner and the tea into an overview about blacks in the White House from the Haitian ambassador in 1798(?) to Sammy Davis Jr. under Nixon (presently clumsily-named White House hospitality toward African Americans). I suppose if everything worth knowing about this poem can be comfortably contained in that article, it may make sense to merge Niggers in the White House into it, but that will only be clear once the full inventory of sources is done, and we know how much there actually is to say about the poem itself. (There is a lot of repetition.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. I do find the insinuations on the page that the nominating editor and people voting to delete/merge could only possibly be motivated by IDONTLIKE a little irritating and condescending though, and a needless distraction, there are plenty of policy based arguments here with supporting points/evidence provided, WP:AGF applies.Number36 (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
DeleteWP:N requires that the subject of the article be notable; per WP:GNG, this means that the subject have received detailed coverage in multiple independent sources. As Silverseren has clearly pointed out, this subject (the poem) has not been discussed in detail in multiple independent sources. It's been mentioned a few times, and even reprinted, but that is not itself sufficient per our notability rules. Of course, should some of the editors looking into this dig up more sources with significant coverage of the poem (i.e., not the dinner), then this could be kept or recreated. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment You can see a scan of the poem here. Also, in your searches, remember to use "white house", not "whitehouse"--they bring up very different results. Remember, primary sources cannot be references, so that image is not a valid reference. The rest of the page could be, I suppose, though I'd avoid it. —Zenexer [talk] 14:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
There appear to be an acceptable--though perhaps minimal--number of potentially reliable sources scattered about various archives. Whether they establish notability is another question. —Zenexer [talk] 14:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have gone off track, because I see angry mastodons. Discussions are meant to be objective, not personal. I'm creating this area for bulleted, specific facts. I plan to enforce objectivity in this section. Participation is obviously optional, but your contributions will help newcomers quickly pull out the facts. —Zenexer [talk] 14:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Each relevant policy should have a bullet. Under each policy's bullet will be a sub-list describing the ways in which the policy applies. Such descriptions can have further sub-bullets giving concrete examples (for example, specific references that are problematic). Do not sign the bullets; these are not comments. Avoid using shortcuts (WP:EXAMPLE) for policy bullets without adding descriptive text. Information on relevance should be short and sweet.
Example:
* [[Wikipedia:Policy 1]]
** How it applies
** Another application
* [[Wikipedia:Policy 2]]
** Relevance
*** Concrete example 1
*** Concrete example 2
*** Concrete example 3
A personal remark discredits a fact. Any personal or biased comments should be removed, and a note should be left on the author's talk page. Be sure to retain any objective material. Try to salvage as much as possible. Do not add any new information or change any existing information; you should be removing only, without changing the meaning of anything. Do not add your signature. If the meaning of the contribution must change to make it acceptable, remove it entirely.
If an edit war occurs, any controversial text should be enclosed in a <s>strikethrough</s> tag, unless the text is clearly true and objective, particularly to third parties. Further discussion should occur only on the talk page.
You should not be drawing any conclusions within this section. Such analysis is left to the reader. There is one exception: there can be a "Serious problems" pseudo-policy bullet which addresses issues not outlined by a policy. For example, if a large number of zero-edit users suddenly support an AfD, that is a serious problem. Serious means serious: these are problems that must be addressed by bureaucrats, and cannot logically be solved through discussion, or that outright break the discussion process.
In the U.S. Senate, Coleman Blease, a South Carolina Democrat, introduced a resolution of criticism that included a doggerel poem titled "Niggers in the White House" that was so offensive it was immediately expunged from the Congressional Record—but not before it had been read aloud on the floor of the Senate.
The resolution was read and Senator Hiram Bingham (Rep., Conn.) described the poem as "indecent, obscene doggerel ... [designed to give] offense to hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens and to give offense to the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution."
Edge and Bingham, supported by King, Walshand and Borah, objected, made points of order and asked for it to be tabled
Blease withdrew the resolution - because it offended Bingham, not because it offended negroes - and it was expunged from the Record.
Quotes part of the resolution and 10 stanzas of the poem.
In Joplin's adopted home town, the Sentinel splashed on its front page a poem entitled, "Niggers in the White House." In its final line a black marries the President's daughter. The inspiration for this invective might have been drawn in part from the fact that Roosevelt's daughter Alice often asked the Marine Band to play "Maple Leaf Rag" at White House Parties."
The Sedalia Sentinel printed a poem on page one entitled "Niggers in the White House," which concludes with a black man marrying the President's daughter.
Incorporated in the resolution was a lengthy poem entitled "Niggers in the White House," which was severely criticised by Senators Edge and Bingham, both Republicans.
Edward J. Robinson, To Save My Race from Abuse: The Life of Samuel Robert Cassius, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 2007, p.183
The Greenwood Chronicle published a derisory poem entitled "Niggers in the White House." A stanza of the poem went: [12th stanza]
Cole Blease, chivalrous Senator from South Carolina, read into the Record a pretty little poem entitled, "Niggers in the White House"...
Nicholas Von Hoffman, Organized Crimes, Harper & Row, 1984, p. 23 [3]
The matter reached the floor of the Senate today when Sen. Coleman T. Blease (D, S.C.) read a poem entitled "Niggers in the White House." After several of his colleagues requested, Sen. Blease agreed to have it struck from the Congressional Record, not, as he said, "because I am ashamed of my verse or consider myself an inferior poetaster, but out of deference to the misconceived feelings of some of the other members of this chamber...
Comment - The extent of likely copyrighted material replicated here is such that I'd prefer deleting it to be safe. No copyvios please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the two extensive quotes. The remainder I think conform to Wikipedia:Non-free content and WP:QUOTE. If I've got that wrong, please revert. I'll include summaries of the two deleted extensive quotes soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. These are from the article and this page. Are there any other reliable secondary sources that address the poem (not just reprints)? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that's it. I think that's the sum total of the coverage in reliable secondary sources over 112 years. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Almost certainly there are also other, offline, sources, but even what's in the table is IMHO enough for notability. -- 101.119.14.207 (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's just stick to what we have been able to find. I haven't participated in enough of these debates to know what usually passes for significant coverage in multiple sources but the above looks trifling to me. Hopefully an experienced closer will know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment If Anthonycole is right that what he has tabulated is the sum total of the coverage of the text, what it amounts to is a number of mentions, but nothing that constitutes an analysis of the text as such. Today's (Sept 27, 13) Featured Article Whaam! is a classic example of what an actual analysis of a work consists of: sections dealing with the background and the history, a description of the work, its reception, a thorough analysis and interpretation of the work AS SUCH, and a discussion of its legacy. Niggers in the White House has apparently never been the object of such a study of the text IN ITS OWN RIGHT, and therefore clearly fails to meet the notability guidelines. Awien (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Whaam! is one of the most famous of all 20th century works of art, so the comparison is pointless. Obviously Whaam! is much better known and far more widely written about. The question is whether it passes a basic threshold of notability, not whether it's famous. There are other sources, by the way. For example, it is discussed in David Day's article, for example. No doubt there are other instances of its discussion in 1901-3, 1929 and in recent scholarship. It does not have to have literature uniquely dedicated to it and it alone. We have separate pages dedicated to every single one of Shakespeare's 154 sonnets, and yet very few of them have books or articles dedicated to that sonnet alone. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Closer. I don't know if the above table represents "significant coverage in multiple sources" for these purposes but you should be aware that we now have Booker T. Washington dinner at the White House and Jessie DePriest tea at the White House which together contain most of the information in the table, and I am in the process of merging those two and adding prior and later history to make White House hospitality toward African Americans. When finished, it will comfortably accommodate all of the noteworthy information in the table. I'll be doing that over the next couple of days. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep Enough evidence for historical significance. Even if the information is used elsewhere, the sone is significant in its own right and needs an article .he requirements listed by Awien for an article on a literary work are excessive here --they're the requirements for GA, not just for passing AfD . (I can not exactly see the argument for making a parallel with Shakespeare's sonnets, each individual one of which does in fact have all this information available from good sources--but the individual sonnets are world-famous, not merely notable .). Notable is enough for an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The Interior (talk·contribs) – I am honored to nominate The Interior for adminship; indeed I am humbled. I first interacted with The Interior in March 2011; believing he was not only an administrator then, but one of the corps very best as well. I had observed his collaborations with others, becoming impressed by his competence, and respectful manner of conduct. We are both active in the DYK wikiproject and our first writing collaboration was on Ginger: The Life and Death of Albert Goodwin when it was a DYK nomination. The Interior is an excellent colleague and, I learned, a masterful writer as well. He well knows about the effort an editor expends to create encyclopedic content; demonstrated by his creation of Illecillewaet Glacier and persistence improving it to GA class. His AfD participation reflects the composite of his good qualities. His !votes are thoughtful, policy based, and without condescension and he has on occasion provided the sourced verification necessary to establish a subject's notability. He has 220 UAA reports and 79 AIV reports with exceptional accuracy on both noticeboards. And there are more attributes that reflect The Interior's qualifications, but listing them affects readability with excess verbiage. They are apparent in his contributions however, and seven days of scrutiny can only show how fortunate our community is to have The Interior volunteer more of his faithful service, for our benefit.—John Cline (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I am very delighted to co-nominate The Interior for adminship. I could write paragraphs of material expounding upon the editing skills, DYK work and AIV/AFD/UAA batting average of the candidate but I fear it may miss the point as to why I believe that The Interior is so well-suited to the administrative role. Although his editing statistics are indeed impressive, it’s the more intangible qualities that make The Interior such a fantastic candidate. He’s patient and kind. Understanding and honest. Intuitive and clueful. And he truly seems to “get” what this crazy project is all about and is able to nurture this same excitement for learning and knowledge in the editors he works with, both newbies and experienced editors alike. This combination of qualities, along with a sound understanding of policy and his willingness to roll up his sleeves and help out where needed, make The Interior a stellar candidate for the mop and bucket. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It is a great pleasure to recommend The Interior for adminship. I would be hard-pressed to think of any other editor who is more balanced, trustworthy, and ideal for this position. I first came into contact with him in discussions around the Education Working Group (since, the Wiki Education Foundation). One of the few long-term Wikipedian editors in the group, The Interior's contributions to any debate were always well-informed, eminently sane, and well-reasoned. He repeatedly showed his capacity to respond and listen to the points of view expressed by others. I have also seen The Interior intervene in the midst of heated debates and controversial topics, such as a flare-up a couple of months ago at Adrian Dix. Again, he showed excellent common sense, presence of mind, and unflappability in what was otherwise (however briefly) a rather tense situation in which accusations were flying both here and in the local press. Finally, I have had the pleasure of meeting The Interior a number of times in real life and can report that off-wiki as much as on he demonstrates not only his passion for the project, but also an enviable level of dedication, thoughtfulness, openness, and even wisdom. He will be an excellent addition to the admin ranks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I first met The Interior in person at the GLAM Bootcamp in April. For the first few hours, I had no idea what his name was, only that when he spoke, he made some seriously good points. I eventually spent something like fifteen minutes poring over the list of participants, trying to figure out who this guy was. Two and two eventually got together, and I realized that we had actually met before (online) when he was the driving force behind an excellent Q&A in the 18 March Signpost. The positive interactions I had with him then were bolstered after my obligatory Facebook-like stalking of his contributions—I discovered that The Interior is a fantastically helpful and productive editor. Some of the specific stats can be read above, but I've found that interactions like this or this are common. In short, his attitude and temperament demonstrated in discussions around the encyclopedia are ideally suited for the admin role. I ask that you give The Interior your support. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the kind words, folks. I accept the nomination. The Interior(Talk) 04:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: In short, I intend to help out in areas I'm familiar with. I believe I've seen enough vandalism, and how we deal with it as a community, to help respond to reports at AIV. I have a good grasp of promotional usernames and the grey areas around them to action those type of reports at UAA. I understand the philosophy and mechanics behind page protection. With almost three years of experience at DYK, I can help with requests at WP:ERRORS, hopefully decreasing the amount of problematic DYKs hitting the main page. Although not a prolific "prep-maker" on the DYK queue, I know enough to competently swap out hooks or construct decent hook sets. I'm not a heavy participant in AfD discussions, so I don't see this being a major focus of my admin work. I would, however, feel confident deleting speedy requests in the areas where I have done tagging in the past, namely {{db-spam}}, {{db-attack}}, {{db-catempty}}, {{db-album}}, {{db-song}}, {{db-vandalism}}, as well as blatant copyright violations. I would also be available to do revdel requests on our worst cases of vandalism. While I may move into other areas in the future (requested moves, categories for deletion, and histmerging all interest me), I would not do so until making significant amounts of non-admin edits in related discussions.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: "Best" is very subjective when talking about one's own work, but I'll talk about the work that has made me feel good about being a Wikipedian. I really enjoy exploring the province where I live, and working on articles like Adams River (British Columbia), Glacier National Park (Canada) and the Kitlope Heritage Conservancy enriches the experience of visiting those places. Researching these topics provides a connection with history and physical place that is impossible to describe, but very fulfilling.
I've very much enjoyed my work with various "outreach" initiatives, such as the Education Program, Wikipedia Loves Libraries, and the GLAM project. There are many energetic, optimistic and wildly smart folks working in these areas, and I'm lucky to be working with them. I believe these projects can help save Wikipedia from its own insularity, and connect it with the knowledge communities, high quality resources, and the new editors we need to keep the project going into this decade and the next. I'm proud of my contributions in these areas, both behind the scenes and through active roles like online ambassadorship.
Most of all, it is the collaboration and knowledge sharing with fellow editors that keeps me coming back. I'm very pleased when I can help bring people together to work on content. I have met some of the most interesting, intelligent, hardworking and altruistic people I know on the pages of WP. They are the reason this project has gotten to where it is, and they are its greatest resource.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: A frank and vigorous exchange of ideas is important in any intellectual endeavour. These exchanges can cause stress, and I'm not immune. It's important to remember that stress isn't all bad; there is the concept of eustress, the "good" stress that drives you to dig deeper into the sources, compose better sentences, and explore your opponent's viewpoints. I've been in the middle of quite a few heated debates, and have learned some lessons the hard way. I've set some guidelines for myself regarding disputes, such as:
never post angry - if a comment has really gotten your goat, step back for a few hours (or days) until you can approach it at least semi-rationally.
don't personalize - avoid personal criticisms except when truly unavoidable.
forgive and forget - don't carry old disputes with colleagues into new discussions and forums.
And most importantly, always try to search for solutions to the underlying problems, rather than the total annihilation of your perceived antagonists. These are ideals - I don't always live up to them. But I like to think I try, and I will continue to try in the future. ;)
4. How would you respond if, after becoming an admin you, came across an article tagged G11, with "Company X is a sprocket manufacturer headquartered in Small Town, USA. In the last year it has received multiple industry awards for innovation in sprocket design" as its contents.
A:The wording for g11 is "exclusively promotional", and here we have a description with a location, which is a start, a proto-stub. The awards claim would have to be sourced, but it may well be true. It should be rewritten to refer to the specific awards, preferably. It's a matter of sources from there. I wouldn't delete this as a g11. If the sources are very thin, or are all related to the organization, it would be a prod/AfD candidate.
5. As one of your intentions is to work in the UFAA department, I'd like to ask you a question based on the following usernames. What administrative actions would you take on the following three cases?
User:Satellitedirect who removes the redirect from Satellite Direct and creates a promotional page.
User:BigBlackCockerel who made a single vandalism edit on Rooster
User:Bottoman who edits constructively
A:
User:Satellitedirect: This username matches the target page, and the editing is promotional. Depending on the severity of the promotion, I would either warn with {{Uw-coi-username}} or block with {{Uw-softerblock}}
User:BigBlackCockerel: Again, depending on the severity of the edits, I would either warn the user that the username is unacceptable, or block as a vandalism-only account.
User:Bottoman: Not an unambiguously offensive username. If this was reported, I'd advise the reporting editor to either ignore, or start a discussion about it if they feel strongly about it.
Addendum: Minimac has pointed out myon my talk page that User:Bottoman could be confused with a bot, which was the purpose of its inclusion in the question. My understanding of the bot situation in regards to misleading usernames is that we prohibit usernames that could be "easily misunderstood" as being bot accounts. I would consider this editor to be in the clear in this regard - the string "b-o-t" as it appears in this name would not lead users to assume it is a bot account.
A: I've had that page watchlisted for quite a while. I find it's a good spot to keep up to date on the various "hot topics" being discussed on the project. I post very rarely though. I'm not sure how much more I can elaborate on this; I read it mostly out of idle interest.
7. In your work at DYK and AfD, how have you dealt with problematic, inexperienced, or otherwise inept editors?
A: A DYK review can be an excellent opportunity for newer editors to learn the finer points of article building. There's no question that a fair amount of substandard content gets through the gates at DYK, and I wish more of our good writers would participate. All too often, the reviews are too brief, and only take a superficial glance at the content. The "carrot" of main page exposure means that the newer editor is often willing to make major adjustments, if you let them know what direction they should be going in. I try to keep recommendations for improving the article clear and concrete and encourage editors to shoot for higher quality (I sometimes go beyond the strict interpretation of the DYK rules in my requests, but people rarely call me out on it ;)). I usually avoid the fail symbol in my reviews unless the article is irredeemable - I feel it discourages further work.
With AfD it can be more difficult - the process is inherently more confrontational, especially for the article's author. The same approach as above can work on occasion - if you lay out some easily followed steps (i.e. work on more neutral language, visit your local library and talk to a librarian about better sources, rewrite this paragraph using WP:RELEVANTPOLICY as a guide, etc.), sometimes you see improvement in the editor's work. Sometimes userfying the content and letting the editor tinker at it without the pressure of a deletion discussion hanging over them is a good approach (although this often leaves a problematic article mouldering away in userspace for an indefinite period of time). You can't win them all. Sometimes people don't want help, and just leave the project. For others, unfortunately, the next stop is usually one of our more dramatic noticeboards. Avoiding these two outcomes is something I think about when participating in discussions over problem content, in those venues you mention, and anywhere else on WP.
8. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using any other user names? If so, what were these?
A: Yes, I have. User:PEarley (WMF) is me. Other than that, no. There's a handful of IP edits over the years, all the result of not noticing I was logged out.
9. This is more an open-ended philosophy question... Do you feel there are structural problems with the Mainpage-Did You Know approval process? If so, what changes would you advise?
A: There is definitely room for improvement in the DYK system. DYK is based around several somewhat arbitrary thresholds (1500 characters, 5 days old, etc.). There is potential for improving content quality by tweaking those thresholds. Personally, I would prefer a slightly higher character count (2000 or 2500) and a ten day window for submission. I feel the higher count would lessen the number of "scraped-together" submissions, and the longer window would result in better research and copyediting. I would also support a DYK rule specifically regarding sourcing, requiring the reviewer to look at reference quality before passing the article. There is a justifiable fear of "instruction creep" in the DYK community - the more complicated the submission requirements, the less accessible the project is to new/casual participants. But we should be open to trials of different configurations. Although it was opposed by some of my colleagues, I think the introduction of GA articles to the mix will be an improvement, both in terms of content quality, and participation by experienced article writers.
10. After analyzing our CSD policy, you reach the conclusion that there is a definite space for a new CSD criteria. Propose the same here, giving logical support and reasoning.
A:Okay, I'll preface this with saying that I don't really see the need for a new criteria at this time. One of my pet peeves is people, usually professionals, using their Wikipedia article as a online c.v. or resume. This cheapens our brand, and gives other professionals the wrong idea (bigwig to his assistant: "Roscoe at SystemsTech has a Wikipedia c.v., why don't I? Get on it!"). So I propose raising the "reads like a resume" template to full CSD status. Criteria could read, "article is only a listing of positions held, awards won, alma maters, and laudatory quotes. References are exclusively primary in nature. Complete rewrite would be needed to transform into an encyclopedic article." It would be a cousin to g11, designed especially for people. We'll call it g12 g13 - Misplaced Resume.
11. "Disclaimer: Although I work for the Wikimedia Foundation, contributions under this account do not necessarily represent the actions or views of the Foundation unless expressly stated otherwise. For example, edits to articles or uploads of other media are done in my individual, personal capacity unless otherwise stated." Kindly provide diffs of "unless otherwise stated" and please show how have you clarified to editors in the past that certain edits to articles by you have been official ones. Thanks for your offer to stand in for administration.
A: The vast majority of my edits with the PEarley account are user talk messages soliciting volunteer translators to work on VisualEditor's interface translation, testing for bugs on our smaller wikis, and translating the Help documents for the new editor.([4]) I believe for those edits, the nature of the requests, the signature, and the blurb on my userpage are enough to make clear that the edits are done by a WMF contractor in his professional capacity. The account also does test edits on the smaller wikis, but these don't usually get past "preview". If they are saved, they are quickly self-reverted. There is also a small number of en.wiki article edits all involving removal of bad code introduced by VE, such as the unwanted nowiki tags.([5]) (although I now see two test edits with dabs that I neglected to roll back ...) In retrospect, my edit summaries for these edits should have included some indication that they were done in a work capacity.
The boilerplate you quote above (its presence on my userpage was required by WMF legal) I believe was designed more for WMF employees who have a single account, and may make personal edits from that account on occasion. This is not the case for me, all edits by PEarley (WMF) are purely work-related, and all edits by The Interior solely represent my volunteer work.1 I will add a note to the work account's userpage blurb page to clarify this.
Q5 was edited by the questioner after the original version was answered. I think this is misleading, and have reverted to the original version of the question. --Stfg (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - The Interior is one of the most qualified candidates for adminship I have ever had the privilege to support. Convincing him to run was a formidable task as he doesn't appear to expend much energy assessing his own value; instead, simply demanding his own best; in all matters, at all times—being satisfied for giving that of himself. Reviewing the talk page efforts to convince The Interior to run is good reading for anyone interested in knowing more about how this RfA came to be.—John Cline (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - As a fellow Wikipedian from the same city, I've had long-term positive observations of the candidate on variety of namespace. Calm, civil and consistent, excellent work with Canadian and Vancouver-related projects. Did you know? project would also certainly benefit with an additional mop from one of the most qualified candidates that I've also had the honour to support. Alex ShihTalk 05:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support – Candidate is quite familiar with Admin-related noticeboards (in particular UAA and AIV); has demonstrated their tenacity and maturity through the clear-cut processes they follow when dealing with conflicts; has an impeccable reputation as evident by their thought-out answers. All the best The Interior! —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, an exemplary editor, in word and action. –Quiddity (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - The Interior is the rare contributor who manages to do a lot of good work without causing drama or otherwise attracting attention to himself. We've interacted at DYK on-and-off and I've had his talk page watchlisted for some time now (for reasons I don't recall) and I can't recall seeing him say or do anything that would cause concern -- to tell the truth, I guess I assumed he was already an administrator. --Orlady (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This is such a no-brainer that I can't even come up with an adequate support rationale to do him justice. So I'll just link to some examples of gorgeous interior design! Of the images I've seen thus far, my favourite would have to be this one. :-) Kurtis(talk) 05:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I haven't run across them before, but they seem like an excellent candidate to me. Good luck! ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Response to the CSD question is reasonable enough, which was my only concern in light of the lack of recent CSDing. Monty845 05:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support no issues. --Rschen7754 05:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Has the temperament, judgment, and knowledge of policy to be an awesome admin. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per noms, a thoughtful, clueful candidate. Graham87 05:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. It's actually easier to find reasons not to support than reasons to support if they are to be qualified with more substantial rationales than 'Why not?'. In view of the strong, and almost unprecedented number of co-noms, I looked even harder, and all I can come up with is 'Why not?' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per the number of nominations. No issues and all the best towards your passing. Jianhui67Talk 08:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - saw this page at creation and have been waiting a week for transclusion. It's about time. Absolutely no reservations whatsoever here. GoPhightins! 10:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - net positive most likely Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Great contributor, see no reason not to. buffbills7701 11:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - I see no issues here. Deb (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I haven't encountered The Interior before, but looking around, I see a great style of communication and a lot of competence. Answers to the questions so far are excellent. I like how he responds to people who express stress by advising them to step away from the debates and edit an article. Oh, and he writes well. --Stfg (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support A host of nominations and no opposes... difficult choice. Rcsprinter(deliver) @ 16:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per my co-nomination statement.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't he a former admin or something? Very rarely do I see a (thought he was an admin candidate), which basically means extremely strong support. Secretaccount 16:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Sweet, finally a candidate so uncontroversial that it might finally drop "you have too many co-nominators" from the list of terribly stupid oppose rationales that are still used. Sven ManguardWha? 17:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per having too many co-nominators. ;) Actually, if Wictionary has an entry for "having a clue", Interior's picture should be attached to it. Resolute 17:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Too well qualified. 069952497a(U-T-C-E) 17:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support All looks fine to me. Widr (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Well-qualified, experienced in both administrative areas and content creation, and civil editor. Full support. theonesean 20:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Nice involvement in content contribution areas, unafraid to use Talk pages, appropriate involvement in admin areas. Friendly, helpful and clueful interactions with others. Zad68 20:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Distribution wonderful. OK Q1-3 show knowledge and deliberation. Mentions AIV and UAA and significant number of reports in both. Looked at some AfD misses and they are not an issue. Cannot spell "barnstar", but that is not a reason to oppose. Glrx (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support: For last few months, I have been working with this editor, and that's how I am aware of his works and behavior. He is a very friendly editor and understands his responsibilities very well. I see no issue. I am confident that he'll be a great admin. --Tito☸Dutta 21:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks like an extremely competent well thought editor. NativeForeignerTalk 23:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Yes please! Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 23:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support: Answers to the question were well written with great knowledge and insight of Wikipedia. Edit history shows routinely good contributions. ///EuroCarGT 01:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Yes! A fellow British Columbian! Welcome aboard :) -- Ϫ 01:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support – no need to pile on to what's already been said. Good luck with the mop. Deadbeef 01:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, as possibly the best-qualified candidate I've seen in my time here. Miniapolis 01:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per noms, his contributions, and common sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are all satisfactory so far. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Adequate tenure and adequate edit count, with a nice mix of mainspace to other areas. Clean block log and no indications of assholery. Seems an excellent candidate for the tool box... Carrite (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support well qualified and ready for the mop Royalbroil 05:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Agree with much of what has already been said; strong candidate for adminship. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 07:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Per nominators. Looks like a WP:RIGHTNOW to me .... Pedro : Chat 10:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - seems to be a solid candidate with enough experience in all the right areas to be fine with the tools. GiantSnowman 10:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. I am uneasy about CSD closure, but AIV work should be helpful. Axl¤[Talk] 10:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
support checking logs reveals trying out most of the functions available as well as diverse participation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Sure, no reason to oppose. Kumioko (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support but no need for nominators to feel delighted, humbled or honoured; you haven't won an Oscar, just indicating that this editor is capable of blocking vandals. Regarding the candidate I have no concerns Jebus989✰ 11:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Why not?--Pratyya(Hello!) 14:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - per the "Fallacies of relevance" box on the user page Kraxler (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Clueful responses. Gobōnobō+c 16:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Fully qualified candidate. In fact, so well qualified that I think the project should hire an assistant for him, who would be referred to as the Secretary of The Interior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I have to admit; I cracked a smile at this. Move over Sally Jewell. GoPhightins! 01:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
To keep things Canadian, we'd have to be referred to collectively as the Ministry of the Interior. The Interior(Talk) 02:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I already thought this editor was a sysop. Mkdwtalk 00:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I rooted through your talk page and lots of your contribs. Everything I saw looked very good. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Very qualified candidate. TCN7JM 01:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, although I must admit that my review was only cursory. Xrt6L (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Interesting idea for DYK, your a very good candidate for the mop. Whispering 02:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Why not? Seems like a good candidate, StevenD99Talk | Stalk 03:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I see no reason why the candidate would not be suitable for admin. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. The Interior is an enormous asset to our community. He's an eminently reasonable, level-headed, thoughtful guy with a fantastic personality to boot. I've met him in person and his calm and inquisitive demeanor was both reassuring and authoritative. He has a useful library sciences background, he gets policy debates, he takes a neutral stance in complex topics, and he also wants to do meaningful outreach to cultural institutions. We should empower all of his future pursuits with the bit, which I'm sure he'll use to great ends! Ocaasit | c 15:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. One of the rare editors who has absolutely no potential RfA ghosts in the closet. Will wield the clue-bat well. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 16:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I've not had anything to do with either account, so far as I know - which could be a good sign... Good answers, and comments. Looks good to me. Peridon (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Because I haven't had much interaction with The Interior, I waited this out a couple days to see if any Oppose votes seemed to click. However, it's been two days and there are still zero oppose votes, so I see no problems here. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 18:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Strongest Support - HOO YAH. I've been waiting for this for a LONG time. YEA! PumpkinSkytalk 22:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any problems. Good nom, good answers to questions, good content contributions, no reason to suppose he will abuse the tools. --John (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - A pleasure to work with. A responsible wordsmith who will make an excellent Admin. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - You've got great contributions. I've noticed that you have the ability to become an admin. Well good luck for that. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Per above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Nothing to oppose. A.amitkumar (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, I don't think there is much else to say. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, will make an excellent Mountie. -- Hillbillyholidaytalk 10:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Highly impressed. I generally refrain from piling on, unless it is a vote of support and I want to shout it from the rooftops. :::virtually shouting::: I am fully confident that The Interior is now and will continue to be an asset to the project. Thanks for stepping forward! Best regards, Cindy(talk) 15:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support based on answers to questions; seems level-headed. ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn 18:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. No problems at all. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Mop wisely, and use environmentally-friendly chemicals. KrakatoaKatie 04:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - I disliked the answer to Q10 but he has been helpful to me in the past when I was misinformed. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support – My interaction with the candidate on DYK has been nothing but positive, and he has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he is capable of handling the mop. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Always helpful to have Main Page admins; will definitely be helpful there. SpencerT♦C 07:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per KrakatoaKatie. PhilKnight (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - per nom and per above. Begoontalk 14:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - per the overwhelming supports and my own assessment of the candidate. Have never encountered this editor, but appears to be ready for some of the most thankless tasks we have. My deep appreciation and best wishes in the times ahead! Jusdafax 18:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support See no concerns has been editing regularly since May 2010 and good content contributor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is an easy support, and I agree with pretty much everything that has already been said. I feel like taping the answer to Q3 to my computer monitor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support No evidence tools or position will be misused. Appreciate user's contributions to geographical articles, and his recent work in bringing Glacier National Park (Canada) to GA.--MONGO 23:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. From what I've seen, looks good. Good at communicating, which is key. SilkTork✔Tea time 09:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Good article work and rational, level-headed contributions at AFD (not a lot of AFD, but what's there is good). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, no concerns. --Laser brain(talk) 12:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Support The editor has created 42 articles, with good referencing in all but the earliest couple. AFD participation has apparently been in less than 100 instances, but there is a healthy mix of Keeps and Deletes, with good reasoning showing familiarity with relevant guidelines, while being articulate and civil. Thousands of edits, mostly to articles, showing good dedication to actually improving the encyclopedia. Seems a well qualified candidate for the mop. Edison (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I know his work, and i trust it. (I do not think I agree with him about his proposed CSD criterion, because such material can be easily rewritten if worth the trouble, but the question of how much rewriting of improperly handled material we are prepared to do is a dilemma with no clear solution.) DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Tolly4bolly 08:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Has plenty of positive edits, good understanding of how things work, and has survived through edits/discussion related to Rob Ford and Rick Santorum???!?!? Definite support! ES&L 11:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Good editor --cyrfaw (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Wholeheartedly support! I would not be the autoconfirmed editor I am today had it not been for The Interior! A patient instructor. A thoughtful writer. A meticulous citer. And someone who will stop the car to take pictures for articles. WP needs more of that! :) Anna KovalTalk 15:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support with all of the dotted is and crossed Ts Technical 13 (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - A Trusted editor. Clear need for the tools demostrated as can be seen from their answers. Rest everything looks good. ~TheGeneralUser(talk) 02:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Moral Support - I agree to the comments as per above. I also checked his/her contributions, and I seen it 100% constructive, so I guess its time for him/her to become an admin. Izzy IzumiProdigious!Check! 02:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Collect (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC) per [7] wherein he dismisses WP:BLPCRIME as policy IMO. Could move to support if he makes a strong statement of support for BLP concerns (I am not posing a question as such, as they tend to get answers found to be "tried and true" in the past <g>) .
@Collect: please could you explain how that diff "dismisses WP:BLPCRIME as policy"? It's hard to see the mayor of Toronto as "relatively unknown". Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
He stated there that his belief was that the "theoretical authoritative biography" of the living person should include the allegations made of criminal activity. The issue was use of a gossip site (Gawker) as a source for criminal allegations based on a video which now appears not to exist at this point. I considered such sites to not meet the strong requirements of WP:BLPCRIME while he averred that Ford was a sufficiently high public figure as he has a Wikipedia article for such allegations to be included. No police action has been taken, nor is any likely, for the alleged crime. For some odd reason, I consider allegations that a person was smoking crack cocaine to be a contentious claim about a criminal act, and suggest further that the WEIGHT given to a gossip site for such a claim should be de minimis. I note that I hold a strong view about that policy, and would like him to elucidate on why it does not apply in the case at hand, and where he would find it applicable to a person sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia BLP. If no one with an article is "unknown" that that part of the policy is, frankly, meaningless. Collect (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
If Gawker had been the sole source in that ugliness, I would have been right beside you in opposing mention of the incident. However, the involvement of the Toronto Star, and the fact that two of its reporters stood by their story that they had viewed the tape, complicates matters. I believe it was the reputation of the Star that led many other reliable sources, such as the New York Times and the Guardian, to also report on the story. When faced with those sources, it was very hard for me to support your position re: BLPCRIME. In general, I’m usually quite conservative about including these sort of allegations when the sourcing is not a strong as it was here. The Interior(Talk) 20:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually only the Star and Gawker were sources on the day of our colloquy -- we still are at a point where we have "strong sourcing" that the allegation was made, but absolutely zero sourcing for the truth of the allegation, and strong sourcing that no charges were filed. Thus the question still remains - was Ford sufficiently notable that the mere presence of an allegation of criminal activity was sufficient for it to be placed in his BLP, based only on Gawker and the Star reporting on the Gawker story, lacking any of the later sources now used? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Not to hassle you, but just to add my 2c. on this particular incident, mostly for other readers. I have to say that, like Stfg, I don't read The Interior as dismissing WP:BLPCRIME in that comment. Not even close. In fact, he had just shown that he had read WP:BLP rather carefully. On the particular point you raise, the claims a) were initially raised not only in Gawker but also in a broadsheet that is Canada's highest-circulation daily newspaper; and then b) were reported by every other media outlet in Canada, as well as widely in the rest of the world. But not to continue that debate. More to the point, I like The Interior's approach in this instance, and I like his more informal explanatory gloss or rule of thumb on WP:BLP: "What we really should be thinking about is if the theoretical authoritative biography of this man, when all is said and done, would include this incident." This is a sane approach, and I wish more Wikipedia biographies of living persons would follow it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
@Collect: thanks for explaining your position. I don't want to take sides on that discussion here, but suffice to say that it seems to be an issue of how the BLP policy applies to the case, rather than a dismissal of the policy itself. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Collect, I wrote BLPCRIME, and I particularly don't see Interior's analysis of the issue as being faulted. Your diligence in the issue is appreciated, and should be continued in BLPs; at the same time, perhaps the usage of Exceptional (which demands multiple exceptional sources for any exceptional claim) would have provided you a stronger basis for your debate at that time. Irrespective, I believe The Interior would and is learning from their exposure to BLP editing and should be an asset to the project. WifioneMessage 19:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is at what point disputed allegations against a highly notable (not a borderline) individual become significant enough to be reported because the allegations themselves are influencing real world events. This is a significant and recurring BLP-laden area that requires difficult line-drawing by responsible Wikipedians, just as it does by responsible newspapers and others. (Michael Kinsley first drew this issue to my attention in an excellent article on this point, long before Wikipedia, in the context of Gary Hart and the 1984 US presidential campaign (the article is reprinted in his book Curse of the Giant Muffins)). For more examples, framed as hypotheticals but all with actual biographies as inspirations, see my essay Wikipedia:BLP examples for discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Final (86/35/8). Ended @ 13:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC). Closed as successful by WJBscribe following bureaucrat discussion @ 14:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
For the past six months or so, I have been a participant in the conversion of several of the Citation Style 1 templates from {{citation/core}} to the Lua-basedModule:Citation/CS1. The module's primary author and another editor (both admins) have chosen to pursue other interests. There is still work to be done on Module:Citation/CS1 and its associated support files and documentation pages. This is work I am interested in doing. However, because these module pages are protected, it is difficult for me to do this work now that I no longer have a readily available, interested, and actively participating admin who can synchronize the protected pages from the sandboxes where I have made and tested changes and fixes.
I seek administrator privileges so that I may continue to do this work.
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Technical, especially Module:Citation/CS1 where I have a continuing interest in seeing that the Citation Style 1 templates work properly and consistently, but also other templates that over time I have noticed could do with a bit of a tweak. This does not mean that I intend to set about fixing every template just because I can. Where there are obvious deficiencies or (here's a real world example) parameters like |first=yes where it isn't at all clear what that parameter is really supposed to do, I'll think about making changes.
My skill-set doesn't include conflict resolution except where something technical might be a way to resolve a problem. In general, I will stay away from interpersonal conflict because my skill-set isn't a good fit there. I will be available to editors who are in a position similar the one I now find myself in – fixes or enhancements have been or need to be made to a template or a module and an admin is needed to take it the final step.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In April 2013 I hit upon the idea of linking error messages emitted by CS1 citations to anchor points in Help:CS1 errors – anyone else could have done this, I just got there first. That help link in those red error messages that you either love or you hate, was my idea; most of the text in Help:CS1 errors is mine. Each section of Help:CS1 errors contains a link to the category page related to the error message. Help text from Help:CS1 errors is transcluded in the category pages so that the message about the error is consistent for editors. When help text needs to change, that change is made in only one place which eases the maintenance burden.
Addendum: I do gnome work: typos, grammar, spelling, overlink reduction; I insert {{convert}}, {{clarify}}, and other templates; I fix dead links, unify citation formats, correct CS1 parameter misuse. This last is what got me involved with the CS1 migration to Module:Citation/CS1. Currently I'm working my way through Category:Ship articles without infoboxes adding infoboxes. I have done enough content creation to know that my interests lie elsewhere.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes. I don't particularly care to be reverted. I think that the work that I do is constructive and improves the encyclopedia so it irritates me when that work is reverted. Over time I have learned to abandon articles where my help isn't wanted. If I feel a need to say something, I take my time getting around to it and will often sleep on the problem before I write a response. On talk pages I take care to keep my writing impersonal – I think I'm mostly successful at that. I think that I rarely use personal pronouns of any sort except when identifying myself or another editor and then, it is almost always as Editor <name>. I tend to write as if I'm addressing a broader audience than just a single editor. Doing that helps me stay detached and so limits my stress.
4. Thanks for nominating yourself, and for seeking to resolve what must be a frustrating conundrum in which you find yourself. As you mentioned, you don't have skills that many "typical admin" have or should have, namely conflict resolution. Should you be granted the tools, do you ever see yourself expanding your use of them beyond what you outlined in question one to expand in to conflict resolution or deletion? Thanks.
A: No, I do not foresee myself expanding into conflict resolution or deletion. While others have those skills that I do not, likewise, I suspect that I have skills that they do not. And so, we're balanced. It's possible that over time I could grow into other aspects of the typical admin, strange and unexpected things do happen, but I think it unlikely. That just isn't me, and never has been. I'm very content doing the things that I do and have done and wish to continue to do. Thank you for asking.
5. Why do you "no longer have a readily available, interested, and actively participating admin" to edit protected templates? (In other words, was there interpersonal conflict involved?)
A: If by that you mean any interpersonal conflict involved between the two admins and me, then the answer is no. We, of course, had our differences of opinion but they were only that, differences of opinion. Though it has not been said, I suspect that the Module:Citation/CS1 primary author left because the fun bits of the work had been wrung out of it and there was fun to be had elsewhere. The other admin, after years of unacknowledged toil, had finally had enough and resigned from the CS1 project. As far as I know, neither departure had anything to do with me.
6. In Q3, you said I don't particularly care to be reverted. I think that the work that I do is constructive and improves the encyclopedia so it irritates me when that work is reverted. Over time I have learned to abandon articles where my help isn't wanted. Given that your interest is focused on working on templates/technical work, what happens if your work is reverted or otherwise challenged on these fronts, say on Module:Citation/CS1? If the conflict is interpersonal, would it be appropriate to abandon this line of work as well?
A: It's a different world over there in module and template space. When I see a need for a change to a template or module, I make the change in the sandbox version first and very often publish an example of the change on an appropriate talk page after I've tested it to see that the change works (and that I didn't break something else). This gives other editors an opportunity to comment and criticize before the change is taken live. I think that because I have put the work out there in sandbox form expressly to be challenged, that a reversion is much less likely than it would be in article space. Those examples also serve to show editors who have raised issues about the template or module that their concern has been heard and addressed – even if only to the sandbox phase.
Being reverted and told that my help isn't wanted in some particular main-space article doesn't stop me from contributing elsewhere. That kind of rejection appears to come mostly from editors who mantle over their articles like a hawk over a mouse. Because I work first in the sandbox, such a module or template "owner" can see what I'm doing as I do it without necessarily feeling threatened; the "owner" can see the test cases, the example, the explanations for what I've done in the talk page and all before a change is actually implemented. You asked specifically about Module:Citation/CS1 and an interpersonal conflict. I'm finding it remarkably difficult to imagine a scenario like the one you suggest. At Module:Citation/CS1 there isn't anyone mantling over the project. I think it would take a strong, pushy, knowledgeable, opinionated editor – one who figures out how to push my buttons – to come to work on the project and intentionally cause me a fair bit of heartburn before I'd move away from that project.
7. At some point in the future a significant and persistent administrative backlog could occur in areas outside your expertise. If this RfA is successful, and you were to be called on at such a point in time to contribute to clearing the backlog, what do you think you'd you do? -- Trevj (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
A: If the backlog is outside of my competence, then I have no business working on it. What I can do, is work on things within my competence to relieve others for work in their areas of competence.
8. Outline the efforts you made to fill the Admin. resource void in the area where you require assistance before you decided that seeking to become an Admin. yourself was the way forward.
A: Little. I realized that I had been spoiled. A readily available, interested, and actively participating admin is one who comes to the project to work on it because of the desire to work on it; is one who contributes materially to coding, to code review, to testing, to discussions about all aspects of the project. That is much different from an admin who agrees to be on-call for activation of new code. An on-call admin would be little more than my own private {{edit protected}} handler. Because there is still a lot to do, at some point, I would begin to feel that my requests for admin intervention were an imposition which, if it were, could lead to bad things. Better, I thought, to seek sufficient userrights to edit protected pages myself. Were there a more path to only those userrights, I would have taken it.
9. What are your thoughts on administrator recall? (Note, I'm not asking if you're open to it, as that's generally not a fair question in an RFA since any answer to that question is technically non-binding.)
A: Baffling. Climbing up this side of the admin mountain, the RfA trail is organized, disciplined, and seems to have been designed to be that way. It perplexes me that processes for accusation, for finding of fact, for determination of guilt or innocence, and the like don't seem to have been similarly formalized and codified. But that wasn't your question. I'm not all that comfortable with the idea that admins who stand for recall can set their own thresholds for accusation. I acknowledge that those who do stand for recall are probably not going to face recall. But, in the best of all possible worlds, I would rather see a uniform process with standardized procedures from accusation to judgment that are the same for all in the community regardless of whether one is a pauper or a prince; where the accuser's and accused's rights are defended and they are each held accountable for their actions. It doesn't appear that there is a great deal of enthusiasm for administrator recall; the last edit to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall was in January of this year and that was the addition of a {{clarify}} template.
10. What do you think of the recently introduced "|accessdate= requires |url=" cite template error which ignores DOIs, PMIDs, PMCs etc? [8] How would you fix it? Honestly I don't even know where to report it.
A: I think the error messages are a good thing. We can't fix things if we don't know that they're broken. Templated citations by their very nature cannot be free-form. That means that with the benefits of templates there are also limitations. The limitations are documented in the various Citation Style 1 template documentation pages. |accessdate= is specifically intended to identify the date that an editor consulted an undated, or ephemeral on-line source that is linked with the value in |url=. The identifier parameters to which you refer are used to produce external links to stable, dated journal articles. Because these types of sources are stable, and were published in dated journals, the correct parameter to use with them is |date=. |accessdate= in these situations is meaningless because there is no |url= and because the sources are not ephemeral.
While the words in the error message are mine, the decision to detect, identify, and report these errors was made by several of us at Module:Citation/CS1. The code is working as it was designed to work. The correct fix is to repair the citations where the error has been detected. Further information about things to watch for when repairing this particular citation error is at Help:CS1 errors.
11. Would you still seek adminship were a proposal along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right to pass, which would give you the ability to make the template edits you wanted to, without the full package of admin tools?
A: I would not have pursued this RfA had there been another way to acquire the requisite user rights.
12. Sort of a follow up to #11. Assume that your RfA has passed and then another option becomes available that allows edits to protected templates becomes available that meets the needs for the type of work that you want to do, what would you do?
A: Without appearing to count the chickens before they hatch, I'm optimistic that RfC/Template editor user right will pass. After the dust has settled around the RfC and its policies and procedures are in place, I have every expectation that, it meeting my needs, I will ask to be reclassified to template editor. Given the assumptions stated in the question, I intend the interim period to show that those who have voiced trust in me here, were correct in their assessment, and so leave a record should I ever decide to seek administrator rights in future.
I am concerned that this RfA is or might be jeopardized by the mere presence of the RfC. I ask that those who will be !voting remember that template editor user right does not and may never exist; that if the decision is taken to create template editor user right, it will reach final implementation at some unspecified time in the future.
Support Sounds reasonable. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is the most unusual RfA that we have had recently. I believe that this is a legitimate reason for requesting the tools. Trappist's use of the editing tool will benefit Wikipedia. I am prepared to assume good faith that he will not use the other tools such as blocking or article deletion. I agree with Kudpung that a little information on Trappist's user page about the nature of his activity in Wikipedia would be helpful. [As an aside, I am intrigued to see that "Clitoris" is his most edited article, although that has no bearing on my !vote.] Axl¤[Talk] 09:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Per Joefromrandb, but I'll also add, the candidate is a longterm uncontentious editor who has been here for four years and has a squeaky clean blocklog. I checked a sample of their deleted edits and saw nothing of concern. When I assess a candidate at RFA I look for a diversity of involvement, and though the self nomination implies a narrow focus the edits show an editor who has contributed usefully in various areas of the pedia. I also look for clear, civil communication skills, and looking at both the edit summaries and the talkpage contributions I consider that this candidate passes that test. I would suggest that Trappist expands their Q2 answer to include a couple of articles to which they've added reliably sourced content, I found enough such activity in their edits to satisfy me, but many RFA !voters like to see that skill evidenced in Q2 or by a list on their userpage of articles created or expanded. I would happily trust this candidate with the whole toolset, that they have no immediate intention of using more than the tool that they are most qualified to use is in my view a positive. ϢereSpielChequers 11:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I rarely provide content. To suggest otherwise at Q2 could easily be disproved and so deep-six my RfA. —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Some RFA !voters look to see what the candidates main focus is, and a few expect a main focus on content. I'm not bothered if an otherwise well qualified candidate only rarely provides content, but I do want to see that a candidate has mastered the art of citing information to a reliable source. An addendum to Q2 to the effect that "My main focus is not on content, but I have done x,y and z" would not be misleading, and I believe would have demonstrated that you meet most people's minimum criteria for content. There are some !voters who have higher content expectations than I do, it will be interesting to see if they make an exception for your template work. ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support This is exactly why we need unbundling. Usually I would oppose a nomination like this, because it involves giving powerful tools to editors unable to make the best use of them. But we can't afford to deny ourselves the contribution of editors with key skills because we don't have a way to give the right permissions without the wrong ones. We're in cloud cuckoo land with having this all-or-nothing approach and then requiring all-round perfection. In this case I have the impression that Trappist knows himself and doesn't intend to overstep. I've read some stuff he posted at Talk:Clitoris and I don't find it excessively terse; it's constructive and perfectly courteous, and he's shown he can accept being proved wrong. I trust him. --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Seems okay with me. Jianhui67Talk 12:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per WSC. This is the way RfA's should be. —Soap— 12:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is an entirely credible reason for needing the sysop bit, which will benefit the project. Unbundling would be good, but in the mean time we need to be pragmatic. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support No problems --cyrfaw (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Net positive. No reason to think that Trappist, who I've seen around a fair bit, will abuse any of the tools. As Guy says above, we should be pragmatic about requests of this type. Also, who knows, in time he may become interested in doing admin work, and will teach himself how to. — Scott•talk 15:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - As not all admins are expected to use every administrative privilege or administrate every area, I don't see how this differs from any other RfA. Triplestop (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I asked Q4 Q5 because while I don't think any of us like being reverted, the candidate (who would have access to the block button) made a point of saying so. However, I'm generally satisfied with their answers and am assuming good faith per Scott, who has seen them around. Think they will be a net positive. Miniapolis 16:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support A reasonable request for a modest purpose. I like their answers to questions - not pretending or aspiring to anything beyond their current focus. I have no fear that they will abuse the tools, and I believe granting them the tools will help the Wiki. I commend them for their willingness to work in an area that apparently has no-one else monitoring it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Ideally he should get an unbundled template-coding privilege, but seeing as that's not currently possible... There are many avid coders with hands tied on full-protected templates, the number of which is on the rise recently, as the bar for full protection seems to be getting lower and lower. If we continue making it difficult for the relatively few avid template coders to edit the most used templates, we all suffer. This person appears to have a good head on their shoulders, judging from the communications I've seen thus far (I've always been deadset against the tradition of judging admin candidates on article content contributions, so I'm really not concerned there), so until there's an ideal solution, I'm comfortable with this less-than-perfect one. equazcion(talk) 17:24, 9 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Support A reasonable request for a tool to do something very important for WP; if we could give permission for this alone, the ed. would undoubtedly just have asked for this, but this is the only available route. The question for this particular tool is whether he would misuse edit-protected for other purposes, and there's nothing to suggest that he would. The question more generally is whether he would use the other tools, and everything he has done indicates he would be careful not to , and furthermore I suppose we must ask what would he do if hedid use the buttons by error, and I see nothing to indicate that it would be a disaster.
But a question. There is a "protect" permsision that gives only the ability to edit protected pages, and protect & unprotect & move them.. We do not grant it by itself, but it seems technically possible to do so. IAR applies everywhere, and here is an occasion to use it to benefit the encyclopedia. we make the rules by consensus, and, by consensus, we can make exceptions. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support As already mentioned above, this request comes as a very unusual one, but I do not think that should deter us from handing him the mop if the request is reasonable enough. If there can be some way to allow Trappist to continue their work without getting adminship, I would definitely support it. However, in case that is not possible, I support this nomination. Also, I request them to create a user page with just the essentials of babel and possibly the articles/topics they've been editing in/are experienced in editing in. It would also simplify having to figure out personally if they're the go-to guy if I have any requests on those topics. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support due to the lack of an alternative available option for editing fully protected templates and modules that has found consensus. This user is trustworthy (IMO) and there is no reason to stymie his good intentions to improve an invaluable set of technical entities. Technical 13 (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - It seems like a reasonable request. The requests for babel boxes are rather frivolous. I and many other admins don't use them. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support If a trustworthy user wants to help cut down on the protected edit request queue I don't see why we should stop him. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - This user has a great technical know-how of citation templates and his knowledge would greatly benefit the project. Browsing through some of his commentary on the citation module talk page enlightened me on citation parameters I never even knew about, and Trappist has shown his ability to work with the consensus rather than against it. I do not believe user pages are a sine qua non for the mop, though Trappist is welcome to make one at any time he wishes. Altamel (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support: Competent user willing to help maintain our template collection. I trust him not to jump in and try to administer areas outside his area of expertise, just like we all should do. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support: A clearly stated purpose by a trustworthy and rational user is good enough for me. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. States reasonable request for the bit. Glrx (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - This is a perfectly rational request for adminship. The user has stated exactly what he wishes to do with the toolset and it does not seem to me like he will abuse them. I don't understand how the community can oppose an RfC about unbundling the protected page editing tool and then oppose RfAs like this. That makes it nearly impossible to gain the ability to edit the pages you have expertise in editing unless you prove that you can correctly perform tasks that have absolutely nothing to do with editing protected pages. Support all the way. TCN7JM 20:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support ... At WP:ADMIN one can read "..Administrators...are Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on English Wikipedia...". Since we don't have any real form of unbundling (except rollback) I'm therefore minded to support. I don't find the arguments that the editor should understand all the admin tools persuasive, if they're not intending to use them. As an example, I haven't got a clue how to properly do IP range blocks so I ....just don't do them. Simples!. Pedro : Chat 20:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - An unusual request, but I firmly believe that TTM will be a benefit to Wikipedia if he has the tools. I confident that he is competent enough to not make a mess of things, and also confident that he won't stay from the area he wants to work in. I also suggest that, if the consensus is to grant TTM adminship for a specific use only, the closing bureaucrat makes that clear in the close to give the community an easy way of removing the admin bit in the unlikely event that TTM is not true to his word. I would want to see a second RfA if TTM wants full use of the admin bit. ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 21:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
We supported administrators who needed the tools for a specific reason which later passed RFA, contrary to buffbills statement. They were either working with the spam blacklist, or editing protected templates, such as this case. Secretaccount 21:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, User legitimately requires the toolset to continue work which will benefit Wikipedia as a whole. — -dainomite 00:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - per the answer to my question ... he doesn't plan to use the tools in ways not suited to his skill set, on which he seems to have a firm grasp. The manner in which he would use the tools is somewhere that is suited to his skill set, and will benefit the encyclopedia. Really, this doesn't seem like much of a choice to me. Adminship is no big deal, and if he proves to abuse the tools, we can take them back, but I highly doubt that will be necessary, as he has a clear purpose for them. GoPhightins! 00:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - the editor has very specific reason, and that is understandable. I see no problem here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I see no reason why you shouldn't be given the tools, as any need is a valid one in my eyes, no matter how much of a need there is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support There is a clear problem—the withdrawal of two admins from their work on these templates—and a solution to this problem exists—granting the admin tools to Trappist the monk. I'm slightly concerned by "It's possible that over time I could grow into other aspects of the typical admin, strange and unexpected things do happen, but I think it unlikely", because I think that if there is any chance this editor will "grow into other aspects of the typical admin", he should show knowledge of the relevant policies before being granted the bit; however, that appears to be a sufficiently unlikely outcome. In addition, while I have no faith in the community's ability to desysop people, I have complete faith in the community's ability to stop any administrator who is causing harm to the project through their use of the tools. I would like to see Trappist the monk discuss any expansion of his use of the tools in a community forum of some sort, should he choose to expand their use. These future possibilities aside, I think the project would benefit by handing Trappist the monk the tools and that benefit greatly exceeds any harm that might occur. I'd normally be concerned about the lack of a userpage, but I don't think a userpage is important to the nature of Trappist the monk's role here. RyanVesey 03:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. That's what I was trying to say above. :-) GoPhightins! 10:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support No problems here. StevenD99Talk | Stalk 04:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support as a fellow specialist admin with no interest in dispute resolution or deletion. I'm confident that he won't misuse the tools. Graham87 05:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. I'm sure he's smart enough not to use those parts of the toolset he doesn't need or understand. Yintan 09:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Editor has a legit need for part of the toolset and there's no evidence they would abuse the rest of it. NE Ent 10:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. An unusual request but a reasonably made one. I'm the mirror image of this candidate - I have no skills or knowledge in his area, haven't used the tools in this setting and never will. I restrict myself to conflict management work of the sort that this candidate says he will never do. Between us we have complementary skillsets and I think that's how this works. If he ever moves out of the gnoming on templates and starts misusing the tools it will be pretty obvious and we can use this RfA as evidence should there be a call for de-sysoping. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 10:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Has a valid reason for needing the admin tools, very similar to my own. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, I have some concerns about giving block/delete buttons to a user who doesn't want/think he can effectively use them, but these concerns are far outweighed by the good he can do by editing major templates. From what I've seen there, his work is excellent. Tazerdadog (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I have seen that this user is indeed heavily involved with technical work, and feel that they are committed to helping the project, and, as such, that the project would benefit if they were granted the tools. It Is Me Heret / c 14:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support If the candidate wants to concentrate on a specific area, let them. It's not going to take anything away from other admins. Bigger concern for me would be the admins that get the mop and disappear right after. Continuing to work for the project in one way or another is always net positive for us all. Widr (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Yes, we need to unbundle the tools, but that won't happen. We have had a discussion to create the protected page editor usergroup twice, and it failed twice. Now, blocking any possible unbundling and stopping a very productive technical user from being productive because of our own unwillingness to change is cynical and egoist. Trappist the monk is a candidate that, from my perspective, is very aware of his strengths and weaknesses, and acts accordingly. Therefore, I am confident that he won't use any of the tools he feels not prepared enough to use, and will make excellent use of those he's prepared to. — ΛΧΣ21 19:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Specialist admins are OK. Nothing but good can come of this. Dlohcierekim 19:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support He says he's going to do what he does best, and I'm sure he does that extremely well. Knowing what he isn't happy doing makes him, I think, a better candidate than many. Jamesx12345 21:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I am going to AGF here and take him at his word regarding his intentions, and his editing history lends credence to this. I agree that this would be better if the mop was unbundled, but it is not, so I have to vote for the way things are, not for what should be. If this adminship is granted, and it causes great consternation such that it effects change in that area, all well and good. I would gently ask the Monk to keep Benea's oppose in mind, as admins are and should be held to a higher standard, even when not performing "admin" work. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to editorialize in the middle of the !voting but if you believe it "would be better if the mop was unbundled", surely oppose would be more effective? Looking at the current support !votes, these users also said that they would prefer to see unbundling:
TCN7JM says (in !support #25) "I don't understand how the community can oppose an RfC about unbundling the protected page editing tool and then oppose RfAs like this." I see it the other way around: I don't understand how the community can support this RfA having already opposed unbundling the ability to edit protected pages. When our rules don't work, surely we should revise them, rather than create special case exceptions? In the long term we'll get a better result if this RfA fails so we are forced to re-examine unbundling instead. - Pointillist (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
If there were some indication that a failed RFA would motivate the necessary change, I probably would've opposed. Past experience has shown otherwise. In the meantime we need to do what we can with what we have, and this is the next best option if we want to keep people editing what they're good at editing. I'm actually working on an RFC you might be interested in though: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor userright. equazcion(talk) 23:35, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
@Pointillist: Exactly what Equazcion said. That's how Wikipedia works. If this request fails, it will be moved to the long forgotten archives of declined single-use requests and then nothing would happen. The fact that this is passing means that the community is aware that an unbundling won't happen anytime soon and that it's way better to give Monk the solution he seeks with what he wave. — ΛΧΣ21 23:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand your position, but equazcion's RFC is just the sort of thing what I was hoping for. Whatever the result of this particular RFA I hope all of us here will support a fresh look at unbundling, at least for the template namespace. - Pointillist (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
My point here was that some people said at the RfC that if people really wanted the ability to edit protected templates, they could run at RfA. If those same people opposed RfAs like this, that would be hypocrisy. TCN7JM 01:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
@Pointillist: I'm with what Equazcion said, too. Also, it's not at all clear to me whether opposing or supporting would be more likely to help a move towards unbundling -- it depends whther those opposed to unbundling are more irritated by a support that gives unnecessary tools or by an oppose that denies necessary tools. In any case, supporting or opposing in the hope of getting unbundling in motion looks pretty unrealistic, and would be tactical voting. I supported because I think it useful for Trappist to get what he is requesting. P.S. Should this discussion be moved to the talk page? --Stfg (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support They seem to be here for the right reasons, and every time I've seen them around it's been a positive experience. Though their inexperience in some areas is of concern, I trust them enough to be careful and not do stupid things. I also like their style, in that they are bold enough to not have a user page and to self-nom. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Support A net plus for the project. SpencerT♦C 00:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
weak support Lack of user page bothers me a little. Lack of content creation bothers me a little. But I agree that he's a specialist and that we're not going to unbundle anytime in the foreseeable future. The guy seems to know what he doesn't know, and he should stay out of trouble. KrakatoaKatie 01:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Don't see a problem with this narrow RfA. If the Trappist (by the way, that's a registered trademark, and I'd like to have the Monk explain this) goes outside the parameters set by this RfA then they will no doubt quickly be blocked on the suspicion of having been hijacked. FWIW, I would like to see a (simple) user page that has a link to this RfA and a sentence or two explaining that users are dealing with a specific kind of admin. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is. So is Apple and, I would suspect, many others. I originally conceived of trappist_the_monk (all lower case with underscores) when I needed a user name for something almost 20 years ago. I had been researching Trappist ales, having just become a homebrewer. When the need for an online identifier arose, trappist_the_monk just popped into my head. Though I have made minor edits at Trappist beer, I do not use my username to advocate for or promote or denigrate the Trappist's business activities or religion. —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Just kidding, Trappist®. And if you send me a case of Orval, I can reassess my opinion that it's the least of them. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support This really comes down to whether you can trust the candidate to only do what they say they will. I see no reason why they cannot be trusted in this regard. AIRcorn(talk) 01:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Trappist has an obvious need for the tools, and I trust him to use them responsibly. Kurtis(talk) 02:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am indenting my support. Although I don't think Trappist would abuse or even misuse adminship, there are too many concerns with his communication skills outlined in the oppose section for me to feel comfortable throwing all my weight behind this request. I wish the candidate the best of luck going forward. Kurtis(talk) 13:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Having tried (and failed) to make a rational, specific, limited request for use of tools myself, I'm favorably disposed to this rational, specific request on general principles. Carrite (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I view the granting of the tools to the candidate as a net positive. The opposition has valid arguments that might even persuade me in a less unusual case. This single use is specialized. This candidate is known, experienced and has a good reputation. I don't see a few terse interactions as especially troublesome; they do not appear to be argumentative or confrontational. I believe the candidate is not likely to venture irresponsibly into other areas, as might be more of a concern in a different case. I think the project suffers if Trappist the Monk cannot easily continue valuable work. I do not think a support ivote requires supporting all single purpose candidacies. I don't think it is helpful to oppose this candidacy to make a point that can be made otherwise. The dilemma presented here might be cited as a reason to bring the matter up yet again but I don't think it requires an oppose vote. Donner60 (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support The users who used to do the highly specific technical work here have left. Adminship is a bundle, yes, and the need to see fully protected pages does not mean that the user ought to block users or delete pages. However, the admin bundle means more features, which means that even if the editor here is bored with the technical things, he will be less likely to leave and more likely to do other things like vandal catching or page protection. His contributions are wholly positive. No reason to deny, as he lacks specific faults.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I do not find the reasons for opposing convincing; i'm actually baffled by those referring to a lack of user page (which probably says more about the different ways we behave here than anything else); i don't see language use or style which reach the level of incivility in the candidate's interactions (either in Kudpung's diffs or in mine own explorations), simply a user who perhaps uses words a tad more bluntly than some others do; the fact that it's a single-use request...meh, so what? On the other side, i am one who isn't lining up to try and unbundle the tools, and i support this request as a necessary consequence. I think that my basic position means i trust the user, as they have shown no reason not to be trusted; his answers, in fact, show evidence of honesty, integrity, and self-awareness, all good traits in a mop-wielder. The only potential downside i see is the possibility that he might move into other areas of admin usage, perhaps to gain advantage in disputes; he's been clear he won't, i'm leaning to believing him. Cheers, LindsayHello 06:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support (moving from neutral). I'm not going to be expanding into his area of work, and he's probably not going to expand into mine. Not without studying things first (a lot more work in that for me than for him...). There are a lot of specialised areas. Why should he have a user page? A lot of those with user pages are as anonymous as he is. If that and being a bit blunt are the worst things to be found, I'm not going to object to giving him a mop. Peridon (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support He appears to have a valid plan for using some of the tools, and has been clear about he doesn't intend to use. I can't see any evidence that he is likely to act irresponsibly - he seems trustworthy. I don't expect our admins to be able to contribute in all areas of the wiki equally (few are going to be able to write featured articles, carry out advanced research, copyedit, solve disputes, conduct technical work etc. with equal skill!) and therefore I trust that they will focus on their areas of competence if appointed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
While I would feel more comfortable supporting if I had a more concrete assurance that TTM would not wander into "enforcement" areas in the future without a new RFA, a perusal of his contributions seems to indicate someone with clue, who appears to be trustworthy, and who appears to have no desire to enforce anything. So I'll take him at his word. I also note that opposes based on the idea that we should be able to unbundle the admin tools instead is unfair to TTM. I strongly agree, the tools should be unbundled, but they aren't, and he's pursuing the only option available to him. It's easy to sacrifice someone else's adminship to push for unbundling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - "With this guy it seems to be pretty much all out on the table" per Editor equazcion @ Oppose 12. I like his answers and his responses here---clear and decisive. I trust him to limit his tool use to the area he knows best. Don't most admins wind up doing what they are best at? Seems honest and competent. Terse? Maybe a bit. But I sense a person willing to work on that side of his talk persona. But, the exchange cited seems like a teaching situation and telling the student, "Yes, you do know!" is bold. Its too bad the student choose to get angry rather than listen. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Based on the answer to Q12 I am going to support. Willingness to give up the admin bit if a better solution comes along is the key detail for me as it means I can judge my support / oppose based on just the intended use. PaleAqua (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - the thoughtful voices of opposition notwithstanding, it is my view that the candidate is mostly harmless. BenMacDui 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - I don't find the oppose arguments too narrow a need for the tools/unbundling and a lack of a user page very convincing. The important question is "will the candidate make a good admin?". I think he will. PumpkinSkytalk 21:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Current consensus of 87% opposes forcing those red-error messages in wp:CS1 cites (see: WT:CS1#RfC about suppressing messages), so if Trappist uses admin power to force the red messages into 60,000 pages, then I expect some admin to respect the consensus and revert any such protected-edits by Trappist, and not allow a wp:WHEEL-war over the Lua script cites which reformat 2.1 million pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Just because Trappist has an opinion about something doesn't mean he's going to use the tools to go against consensus. I have an opinion about a lot of things and I don't go around ignoring consensus.--v/r - TP 11:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Trappist twice pushed cite error messages against consensus: I know it might be hard to believe, but after we discussed the horror of showing thousands of red messages in major articles, it was Trappist who activated *all* those controversial red-error messages in the /sandbox version (see: dif582), which User:Gadget850 installed causing an uproar in 60,000 pages and then Gadget850 quit the cites in frustration. Acknowledging the consensus, Gadget850 re-hid the messages as merely warning categories (dif519), but Trappist reverted admin Gadget850's hiding of excessive red-error messages (dif768). Please understand we discussed how the Lua cites should auto-correct trivial problems or quietly put tag "[fix cite]" and not flood a page with numerous red messages. Now, Google has indexed those excessive error messages (surprise) into 69,300+ pages (Google site-search for "'accessdate= requires' url" will list 783 of them). Red messages are not the way-of-the-future in live typesetting, which should omit proofreader's marks in live pages. If non-admin Trappist would revert Gadget850 in 15 minutes, what would admin Trappist do? I think Trappist can make helpful suggestions now, but more power might be too much temptation. -Wikid77 15:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
You're talking about a sandbox. We use sandboxes to test such thing. Gadget850 moved the change to live against consensus, not Trappist as you've demonstrated. Is the consensus against using the red messages in the sandbox as well? If so, let him branch, but it's not an abuse or against consensus to experiment in a sandbox.--v/r - TP 15:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Genuine, if narrow reason for needing the tools, and no evidence of problematic editing that would suggest giving him them would be a concern.--KorruskiTalk 14:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Please read above "Trappist twice pushed cite error messages against consensus" and reconsider. -Wikid77 15:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Trappist had no part in what I did or did not do— any actions I have taken were my own. I have no idea what consensus you are talking about, except perhaps the ones in your head. The long, rambling and frequently divisive discussions made me realize that the citation project was causing me heartache and I was no longer having fun. I dropped out and unwatched 1000 citation related pages (yes, there are that many) before I got pissed off and did something stupid. I don't know how to be more mature than that. I have never understood half of your discussions, so I have pretty much ignored you and I intend to continue, except where you make such defamatory statements. Out. --Gadget850talk 15:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry you are so upset. See consensus to suppress cite messages in Help talk:Citation Style 1#RfC (WT:CS1#RfC). I made no "defamatory" statements, but rather listed the diff-links as the edits were made. Thank you for admitting that you were ignoring me (and possibly others), as that explains why consensus was not understood as changes were forced into pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Again, that consensus is for the cite template, not the sandbox. Trappists actions involve the sandbox and Gadget850 himself has clarified that Trappist had nothing to do with the production rollout of the cite messages. Sandboxes are for experimentation.--v/r - TP 16:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Long-term editor, sensible responses to questions and sincere need for the tools. Not sure what all the fuss is about Jebus989✰ 22:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. I see no reason why this user would not do what they said they would do. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support. I don't know what to say. --SoftFeta (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Seems like he can be trusted with the tools. Insulam Simia (talk·contribs) 07:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. I don't think the conversation that Benea pointed out shows anything all that bad. As long as Trappist sticks to the areas of adminship that they say they will - and I don't see any reason to think that this might not be the case - then I don't forsee any problems. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 01:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Based on Trappist's answers to the questions as well as a view of his contribs/interactions with others, I think he can not only be trusted with the tools, but he will also use them to do good for the encyclopedia that he currently can't without them. I see no indications that he will abuse the tools. Per his answers to Q4 and Q7, Trappist is clearly aware of where his strengths lie, and plans to stick to that area. Moreover, if Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right passes (and is subsequently implemented in the software), Trappist has stated that he will promptly request desysopping and reclassification to "template editor" instead. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support This user can be trusted with the tools. Mediran (t • c) 05:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - I don't see anything here that would be cause to not trust the user. In fact, I find some of the oppose arguments to be greatly lacking in WP:AGF. — ChedZILLA 07:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Benefit in one area is benefit enough. Ishdarian 10:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - trust sensible use of tools, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I have no reason to doubt Trappist the monk: They intend to keep out of admin areas unrelated to protected template editing, and should a new userright allowing non-admins to edit protected templates materialize, they have said that they will hand in their adminship for that right. Unless I'm much mistaken, the other single-purpose RfAs that passed worked out well; I see no reason why this one will be different. The only concern that I agreee with is the redlinked user page; I think at least turning the redlink into a redirect to the talk page would be fair. Acalamari 12:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
This candidate obviously knows what they are doing; should we really consider letting the regrettable politics around the way administration works get in the way of helping them do just that ? Simone 13:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
How much damage can they really cause if they decide to block, protect or delete a page ? Nick (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Err, are you implying that there shouldn't be any scrutiny of candidates? That wasn't how it worked in your RfA, was it? - Pointillist (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I don't require other admins to be able to develop citation templates, nor do I require Trappist to be able to update the DYK queues. Admins should broadly keep within their areas of competence and I trust that Trappist will. It is worth bearing in mind that, for some people, brusque comments from an admin may come over as rather more intimidating than from other editors so especial care is appropriate. Thincat (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
support per Pedro and others. — Lfdder (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per WSC. Legoktm (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Per TP and Hahc.Unbundling the tools doesn't seem possible at the moment.Lsmll 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Trappist has been doing sterling work at CS1, and I admire his dedicated and level-headed approach to problem-solving. His quality of argumentation I also rate highly, and he has caused me to change my mind about for example the desirability of the error message (as opposed to outright removal) in relation to template errors. Here in this nom, we will be creating a highly specialised admin who is quite happy to seek out the nerdy stuff that few others are interested in. I don't see why we should expect or force an admin to venture outside their area of interest or expertise or comfort zone, and I see his specialisation as a gain for the community. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 10:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support His answers are reasonable and not "boilerplate RfA answers." I see absolutely no reason to oppose here at all. Collect (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC) BTW, the idea that somehow he should be singled out for "non-admin but flagged for moves" is outré. Collect (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support No reason for an admin to work in every area. Who does that anyway? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
My concern is that you are asking for admin tool access for something very specific (access to fully protected pages) where we do not have (yet) any possibilities for unbundling the tools. While your need may be justified in order to avoid making numerous edit requests, the problem is that I need to see sufficient experience in most meta areas where the admin tools can be applied if used, and that they would be used judiciously. Put another way, admin candidates need to have demonstrated that they can inspire confidence to use all the tools in the set whether they say they will use them or not. You have already stated that you do not like being reverted and on that, a review of your interaction with others - which is also sparse - leans towards being terse at times - a random look at some of those messages demonstrates to me at least that they could have been friendlier for someone aspiring to be an admin.[9],[10]. I see that you have created a certain number of articles about ships/yachts, but some of them are very thin on references while some have dead links and others have no references at all. While content creation is not obligatory for adminship per se, I feel that any creations should be free of major issues (I'm not aware of any special notability dispensation for ship articles). There is also the question of your user page - although it's not obligatory, I can't think offhand of any admins who don't have one - having a user page with at least some basic information would demonstrate some willingness to being accountable as an admin. The bottom line is, although you do excellent content improvements and appear to have a good grasp of WP:MoS, you do not check all my boxes even on aggregate, so I cannot see this singular request as demonstrating sufficient experience to be granted all the admin tools and the responsibility of non-tool judgement that comes with the bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I view this RfA to be very similar to Jason Quinn's RfA a while back. I think that if we believe that Trappist the monk isn't going to abuse the tools xe is given, and will use the tools for a productive purpose (helping with Lua modules), we should give them the tools. Since you mentioned it, User:JzG is probably the best example of not having/needing a user page. Legoktm (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This has no similarity whatsoever with Jason Quinn's RfA. Jason wanted, out of boredom (as he stated), move away a little bit from content creation and instead march into a variety of admin areas. Besides, although he created a new interpretation of the verifiability guideline ("Articles do not need sources appended, info is verifiable if the reader can google for it."), it was possible to establish a "track record" from his user page, talk, content creation and RfA discussion. Kraxler (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I have never aspired to be an admin. I am taking this path because there is no other.
You have focused-in on what was the most frustrating interaction I've had with admins. As far as I was concerned, the issue was finished as soon as my request for speedy deletion declined. Two weeks after the fact, another admin created that post on my talk page. Yes, I was irritated and I reacted strongly.
As you can see, article creation isn't at the forefront of my work at Wikipedia. The ship and yacht articles were created from existing articles to fill in some of the holes in the {{Natick class tug}} nav box and the America's Cup Challengers and defenders table. I make no claims that these articles should be exempted from the notability criteria. I have repaired the cites tagged with {{dead link}}.
I don't understand how a user page can demonstrate some willingness to being accountable as an admin. Doesn't the demonstration of willingness to be held accountable come through this RfA? At the end, when a candidate is successful, along with the privileges come the responsibilities and the knowledge that the successful admin will be held to account for actions taken and judgments made.
I have a redlinked user page because people behave differently when they know there are admins around. I get much closer to the generic behaviour people display towards others, sometimes that's bad, sometimes it's good. Deleting my user page made a significant difference to my experience when editing, and I recommend all admins to try it from time to time. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
However, it's still obvious who admins are when using Equazcion/ExperiencedEditorPack (unless they use complicated background colours in their sigs). -- Trevj (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Per Kudpung except for the user page issue. If the core of the problem (sorry about the pun) is you lost your admin assistance, I suggest you find another admin or admins to help you with your tasks. There appear to be camps of people (Wikipedia is full of camps) on the narrowness issue and the related issue of how much a candidate is going to use the tools. One camp believes that if there is even a single purpose for a candididate, as long as there's no indication the nominee is going to abuse the tools, why not? Generally, that same camp also believes that if a candidate is going to use the tools very little, as long as we can trust them otherwise, again why not? I'm not in those camps. I don't think admins should know how to do everything, but their skills should be broader than one narrow area. I don't believe that all admins have to pass some magical threshold in using their tools, but they are promoted not just because we trust them but because they are willing to do a job. And that job entails doing admin-related work at least to the degree that justifies having the tools in the first instance. As for the user page issue, it would be hypocritical of me to require it. I have one, but it says very little about me, so just having one to avoid the redlink is form over substance. I kind of like the fact that I'm much more anonymous about who I am than many other editors. In that way, people judge me by my edits and actions, rather than making assumptions based on what they know about me personally. Of course, editors still suspect my motives even though I've said virtually nothing, but that's unavoidable, if at times amusing in a weird sort of way. I hope you find a way to continue to contribute technically to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Single-use requests have been declined before. The tools need to be unbundled, and every exception made pushes that realization further over the horizon. I find the "let's make an exception" supports unconvincing. Since the tools are "one size fits all" and are bestowed in effect for life, we need to have confidence in the well-roundedness of each candidate. Sorry. Intothatdarkness 14:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I have no reason to suppose that this editor has any intention of doing anything except to benefit the encyclopedia. But nevertheless, as unbundling is not an option, he will receive, if accepted for the tools, the full range of abilities of an admin which he admits he is not competent to use. This is in my opinion not acceptable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - as a single-use request; perhaps the tools (or some of them) need to be unbundled but I see no reason for you to be given the mop for this task, sorry. I also agree with Kudpung's user page comment. GiantSnowman 16:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose — No user page (carrying anonymity a bit too far), single-purpose request (such have mostly been voted down before), doubtful content creation, unfriendly messages in the past (see his talk page), apparently no clue about other admin areas (even as a single-purpose request, a tiny little bit of experience in other areas would help) etc. etc... Kraxler (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Single-purpose request, which won't do much for helping the encyclopedia. Sorry, but as said before, single purpose requests have been made before, and ultimately failed. I don't think this one will be any different. buffbills7701 20:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Lustiger Seth and MGA73 were admins on other wikis when they came to en-wiki to offer help, and Andrew West was a PhD candidate and creator of the helpful STiki tool. The case here is quite different, more similar to the request by Carrite. Such requests have all been voted down so far, if I remember correctly. (Give another example, if I'm wrong.) Kraxler (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The list of people who got rejected is longer than the list of people who got accepted (and some after many attempts). A m i t 웃 03:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, whatever happened to the old culture of IAR? There's no rule saying that single-purpose requests should fail, and I fail to see the logic in saying that Trappist won't do much to help the encyclopedia because they are good at doing one thing instead of another. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - No scope of expansion to other areas as partly mentioned in answer 4. Would not add or benefit the community in any other way. A m i t 웃 03:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I was concerned with your interactions with another user here, just a month ago. The user was I think justly upset by the tone you used, which I accept may well have been wholly unintentional. But you apparently did not pick up on this, or if you did, you did not make an attempt to modify your initial tone, and indeed responded in a way that caused further distress to the user. An ability to be diplomatic in your dealings is important for adminship, and as others have pointed out, though you have requested the tools for a specific purpose, I'm not sure that you have enough experience yet in the full range of skills that are usually required from admins. I don't think suggesting that you will only use the ones you need for a specific purpose should be grounds for exemptions from these standards at an rfa. Benea (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The conversation began in another thread at WT:SHIPS. With this edit I added ten {{cite ship register}} templates and, later that day, did some cleanup and added two {{clarify}} templates to Editor's list. I had hoped that Editor would see that and continue what I had started. Editor announced completion of the list in the WT:SHIPS thread that Editor Benea mentioned. Because Editor had not made use of {{cite ship register}} nor addressed the {{clarify}} issues, I pointed that out. Rather than simply referring Editor to the {{cite ship register}} documentation, I showed the citation for the first of the ten {{cite ship register}} templates that I had added to Editor's list and then briefly described what information belonged in the various parameters. I ended with a template skeleton inside <ref></ref> tags. Editor's attempt was missing the template name and most of the required parameter data. When Editor returned to the conversation with the comment that I do not know what it is supposed to look like, I frankly didn't believe that and said so but, I provided a completed {{cite ship tegister}} template to show what Editor's attempt should have looked like. Editor replied with the ... once I decide how angry I am comment, but used the completed example I provided and then changed the next reference in the list; in both cases getting them right but leaving out the <ref></ref> tags. In frustration, I up'd-stumps and retired to the pavilion. I don't think that what I wrote about how to use the {{cite ship register template}} was so complex that it could not be understood. I will hold an editor's hand for a long time if needs be, but in this case Editor seemed to be willfully ignoring what I had written. When that happens, my patience wears thin.—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid this rather strengthens my oppose. While you work very well and consistently in the area of templates, other editors, such as this one, do not. He had made a good faith start to a basic list, and when other users worked and expanded it, he worked with them to add content. His post was to invite further work on it, and said that it had been a good learning experience in tables, etc. Your response was "You're not done yet. Fix Rung Ra Do, there are two listed." I.e. go back and work on it. The problem was your tone, which the editor certainly picked up on, and by your admission above was a deliberate show of annoyance that the templates hadn't be used correctly. When the editor tried to do as you say, and made some further errors, he asked for help. You say that you did not believe that he didn't know how to use the template. I'm afraid this shows a strong lack of good faith. Fortunately someone else came by and helped him out some more. But the end result was that the user stated that "I am dropping that page from my watchlist ... and have nothing else to contribute". I.e. he was driven away. I find it hard to believe that he was purposefully trolling you, so you seem to have made a basic error that "he was wilfully ignoring you." I'm sorry, but you failed to assume good faith, you snapped at an innocent editor who was trying to work on a project he found interesting because your patience wore thin. I understand tone is hard to judge here, but this open admission of your reasoning is very disappointing. This, and the diffs by Kudpung ([11],[12]), further show you don't have the diplomatic skills yet to be an admin. The nature of wikipedia is that you will come into contact with other users even if you declare your intention to work only on templates, as this incident has shown, and you have not shown good judgement in dealing with even honest mistakes over very minor formatting issues. Benea (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - No offense to the candidate, but this would be unbundling the wrong way around. Either re-open the unbundling debate, or assess all admin candidates against the usual content/policy/experience/behavior criteria. - Pointillist (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Other solutions exist here, including seeking wider Admin. assistance, requesting previous involved Admins. to come back to the problematic area or seeking access only to the tools needed for the job. There is evidence (Q8) that alternative solutions have not yet been fully & sufficiently explored. While undoubtedly genuine in seeking a pragmatic solution to their current specific problem, I cannot support the granting of all Admin. rights on a one-off / single issue basis. This type of request, once approved as a means to an end, opens the door to future, similar requests by potentially less genuine candidates. With no swift means of removing Admin. rights once granted, the circumvention of the accepted RfA standards can become the thin end of the wedge that will be exploited by other, less honest candidates, in the future. Leaky Caldron 13:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a very tough decision for me. With a few things just a little bit different, I would have ended up supporting on the grounds that it would be good for Wikipedia to, in effect, do an "experiment" of giving administratorship here in order to test how unbundling would work. A problem-free use of the tools in the very delimited manner requested here could contribute to a future consensus in favor of unbundling, and I would be happy to see that. I recognize that the candidate has made it very clear that they intend to use the tools only for something specific, that this use is a net positive for Wikipedia (although it does not seem urgent to me), and that they have a long track record indicating that we can probably trust them to stick to their promise not to go into other administrative areas. But when I read the self-description about not liking to be reverted and some of the candidate's past talk comments (see the diffs in Kudpung's oppose), I get a picture of someone who is the exact opposite, in temperament and communication style, of users whom I would normally support at RfA. If ever – ever – the candidate got into a potential administrative situation outside of the proposed work, even by innocently running across someone else who was being unpleasant while editing together on a page, I see this as a situation where there is simply too much risk of a bad block or some other kind of problem. I know that the intentions are good, but I perceive the risk as being significant. I'd rather see an effort to find existing admins to help the way the two previous admins had done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Tryptofish: On first glance I found the mention of not appreciating being reverted troubling, but reading through the entire answer, this is more of an admission of a weakness followed by steps they try to take in dealing with it, as is sort of the intent of the question. I actually respect the candidate more for not attempting to sugar-coat that response as other candidates tend to attempt. I'm also not too concerned with those diffs. This person wasn't uncivil; he just made his feelings clear and didn't respond in the political fashion of one that's running for office nor taking pains to be excessively deadpan, as other candidates tend to. Again I actually respect him more for it. When people are just a little too nice and/or neutral, it has me skittish about what they're actually thinking, and what might come out once they don't see a need to prove anything. With this guy it seems to be pretty much all out on the table. equazcion(talk) 02:11, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
As a small aside, this is not the first nomination of this sort we've seen (single permission motivation for adminship). But I forget specifically who the past one was. Shadowjams (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
There was West.andrew.g's RfA, which was primarily for viewing deleted pages. PaleAqua (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
That is one, I think Carrite's nom is the one I was thinking of, but thank you for adding to the list. I think there's at least one more that I remember... in any event, the unbundled request is not new. It doesn't say much about the nominee but it does say something about our process. Shadowjams (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Lustiger seth requested adminship for the sole purpose of editing the spam blacklist. Leyo's request was also a similar case, but he requested adminship for image work. Graham87 09:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Also see the replies to oppose #7. Graham87 09:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
First of all, thank you to everybody who commented to me here. About the previous single-purpose RfAs, I do indeed remember at least some of them. And I'm friendly in principle to the idea. I have long been in favor of unbundling, personally. I believe that having more single-purpose RfAs that are successful, and then turn out to produce good administrators who really do specialize in what they focus on, will eventually lead to community consensus for unbundling, and I would be pleased to see that. Now as for what Equazcion asked me, it's obviously a subjective call. My first instinct was to want to support this RfA, and I never feel good about opposing any RfA. I, too, recognize that the comments about disliking being reverted were in the context of showing what the candidate had learned about themself, and that's good, as is the honesty about it. As to whether or not those diffs satisfy WP:CIVIL, I don't ever expect multiple editors to even agree as to what WP:CIVIL really means. But I thought hard about it, and I'm really quite convinced that what I concluded was correct. I get a picture from the evidence I cited. A lot of it is gut feeling, and other editors may agree or disagree. And I have no doubt about the candidate's good intentions. I'm making a subjective call about what I believe this picture is telling me of what the candidate will do when, inevitably, someone else acts in a difficult manner towards them. And I think that there is too big a risk that the community will eventually regret it if this RfA passes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm sorry but I simply cannot support single purpose nominations, or take restrictions on adminship at face value with the broken recall system [its lack]. I don't doubt this editor, but it's not a good precedent to set for the future, and if Trappist changes their mind down the line, how should we handle that situation? If we want limited adminship rights let's petition for those specifically (like rollback, or article creator), but I cannot support self-constrained adminship. Shadowjams (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I see it all now, and just like as per above comment (the number 12 opposer comment) I will also say Oppose. Sorry about this, but its my final decision. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Per Tryptofish. --John (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I generally do not support single purpose nominations, but in this case, I have other concerns. The answer to question 3 concerns me, and the user seems to have an antagonistic attitude at times, as evidenced by some of the conversations on his talk page. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I aggree with Inks.LWC comment, I'm concerning the same situation as well. Izzy IzumiProdigious!Check! 01:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose As the concerns raised by the above are valid, but we all know this will come down to how many admin and bureaucrat buddies you have. One already expressed wanting to go back to the 'old culture of WP:IAR', which was usually a moderator that shall remain nameless telling people to, quote, "fuck off" while calling other "cunts" as well as about 160 other instances of verbal abuse as of five years ago with absolutely nothing being done to him so that he could continue his tornado of abuse as admin to this date, but good ol IAR! Once we put one of these editors into office, we have to drag them out kicking and screaming if they won't come quietly. I'm not going to support a candidate when I know I won't be able to undo it, especially when "recall" has been long exposed as a broken joke and WP:RFDA is a page to give the illusion that we'll even have a de-adminship process in the future. Oh well, let's see if the superfriends push through a single purpose request anyway. Extremely unwise, but not unprecedented. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 13:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I was going to question this oppose and caught myself in time. I'm not going to badger and I implore other editors to restrain themselves too. Let this oppose speak for itself and let the closing 'crat evaluate it. No need for RfA dramah here. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 14:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I must oppose per Benea.The issue of requesting adminship for one purpose does not trouble me in the slightest. However the exchange highlighted by Benea is problematic and I am concerned that the candidate does not seem to appreciate this. If they had recognised that the discussion was sub-optimal or even said "I was having a bad day" I would likely have excused it and then supported. But the candidate has attempted to defend their rather brusque and unfriendly language, and this is not an attitude we want to see in our administrators. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - per Benea; candidate's temperament is unsuitable for adminship. Per MSGJ; candidate does not grasp the magnitude of dysfunction. When a user interacts with TTM they will not perceive him or her as a special purpose admin, but instead as an administrator; and they will more than likely be left wanting in the aftermath.—John Cline (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Not sure I like the idea of granting admin tools based on a "limited use" promise. I don't really doubt that Trappist's promise is made in good faith but circumstances change and it doesn't really make sense to me to do a circumscribed evaluation but then give the candidate all the buttons. (This is neither meant as a comment on the suitability of Trappist nor should it be taken as an anti-unbundling statement.) --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose but a reluctant one. Per Tryptofish and I wish this editor would have made at least some comments on a user page. This editor seems like a rather good candidate for the RfC/Template editor user right. - tucoxn\talk 00:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Benea and John Cline. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Benea and John Cline. My gut says no too. Sorry, Ruhrfisch><>°° 10:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose the issues brought up by Benea and the diffs by Kudpung (oh man, those diffs), as well as the single-purpose request have led me to conclude that the candidate is unsuitable for adminship. Sorry, but no. Inanygivenhole (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as too soon, as too few template/module edits at this point (see: edit-counts). When User:Jimp requested adminship to fix protected templates, he had made over 2,000 template edits. Also the ongoing WT:CS1#RfC, with growing consensus to suppress red-error messages in wp:CS1 cites, is diametrically opposed to Trappist stated intent for more messages in Module:Citation/CS1, which would just frustrate the whole purpose of this RfA, to have powers to change a protected module but consensus would likely reject those changes. Needs to wait typical 6 months, and edit more templates/modules meanwhile. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Until the tools can be unbundled, I must look at this as a full RFA. As such, this editor falls slightly shy of my RFA standards. That said, I would gladly support this editor in pursuing additional user rights in the future and if this editor wants to specifically apply for adminship as a whole and shows a balanced understanding of conflict resolution and policy. I largely feel this is an oppose because the system is broken for not having a user right to edit protected pages. Mkdwtalk 18:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Per Tryptofish, Benea and John Cline. Does not have my confidence. Ceoil (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per above and per Ruhrfisch...Modernist (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per MSGJ and John Cline, among others. The temperament issue is enough to sink this RfA for me for now.. P.S. I suppose I should note that the lack of a userpage does not bother me. – PhilosopherLet us reason together. 01:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I have nothing against the candidate, but don't like the idea of single purpose admin because of the perceived problems highlighted by some of the !voters in the oppose section. Unbundling the tools may be a solution to avoid this kind of RfA. Salih(talk) 05:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose not generally a fan of single-purpose adminship. Also quite disturbed by the candidate's refusal to create a userpage; besides the identification issues, it does not reflect well on the candidate to refuse to do something as simple as that. --Rschen7754 05:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Between Support and Oppose, I'm more into Oppose, user makes great edits and contributions, however I'm not seeing where this will go. ///EuroCarGT 18:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - per benea felt_friend 19:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I originally !voted neutral, but am opposing because I've seen no evidence Trappist wished to work in any other admin areas. Also, they have been rather curt at times. theonesean 03:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral - I guess this user doesn't understand the question no. 3. I will moved either Support or Oppose if he/she answered properly. But anyway, I see his/her contributions. Some of them need concern. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 02:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral The to-the-point style of this candidate and his introductory paragraph sold me. However, I will sit here to take a dep look to the candidate's contributions, and cast my vote later. On a side note, this reminds me why we sometimes need to unbundle several tools out of the sysop toolset. — ΛΧΣ21 02:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Could the pages be unprotected?TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
These particular pages are considered high risk. At the time {{High-risk}} was added to Module:Citation/CS1/doc the module was in use by an estimated 1.9 million pages. It's probably in our own best interest to keep the pages protected. —Trappist the monk (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Please put Babel boxes on your userpage or indicate your language abilities in some manner. --Walter Siegmund(talk) 03:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please, Trappist the monk. Create an userpage with some baci information about you like the languages you speak. — ΛΧΣ21 03:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
American English with a smattering of British English that I've picked up from an ex-pat English friend. I am private person so I maintain that privacy by leaving my user page blank. I want my reputation on Wikipedia to be based on what I've said and done here, not on what I say I am in the real world. If you want to know something about me, just ask. —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
How about a list of articles you created? Kraxler (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Total 29, a few dab pages of ship's names, 3 articles without any sources/references. Not really something to support this request, sorry. Kraxler (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a rather strange RfA. I applied for auto patrolled status a while back because I am drafting a project that requires lots of userspace subpages. I was denied because, typically, tools and hats aren't given to people who won't use them for their normal purpose. The situations aren't analogous, but that's my perspective. Perhaps if the candidate showed some inkling of maybe widening his horizons and getting involved in other admin areas, I would support. But as of now, I'm simply neutral. theonesean 04:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC) opposing, I've seen no evidence they want to use the tools for more than editing protected paged
Instead of unbundling, would it be possible for the unrequired admin areas to be turned off? I've no idea how the technical side of it works, but I'm thinking on the analogy of the bunch of keys that a real janitor gets. In cases like this, a smaller bunch would be given, and if the recipient changes their mind later, an RfA would consider them then. Peridon (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Moving to support Peridon (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Isn't that the same as the dreaded unbundling, Peridon? If we don't do it in general, are you suggesting we should make exceptions every now and again? Not really convincing. Cheers, LindsayHello 06:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
as I interpret it, Peridon (and I) are indeed suggesting we make an exception, here and now. IAR was invented for purposes like this, when something is reasonable and the existing rules do not provide for it. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Here for now, till i finish thinking this through; despite a couple of admins i respect being there, i don't find the Opposes convincing ~ no user page? c'mon! terse language? but still civil ~ so have to decide on the given-the-bunch-to-use-one-key question. Cheers, LindsayHello 06:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Moved to Support. Cheers, LindsayHello 09:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral - Although I'm not usually a stickler about this, and it's certainly not my main concern, I would like to see a user page. Even if it's a redirect to his talk page or just a "Hi, I'm Trappist the monk; I do technical things". User pages don't have to be about the real world. Also, there's the obvious concern of being given all the admin tools for one purpose, but to me that's an obvious neutral and not an oppose. I'm also not a fan of the tone of the third sentence in Q3. That being said, I think that the work Trappist is doing is extremely helpful, especially considering my lack of technical knowledge (Content creation, copyediting, and !voting? Sure! Photos and technical stuff? Er, sorry) and the fact that he was brave enough to go through with a self-nomination. That would be why I'm parked here. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 14:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral, pending the outcome of RfC/Template editor user right. I've not found any unduly alarming contributions from the candidate, and noted some examples of good standard communicative interaction. I applaud the candidate's technical expertise in and dedication to repairing/improving module/template coding. The stated intentions are clear, but admin candidates often also express greater capacity and willing to operate in other areas. That said, there's the potential for any admin to break things on a grand scale by editing outside their capabilities in protected areas, and predominantly anti-vandal RfAs don't seem to penalise candidates for knowing little about templates if there's no intention to work in such areas. In summary, for the moment, that unfortunately leaves me here in neutral. -- Trevj (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem with pending the outcome of the RfC is that, while this Neutral section is often a "holding pen" until one has a better feeling of the candidate's abilities or otherwise, the RfC began after the RfA and, if it runs the thirty days they usually do, it will end long after the RfA ends. I'd be referring to jni's waiting comment here, too. Unless the suggestion be that the candidate withdraw and hope the RfC concludes with a positive outcome? Cheers, LindsayHello 10:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a need for a withdrawal; this RfA could pass, and I don't think that'd be a problem. However, I just don't really feel able to support. If this RfA is unsuccessful, then obviously it'd be a good idea to wait for the outcome of the RfC before deciding whether a subsequent RfA is warranted (assuming on the limited use case presented this time). -- Trevj (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral, mostly on the basis of being unable to personally resolve the conundrum of trusting an skilled editor to only do a specific set of tasks that is visibly useful while being given authority to doing them all. The responses to the questions, including my own, have been respectable. It's true that WP:OWN issues make editing and improving things frustrating and it seems less likely for conflict to come up on these fronts. But when the editor says that their skill set doesn't include "conflict resolution" (except in technical work), it becomes a major concern of mine, because one fundamental component of being an admin is being able to handle conflict (broadly construed) appropriately, particularly the interpersonal kind. I really don't think it's a good idea to have the mop if you wish to avoid interpersonal conflict. I do not disbelieve the editor when they say they will stick to template / module work, but the avoidance of conflict is enough of a concern to keep me neutral. Again, however, my main issue is that I do not think it is entirely fair to an editor skilled in a very particular domain to oppose or support them on the basis of a system that supplies successful candidates with numerous tools. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 16:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Not being funny, but only doing a specific set of tasks despite access to others is a life skill my seven year old has. He's quite capable of ignoring his technical access to the oven yet manages to wield a knife and fork. If would suggest JethroBT that its not hard to "resolve that conundrum". Pedro : Chat 20:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the metaphor analogy, but we'll have to agree to disagree. It's not an obvious decision to me. Approving or denying authoritative functions on Wikipedia on the basis of being skilled at a very specific one that is largely unrelated to the others has consequences on future nominations of this sort. This has less to do with trusting this particular editor, who I generally trust after evaluating their contributions and recognize their need in this case, than it does with being uncertain of how supporting or opposing the candidate would influence future nominations. I would rather help and see a process like RfC/Template editor user right succeed (as I have already) so that the scope of permissions granted are consistent with an editor's intentions in this case. The editor has stated as much, that they do not require nor have any interest in using the other permissions. I genuinely want to help the editor do their work because I believe it is useful, I just do not think this is the right way, even if it is the only available one. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 21:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral. Why not wait for the outcome of RfC/Template editor user right since self-nominator does not seem to want the full mop. No strong reasons to oppose candidate so might change to support after thinking more this somewhat unusual RFA. jni (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Jni: I think that Trappist was unaware of that RfC when he submitted this nomitation, was was I. — ΛΧΣ21 17:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Inevitably, as this RfA began before the RfC had been created Jebus989✰ 17:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
@Jni:Why not wait? Because the RfC might not pass. Also because if it passes, goodness knows how long it could take for the user right to actually be implemented into the software. If and when it's implemented, Trappist will step down as an admin and request the template editor right, as he stated in his reply to Q12. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I did not notice Q12 and you both are making valid points. However I'm still undecided so will stay neutral. jni (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral. I am not familiar enough with the candidate to support or oppose, but I would like to comment that there are likely many admins who avoid using some of the tools that they are given. An admin who decided not to modify templates and scripts, etc., because of lack of competence in this area would be showing admirable restraint and no one would think anything was amiss. The main criteria is trust by the community to use the tools to benefit Wikipedia, and if the candidate feels that the best way to do that is to avoid using certain ones, that is an aspect of that trust. In my opinion, when judging this candidate's suitability for adminship, the criteria should be suitable experience and competence in the areas in which he has chosen to work, based on his contributions, and trust by the community to show good judgement in the use of the admin tools, even when that judgement means choosing not to use some of them. It's not as though there is a limit to the number of admins and he would be bumping someone out who chooses to work mainly in dispute resolution. I also hope that those who are voting for or against are voting with respect to this candidate in particular, and not for or against the idea of a single-direction admin. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral I'm not fundamentally opposed to single-purpose RfA, but I really don't know about this one. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 03:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The concerns here are multifaceted. Firstly, many editors take concern with language used in the close as being seemingly biased. Secondly, many editors do not feel the closer correctly understood the arguments advanced in the discussion. Consequently, they feel that different points were not correctly weighed by the closer. In particular, many participants felt the closer took for granted The Telegraph's liability on the litter boxes issue; even though this was a point of serious contention in the original discussion, the close discusses the issue as if it was an uncontested fact. Of editors endorsing, several do so with the exception of paragraph 3, or endorse primarily in outcome (the no consensus result). Aside from the fact that, as SM notes, forcing partial changes of a closing summary's rationale is not a common outcome of RFC reviews (and not one I've seen before), it is hard to see how a close can stand when a critical section of its reasoning is struck.There were also other miscellaneous concerns, but the sum of these points is that the closer's reasoning for reaching their decision is not endorsed, and accordingly it is overturned. There are some editors in discussion who don't love the closing summary, but believe the end result is correct nonetheless and should be maintained. However, firstly, there isn't a consensus here on what the correct outcome of that discussion should be (quite rightly, as this is an RFC close review), so I'm not empowered to replace it with any particular outcome or retain the same. Even if there were, I certainly can't ascertain a consensus position for what the closing statement should be, and a close without a statement does not bring about the denouement participants desire. Therefore, the discussion should be reopened for another closer to close.I'll end just by noting that the RSN discussion is obviously a contentious RfC, but a contentious discussion does not necessarily imply controversial closure. In my experience, it's common for even the most contentious discussions to be closed such that most participants accept the close as a fair or reasonable summary of the discussion, even if they don't accept the outcome as being correct. A lot of that stems from the close giving the impression that all the relevant points were considered and all participants feeling like they were heard, even if the outcome did not go their way. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Background: There are two separate objections. One to the close as a whole, and the other to the third paragraph. We present both here, and ask editors to say whether they support overturning the whole close, only the third paragraph, or none.
Reasoning - Third paragraph: Overall, I am satisfied with this closure. However, the closer claims that the Telgraph has an unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax, which is really misleading. That part of the debate centered over the Telegraph's unretracted claim that a student identified as a cat at a certain school (evinced by a viral argument in which a student brings up the "cat student" part as a rhetorical device), which is to be way less than what "embracing the litter boxes in schools hoax" implies; the Telegraph didn't even give that fact much weight anyways.
Now, someone has quoted this part of the closing summary on the Telegraph's WP:RSP entry, thus enabling this misleading part to inflict a lot more damage on those wishing to use RSP for a quick summary of existing consensus. If nothing else, I'd like at least this part to be amended.
As seen on the closer's talk page, at least 3 others are a lot more unsatisfied, believing that the closer falsely made claims of other misrepresentations being brought up and evinced. See BilledMammal's comment for details of this argument. Meanwhile, commenters here may want to consider the magnitude of !voters for deprecation who weren't convinced by the lack of factual misrepresentation. In the end, however, I personally am only concerned with removing or amending the misleading language I mention in the first paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Note that by "first paragraph", I meant the problematic language that I bring up in the first paragraph of my statement, not the first paragraph of the actual close. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Reasoning - Close as a whole: There are two issues with this closure; the closer has substantially misread the discussion, and the closer is WP:INVOLVED.
The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax is discussed at great length. The disputed article, here, is exhaustively dissected by the community, and, on the basis of scholarly sources and an Ofsted report, various misrepresentations contained in that article are noted. It's questioned whether these are really "misrepresentations" or confusions between fact and opinion. Towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. And if the Telegraph has published a correction, then the "generally reliable" camp hasn't unearthed it.
This quoted paragraph, which is the only part of the close which focuses on the arguments made, is rife with inaccuracies. They say that various misrepresentations contained in that article are noted, but as far as I can tell only two misrepresentations were alleged; that the Telegraph endorsed the litter boxes in schools hoax, and that the Telegraph falsely claimed that a student identified as a cat.
The closer says that these allegations are proven on the basis of scholarly sources and an Ofsted report, but this in incorrect. As far as I can tell no scholarly papers were presented in relation to these allegations, and while the Ofsted report was presented, it was presented by those arguing "generally reliable", who pointed out that it took no position on whether a student actually identified as a cat.
They also interpret the consensus of the discussion on this as that the Telegraph has unashamed[ly] embrace[d] the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax. This is not a reasonable reading of discussion; editors rejected that claim on the basis that the Telegraph explicitly called claims of litter boxes in schools a hoax, and this counter-argument was endorsed by the majority of editors who commented on the claim.
Finally, they say towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes. While a few editors on both the "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" side said that reliable sources are allowed to make occasional mistakes, it doesn't appear that this statement was especially common among the "generally reliable" camp, and to interpret this statement as meaning that those editors are recognizing that this specific example is a mistake is to read something into these !votes that is not there.
Given the number of factual errors made in the closer's summary of the discussion it is clear that it needs to be overturned and reclosed. This is particularly true because the closer is WP:INVOLVED, having argued in a previous discussion at RSN about the Telegraph in relation to politics that, while they considered it reliable for that sub-topic, it employs people with ghastly and abhorrent opinions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
This is a no-consensus close, and there are two possible approaches to no-consensus. The first is the one usual at WP:AFD, where no consensus means no change. AFD puts the burden to achieve consensus on the pro-change side. User:Seraphimblade, below, clearly sees the discussion as being in this category.
The second is the one usual with content decisions, at WP:ONUS. ONUS puts the burden to achieve consensus on the anti-change side, and authorizes the removal of disputed material.
In closing this, I decided that the community doesn't have widespread confidence in the Daily Telegraph's coverage of trans issues, and therefore it shouldn't be listed as generally reliable. In other words, I decided to treat this as more like a content decision governed by WP:ONUS than a procedural one governed by AFD consensus. In doing this, I removed the first mover advantage that the "generally reliable" side expected and I think relied on. At issue here is the question: was I right to do that? If you think I was, you belong in the "endorse" column, and if you think I wasn't, then you belong at "overturn".
It's very arguable, and I won't object if the community overturns me here on that point. But I do think I'm right. My position is that we shouldn't be listing sources as generally reliable when the community has real doubts.
The claim that I was INVOLVED is much less arguable. INVOLVED means you can't close a discussion you've voted in, and it means you can't close a discussion about an article you've made non-trivial edits to. And that's all it says. If you stretch INVOLVED to allow claims that you're INVOLVED because you participated in a tangentially-related RFC on RSN the thick end of a year ago on the other side of the debate from your closure, then you've pulled it a long way out of its original shape, haven't you?
We as a community need to clarify what's INVOLVED and what isn't, because I've noticed that pretty much every time you make a disputed closure someone mentions it.—S MarshallT/C 07:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you misread INVOLVED. It’s not about single discussions, but disputes as a whole - and you’ve been involved in disputes in relation to the reliability of The Telegraph, and given the part of your comment I quoted you clearly also have strong feelings on the subject. BilledMammal (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't have strong feelings about the Daily Telegraph. It employs people with ghastly and abhorrent opinions, and I certainly do have my views and opinions about some of those people, but that's not what's at issue here and the Daily Telegraph as a whole isn't a subject I care about.—S MarshallT/C 07:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
That's not what ONUS says - it doesn't put the burden on "the anti-change side". It puts the burden on "those seeking to include disputed content". "Seeking to include" means the ones adding it. It doesn't say "seeking to include or retain". DeCausa (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The policy issue is where I said this: My position is that we shouldn't be listing sources as generally reliable when the community has real doubts.—S MarshallT/C 13:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a view on that. I was just pointing out you've misread ONUS. DeCausa (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
S Marshall, I had not seen the indications of your involvement in this close, but you have even shown those here. WP:BADNAC states as the first reversal reason for a bad non-admin closure: The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved, with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep[a] when all other viewpoints expressed were for keeping as well. You have indicated an opinion even here, and did so beforehand as well. So I will give you the option of reversing your closure, or I will, but it's going to be reversed. A discussion like this should be closed by an impartial closer, or perhaps a panel of them, but you have shown yourself not to be that. If you do not reverse your closure, I will do so. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 09:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
That would be an unwise and deeply controversial thing to do. I am not involved in this matter. At issue is whether the Daily Telegraph is reliable for statements about trans issues. I have never expressed a view on that. Historically I did express a view on the Daily Telegraph's reliability on politics. I said it was reliable for that, and it remains my view that the Daily Telegraph is reliable for politics. This doesn't make me involved in its reliability on other things and you do not get to unilaterally reverse a RFC close on your own judgment. That is not one of the powers the community has granted sysops.—S MarshallT/C 09:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Either reverse or don't, coercing the closure to do so with an ultimatum is not ok. CNC (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
That is, in fact, one of the powers the community has granted sysops. WP:NAC specifically states that NACs are not appropriate in either of the following two situations: The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved, with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep[a] when all other viewpoints expressed were for keeping as well., and The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. This closure at least arguably fails the two, but it dead clearly fails the second. It further states: Per Wikipedia:Deletion process § Non-administrators closing discussions,[b] inappropriate early closures of deletion debates may either be reopened by an uninvolved administrator. So, I intend to reopen it. For clarity, I don't intend to close it; I will leave that to others. I don't have a preferred outcome here, but this close was not appropriate. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 10:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
You won't do that without pushback. This wasn't a deletion decision so you don't get to rely on rules about deletion decisions, and I'm rather self-evidently not involved. Politics is not gender.—S MarshallT/C 10:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't imagine I'll do it without pushback or without having people shouting at me. I've got a pretty thick skin by now. But I still think it needs to be done. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 11:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I've reopened the discussion. As above, I do not intend to close it or in any way be involved with deciding on the outcome, but that outcome does need to be decided properly. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 11:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturning the close might be premature. Is it normal to short circuit an AN RFC review in such a manner? Doesn't seem very efficient to have a big discussion here if the outcome is already ordained. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
So you've overturned and relisted as an involved admin in this request, because you deem the closure was involved? I can't be the only one who sees the irony in this. CNC (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I saw a supervote/BADNAC here, and overturned it. I think that's what should be done. I wasn't involved in the discussion; I was upset by it because of how clearly unacceptable it was. That close didn't summarize the opinions in the discussions, it expressed the opinions of the closer. If that's not a bad close, I don't know what is. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 11:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
And why do you think your 'upset' trumps the opinions of other editors who have expressed support for this close, or indeed those that agree that it should be overturned, but have decided to express that through discussion? This was very poor judgement. – Joe (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
BADNAC or not, your decision makes a mockery of this RfC review process. You expressed your opinion below to overturn and are clearly involved in the dispute here, then went ahead and supervoted the outcome. Being upset is no excuse for this, it's shocking. CNC (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, what arrogance. Okay someone close this close review, although the AN certainly hasn't seen the last of this.—S MarshallT/C 11:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm stunned, Seraphimblade. Not only did you choose to ignore all the editors telling you that this was a bad idea and do it anyway, but you're now edit warring over it. Do you think this is how contentious decisions should be carried out? – Joe (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The close review shouldn't be closed. Seraphimblade should either do the right thing or a new discussion should he started here about the unilaterak overturn. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Administrator Seraphimblade's misuse of the rollback tool is noted here. Per WP:ROLLBACKUSE, points 1–5 obviously don't apply, and 6 cannot, as Seraphimblade failed to provide a custom edit summary explaining the reason for reverting the changes. Not a good look, tbh, either in terms of accountability or conduct. ——Serial Number 54129 12:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this mini discussion ought to be closed. Peopld can discuss at the review. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Overturn. Firstly, the close strikes me as making an argument rather than summarizing them, which raises at least substantial concerns of a supervote. But, that aside, the close seems to be a "no consensus", which means no change to the status quo, yet it then calls for a change in the status quo. Given these concerns and the incoherent nature in general, I think the discussion needs to be reclosed in terms of first, determining if there is any consensus whatsoever (if "no", no changes are made), and, if so, what it is and why. While I have not exhaustively reviewed the discussion, I did take a look over it, and I don't think a clear consensus could be discerned from it, so I think a "no consensus, therefore no change" closure would be the most appropriate result. But certainly "No consensus, but make a change anyway" is an incoherent one, so that can't stand. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 06:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Responding to I decided to treat this as more like a content decision governed by WP:ONUS than a procedural one governed by AFD consensus. In doing this, I removed the first mover advantage that the "generally reliable" side expected and I think relied on. At issue here is the question: was I right to do that? It is my opinion that "no consensus" often means "no change", even outside of AFD. But RSP is a clear exception to this, as stated in WP:MREL. No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply. The words "no consensus" are literally in the title/definition of what is frequently "option 2" in RSN RFCs. Unfortunately, my opinion on this does not add clarity here, but instead suggests that an RFC like this one, which had a lot of option 1 and option 3 !votes, could reasonably be closed as "no consensus" and become a consensus for option 2. Because of the murkiness of all of this, I leave this as a comment rather than a bolded endorse/overturn, and I simply leave this as food for thought. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree. RSP is simply a place where summaries of discussions are documented, not much else. We can't omit NC discussions because there was previously consensus for X, Y and Z. Whether previous consensus should remain, or be prioritised over a NC discussion, is another topic that effects more RSP entries than just The Telegraph. CNC (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
As to where the boundary of WP:INVOLVED is, it is my opinion that one is involved if reasonable editors perceive the closer as having an obvious bias. Even if the closer is not actually biased, the perception of such is important, imo. Is S Marshall involved here? I don't know. It will depend on if more than a couple editors feel that he has an obvious bias. A couple clearly think he does, but I think more input is needed before deciding that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
While your obviously entitled to your opinion, INVOLVED is not based on having a perceived bias. You have to prove that bias makes the closure impartial based on disputes or conflicts with other editors within that topic area. CNC (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse close, but can understand re-listing in order to be re-closed by a group of editors to satisfy all these "extra" issues, specifically regarding the closing summary. From a look at the discussion, I don't think any other close could have reasonably ascertained that there was consensus for GR or GU while remaining impartial, and thus no consensus was the correct assessment by default. I found the closing rationale very reasonable, even if I do understand concerns regarding some of the wording. In my opinion the weight given to the dispute of reliability in the closing summary otherwise makes sense. If the RfC failed to gain consensus, it makes sense to use more words explaining why there wasn't consensus from those who disputed reliability, as opposed to elaborating on why editors believed it was reliable, similar to the closure summaries of other contentious RfCs. Concerns over the closure's involvement otherwise need to be supported with diffs, specifically of the closure's involvement in disputes regarding The Telegraph or trans issues, otherwise this "fall back" argument is meaningless. CNC (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
So no dispute then? Having an opinion is not being involved. Anything else? CNC (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The dispute was regarding the reliability of the Telegraph. Having an opinion made them a party to that dispute. Editors who are parties to a dispute are forbidden from closing discussions broadly related to that dispute, and whether the Telegraph is reliable for politics is a dispute very closely related to whether it is reliable for trans issues. BilledMammal (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
"Having an opinion made them a party to that dispute." That's a huge stretch. CNC (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
To clarify; they expressed their opinion while participating in the dispute. That makes them a party to the dispute. BilledMammal (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion was "What do we think of the reliability of this story", the editor provided an opinion on that. They didn't engage in any dispute with other editors, ie argue with other editors, it was an isolated comment. To clarify, this discussion is a dispute, because we are arguing. See the difference? CNC (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion was Reliability of the Daily Telegraph for politics?, and the notion that it is only a dispute if there is arguing is... novel. Interpreting it that way would mean that editors would even be able to close RfC's they participate in, so long as they don't engage in any back-and-forth discussion.
This discussion is getting a little deep, so I'll step out now. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:INVOLVED does have novel wording: " Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics,...". This is not a "conflict" with other editors, nor based on trans topics. The wording at WP:CLOSE arguably has a higher bar for contesting: "if the closing editor may have become inextricably involved through previous experience in the conflict area", so a throwaway opinion isn't going to cut it here. CNC (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. I found the close very reasoned. I can understand that some may take issue with the description "unashamed embrace", however the crux of the issue is that the paper published a hoax in the area of gender identity and when it was demonstrated that it was hoax they didn't publish a correction. To me that seems perfectly relevant to the question of whether The Telegraph is reliable on trans issues regardless of the specific wording. TarnishedPathtalk 11:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
What hoax are you referring to with the paper published a hoax? BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The kitty litter hoax, the claim that accommodations were being made to children who identified as animals. Is there something else that the close referred to as an "unashamed embrace" of? TarnishedPathtalk 03:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The paper did not make that claim, it reported on others making that claim, cited to them. It did not report that as fact. We don't expect reliable sources to avoid reporting on others spouting falsehoods - otherwise every US news source that has reported on all of Trump's falsehoods would have to be unreliable, since they reported them! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
(however many do expect newspapers to issue updates when falsehoods come to light, but we're going off-topic here. point is, that part of the close unduly exaggerates the consensus on the nature of the issue discussed.) Aaron Liu (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
There was a recent discussion about Al Jazeera that many of the editors commenting here had to have seen (and quite a few participated in) where the conclusion I observed is that is not expected for "news" that was accurate at the time and cited/attributed to another source that later updates itself - so long as their future news stories are in compliance with the updated information. I agree with you that it unduly exaggerates the amount of consensus for "unreliable" to make it a "no consensus". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
That the newspaper published a hoax is not a summary of the discussion. It is one contention that was strongly disputed within the discussion. The term "unashamed embrace" shouldn't be an issue for some, it should be an issue for all, as it wasn't even argued during the discussion. Editors who claimed the Telegraph was knowingly printing false material also often argued that they snuck it in through quotes by dubious actors rather than putting it in their own voice. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn. Closer says that WP:ONUS applies to editors who object to adding a rule so "those who want the status quo need to achieve positive consensus for it", it will be good if admins comment that's not how it works. It's fine to agree with the minority that the cat affair justifies action but that's a vote not an evaluation of consensus. However, adding twaddle to the essay-class WP:RSP page needn't concern admins. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn. Given that the closer assessed this as "no consensus", the correct and only outcome is to retain the status quo, which is that the Telegraph is "generally reliable". The spiel above about WP:ONUS mandating some other outcome is not supported by WP guidelines and effectively takes the close into WP:SUPERVOTE territory. This should be reclosed properly, with no consensus meaning no change to the status. That's not to say we would always have to follow the Telegraph on trans issues, of course, ONUS does apply at individual article level across the project, and where claims in the Telegraph represent WP:FRINGE viewpoints when compared with other sources, it's correct to ignore them. That's a far cry from there being a consensus to label it as "reliability disputed" though. — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Note that "no consensus" for a source evaluation brings it into WP:MREL, its own status for "no consensus". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
That would apply if the matter had never been discussed before, with no status quo, and this were to establish a new position. But that's not the case. There was an RFC in 2022 which concluded that the Telegraph is generally reliable. This RFC here sought to amend that prior consensus and add a new caveat for trans issues specifically. Altering previous consensus requires consensus, not a lack thereof. Lack of consensus means retain status quo. — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Lack of consensus that a source is generally reliable means that it isn't generally reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It means nothing of the sort. It means nobody could agree if it is or not. You don't get to "win" the argument by default just because some people agreed with you and some people didn't. This principle would also apply if it had previously been declared unreliable. The status quo remains. — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
If nobody can agree if it is or is not reliable, then it can't, by definition, be generally reliable. WP:RSP#Legend defines "Generally reliable" as Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most casesThryduulf (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The status quo of RSP is categorising discussions based on consensus or lack of. CNC (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It's been referenced before but RSP is a summary of discussions. If there is no consensus over the reliability of a source, or over a particular topic from a source, then it will be documented as such. The reliability of The Telegraph was otherwise previously discussed prior to the RfC. What your implying has broader implications on RSP categorisation. CNC (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn. Potential involvement aside, the bit about WP:ONUS on the closer's talk page takes this into supervote territory. I will leave it to the new closer or closers to decide the outcome. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. This was a good close. Firstly I don't see how a single past opinion about a separate topic that The Daily Telegraph covers would then indicate the closer is therefore WP:INVOLVED in this topical circumstance (i.e., this single opinion doesn't make the closer "inextricably involved... in the conflict area"). This is especially true in this case, where the closer's broader comment was essentially about the apparent ability of the newspaper to still remain factual despite the individual biases of of a subset of employees. Secondly, about the close itself, the legend for Perennial Sources list entries labeled "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" (i.e. Option 2 of RSN RfCs) provides the relevant detail for evaluation here: "Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances." The discussion in this RfC clearly fits the description of "may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate". If discussions are split between Options 1 and 3 (or 4) and no consensus emerges, as was the case here, the discussion then pretty clearly renders into Option 2 territory when it's time to close. It's clear to me the Option 2 of active RfC discussions is for considering the "unclear" and "additional considerations apply" aspects of the label during such discussions, but needn't be explicitly invoked at a level that cements 'consensus for a lack of consensus', so to speak, for it to be the correct outcome. This case shakes out as no consensus about the reliability of The Daily Telegraph for the subject of trans issues, exactly as the closer found it. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse as far as I am concerned, closes deserve some minor presumption of regularity, and there should be a showing of some meaningful issue or bias before we go about overturning one. I see nothing of the sort here, and the close strikes me as well within the range of possibilities that a reasonable closer might choose. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn. The closer's summary is rife with misleading claims and analysis, along with real concerns of a supervote, as many others have pointed out at length. I'd like to put specific emphasis on what the closer should have, but did not mention in the summary:
1. The sheer amount of sensationalist claims the original poster had listed that went on to be directly and irrefutibly shown to be either false or misleading. See discussion there at length
2. Directly following that, a re-evaluation of the merits of the one remaining possible 'single mistake' (the child's identity as a cat) to even possibly warrant this RfD to result in a characterization of 'reliability disputed'
3. An accurate presentation of the terms of that misrepresented 'one mistake', which was revealed in discussion to be a mistaken assumption based on information the paper was provided with
4. The major amount of support in the 'unreliable' camp that were either based on non-arguments or used language suggesting they had taken all of the original poster's assertions at face value. A sampling: "it was extensively proven that the Telegraph propagates blatant lies"; another user says "we should never use a newspaper for almost anything"; yet another states "the Telegraph is not a source of expert opinion on this topic... there's no reason Wikipedia needs to publish anything they say about it". There are many more !votes that are non-starters when you read the reasoning.
The closer did not recognize the importance of depreciating the value of any editors' votes that were not based on any evidence discussed in the RfC, besides the other issues raised above and by other editors. I hope the next close will be fairer. JoeJShmo💌 06:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn While I think I agree with the closer, the way it was phrased makes it fairly clear this was a supervote at best. Lulfas (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn First, I don't find the WP:INVOLVED argument compelling. Commenting on a previous RFC about the Telegraph's reliability as a whole is approaching the line, but I think it is firmly on the "acceptable" side of it. Reading the close itself, I see substantial defects on the merits to the point that it looks like a WP:SUPERVOTE. The close seems to take assertions made by the 3/4 camp at face value (especially the litter box thing, which was a clear point of disagreement as to what facts they were stating), while minimizing or totally glossing over arguments made by the 1 !voters, especially the comprehensive refutations of the RFC basis by Chess. The weighting applied to these arguments is also strange. Editors on both sides made some poor arguments, but a lot of the 3 and most of the 4 !voters made arguments that were weak or totally irrelevant. Those addressing the opinion pieces or "platforming" certain views mean nothing for reliability, since those are already unusable for statements of fact. Some accepted the litter box claims at face value, totally ignoring the refutations to them much like the close itself did. Other !votes were bare statements of opinion, such as I'd barely trust the Telegraph with the weather, let alone any politics, and least of all any kind of gender politics. When these non-arguments are down-weighted or discarded, I believe the consensus becomes very clear. I would have closed it as WP:GREL, but with an additional note that while factually reliable, there was consensus that their coverage of trans issues is biased and special attention should be given to WP:DUE. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
But that clearly would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE, since there obviously wasn't a consensus in the discussion. The idea that a "refutation" must be accepted by everyone else who !votes subsequent to it is obviously silly. The "refutation" just wasn't convincing to many editors. Loki (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
It was not convincing or not - many editors chose to ignore it completely, rather than explain why they were not convinced. As I stated elsewhere, if an editor wishes to express their view that a refutation is not convincing, that is fine and could be given weight as appropriate, as the person you replied to did. But if all they do is ignore it, their vote must be seen in light of the fact they are ignoring the discussion on it, and only commenting with their opinion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
In which case we must also regard every comment that does not explicitly mention every piece of evidence or (claimed) refutations of that evidence as ignoring that evidence and/or refutation. i.e. the same standards must be applied to everyone. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it is especially controversial to say that a !vote that considers the counter arguments and rejects them is stronger than one that simply repeats the claims with nothing showing they've done any actual analysis of it. I didn't say those should be totally ignored, just weighted accordingly. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it's more controversial than you think it is. Imagine the following two !votes:
Support I think we should only include a mention of Darwin's Origin of Species, because of the many reliable sources that support it, and the zero that support the "aliens did it" hypothesis advanced by the OP. - Alice
Oppose Alice claims that no reliable sources support the "aliens did it" hypothesis, but what about "Aliens Did It" by Quacky McQuackerson? - Bob
Which of these !votes is stronger? Which should be weighted more highly? Loki (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Considering that in this hypothetical you're "Bob" (Alice claims that the Telegraph doesn't endorse the Litter boxes in schools hoax, but what about this article where they call it a hoax?), that isn't exactly a counter-argument. BilledMammal (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
You are indeed Bob in this case. You are saying that the source says something that everyone with eyes can read for themselves is not what the source is saying. You’ve claimed that the source “states that the litter boxes in schools happened” - but that was clearly refuted as they merely reported on the hoax that was stated by others, with attribution. Ditto for the other things you’ve claimed. To be quite blunt, when an editor is as misleading as your initial claims in the RfC are, and they are so clearly refuted that there is virtually nobody arguing after the fact that isn’t equally misrepresenting the sources, all of the !votes based on the misrepresentation need to be weighted heavily down, or given no weight if they provide zero other justification than the misinformation.
In other words, we should not be in the habit of rewarding people who promote quackery (such as Bob), or who promote misinformation/misleading reading of a source to try and “win” the argument (like you did). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
You say "everyone with eyes" agrees with you, ignoring the many people with eyes who disagree with you. Loki (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
...which is what many option 3 !voters did. The difference between these sides which both didn't mention refutations is that more option 3 !voters often did not provide refutations. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
And what I'm saying here is that a weak refutation should not be more heavily weighted than no refutation. If anything it should be weighted less, because it reveals a fundamentally weak argument. Loki (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
That’s absolutely absurd. Someone who is expressing their opinion with reasoning/rationale will always be weighted higher than someone who drives by and “throws a !vote at the house”. You claim it’s weak, then care to explain why a majority of “non drive by” editors after the refutation agreed with it? And of those who didn’t, very few bothered to actually explain what they found wrong with it? Those two things are, in fact, the sign of a strong refutation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I disagree wholeheartedly. This contention seems entirely misconceived to me, and also somewhat oppressive. Giving full reasons can't be mandatory. If I'm at AfD, I shouldn't have to type out, "I concur with the nominator. I too have carried out an exhausive search for sources and I too have not been able to locate an acceptable one. Like the nominator, I don't agree that this person's blog is a useful source for their biography." I should be allowed to type "Delete per nom" in the happy expectation that my contribution will get full weight. People must not be made to feel they have to type out arguments that have already been well made, in full, before their view is counted.—S MarshallT/C 22:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
It depends on the context. If at the AfD the nom says "Fails GNG", and an editor subsequently posts a list of sources, saying "per nom" is a very weak argument - you need to address the rebuttal.
It's similar here. If you say "Per Loki", you need to address the rebuttal that argued Loki not only failed to provide sources for the claim that the Telegraph endorsed the Litter boxes in schools hoax, but that one of the sources they did provide explicitly called it a hoax. BilledMammal (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
It's long been understood that WP:PERX is a weak argument. While WP:ATA is an essay, it has broad community support. As mentioned on that page, Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. At least giving some evidence that you've read the opposing arguments and disagree with them shows that you've done some kind of analysis. If we don't weigh arguments according to how comprehensive, informed, and well-grounded they are then all we have left is a headcount. To also quote from WP:CRFC, The degree to which arguments have been rebutted by other editors may be relevant, as long as the rebuttals themselves carry sufficient weight. If one group is responding directly to the other’s arguments but the other isn’t, that may be relevant to determining which group has better reasoning.The WordsmithTalk to me 23:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
When the arguments they are citing have been solidly refuted with significant agreement with that refutation, then yes, the editor should be expected to justify their agreement or have their argument down weighted accordingly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Considering almost all of nom's original arguments were at best misrepresentations, votes along the lines of "delete per nom" should've been- and should be- majority depreciated. The litter box hoax was a non starter, and nom was reduced to "claims along the lines of a litter box hoax". Further claims were shown to be non-starters as well. Any vote relying on nom's presentation of the issues stated quite possibly could've been completely disqualified, and at the least depreciated. JoeJShmo💌 01:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@S Marshall, is your reading of the discussion that Loki's opening stood more or less unrebutted? Nominator brought 14 links to the Telegraph in their nomination. 9 were described by nominator as directly saying false things. All 9 by my count conclusively refuted farther in the discussion as nothing more than biased presentation at most.
The 5 others were to do with the cat-gate at Rye College. Nominator brought two articles from the Guardian and Pink News to show Telegraph coverage was proven false. In fact, while the Pink News at least states that the Telegraph's reporting is false, it certainly doesn't prove it. The Guardian simply carries the school's denial that a student identifies as a cat.
And then the rub. No one has actually proven that a student did or didn't identify as a cat. But editors continue to dispute whether demonstrating factual inaccuracy is an important part of a finding of unreliability, so there's that.
Nominator also brought up some academic sources which I haven't had time to look into as deeply but which were strongly contested in discussion (and which you didn't mention in your close anyway).
So out of 14 Telegraph articles, and 2 articles in the Guardian and Pink News, nominator managed to directly misrepresent the content of 11, and there is, at the very least, a significant case that nominator directly misrepresented the content of the other 5. This was spelled out clearly early in the discussion. But you think "Per Loki" and "Per Chess" should be given equal weight, because Loki actually made the misrepresentations, while Chess only pointed them out? Samuelshraga (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Loki's nomination statement was exhaustively analyzed by the community in that RFC. It enjoyed significant support and received significant opposition, and overall there was no consensus about its accuracy. The question at issue in that RFC was: Where does bias become unreliability? The community doesn't agree on the answer, but there certainly is not a consensus that the Telegraph is general reliable about trans people.I did not say and do not think that all Loki's arguments were unrefuted. I do think it's proven that the Telegraph's reporting on the litter boxes in schools hoax was inflammatory in the extreme, that it published the report using reported speech but otherwise uncritically, and that it failed to publish a correction.—S MarshallT/C 07:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
This is just not a reasonable, policy-informed reading of the RfC. The question at issue was not Where does bias become unreliability. Bias does not become unreliability. One can be biased without being unreliable and vice versa. The question was "What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?". Being inflammatory is not evidence of unreliability. Failing to publish a correction is not evidence of unreliability if it can't be demonstrated that the paper published a falsehood.
The nomination statement enjoyed significant support and received significant opposition, and overall there was no consensus about its accuracy. Is this more vote counting? Where have you weighed arguments? Samuelshraga (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
...and now we're getting somewhere. You don't have to be caught in a lie to be deceptive. Those appalling fundraising banners that the Wikimedia Foundation displays on our site are a really good example of this: being deceptive without actually lying. This practice of misleading people by telling the absolute truth, in an incredibly selective way, is called paltering and it's widely used by marketers, politicians, lawyers, pressure groups, and at least here in the UK, in newspapers. And if you could read what the "unreliable" camp said without understanding this, then I would gently suggest that you have an opportunity to re-read the debate more carefully.
The "unreliable" camp did not have to catch the Daily Telegraph in a falsehood. They just had to catch them telling the truth so selectively that bias becomes actual deception.
They didn't have to prove the Daily Telegraph intends to deceive. Deception can be inadvertent, particularly when it's by editors who're checking facts rather than checking for balance. We know all about this from Wikipedian content disputes: it's possible to deceive in good faith.
All the "unreliable" camp had to do was convince Wikipedians (1) that it's possible to be mislead by the Telegraph's coverage and (2) this happens often enough to affect the Daily Telegraph's reliability about trans people.
In my judgment, they failed. They did not achieve a consensus that the Daily Telegraph is unreliable.
I then had to decide what to do in the absence of a consensus.—S MarshallT/C 08:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
It's fascinating if this was the basis for your ruling, given that you don't seem to have mentioned this in either your original or expanded close.
Had you mentioned it, doubtless you would have given an excellent explanation of how when editors rebutted charges of "misleading" with a defence of factual accuracy (e.g. here), they were missing the point. And pointed to discussants who actually said that being accurate but misleading was the basis of their case for GUNREL.
And when it was argued that the bar for reliability should be rooted in what false/misleading claims could be cited in articles rather than uncitable misleading implications (first sentence here and last 2 paragraphs here), you would have explained which counter-arguments you found to this point and how you weighted them, to reach a No Consensus finding.
I also note that this is the 3rd separate explanation I've seen you give for your close. It still doesn't contain a weighing of arguments, but I'll grant you that it's less egregious than the previous two. I look forward to the next one. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm clearly never going to convince you, but I have a chance at convincing your audience, so I'll deal with that too.
I'm allowed to explain my close in different ways, because you're allowed to spend thousands of words attacking it in different ways.
It's not for me to decide which counterarguments are persuasive. That's not the closer's role.
The RFC isn't a closer's suggestion box. It's an exhaustive dive into what the community thinks.
I don't decide who was right. I decide what the community as a whole thinks about the subject.
I believe that the community as a whole is at "no consensus" on the Daily Telegraph's reliability on trans issues.
And I believe that RSP should say so.
And if I'd weighted the arguments the way you want, I really would have been supervoting.—S MarshallT/C 11:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
If I thought you'd weighed arguments in a way that I don't like - if I thought you'd weighed arguments at all - then I would have just grumbled about Wikipedia in my head, and not come to a big central forum like this.
People on this noticeboard seem to have plenty of respect for your track record as a closer, even if they think you missed the mark here. As someone who is new to these discussions, I don't see much to respect about this close. In fact I don't see much evidence that you even gave the RfC more than a cursory skim. I wasn't one of the people who invested a lot of time in the arguments at the RfC, but if I were I would be pretty livid that someone would come on and clearly count votes without reference to arguments or policy. If I encounter your future closes I will endeavour to keep an open mind, in deference to the people who seem to value your contributions in general, though not in this case. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The idea that a "refutation" must be accepted by everyone else who !votes subsequent to it is not what's being proposed here. I also don't expect S Marshall to take every unrefuted point as fact,
The ask is that a closing statement explain why an evaluation of consensus was made.
S Marshall accepted your view that The Telegraph promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax, but did not provide an explanation for why your claim was the consensus and why refutations of it were not. Because your claim was accepted at face value, the consensus was for Option 2.
I expect closes to explain why opposing views were rejected in addition to summarizing consensus. Otherwise, there is no indication that a closer considered viewpoints other than the one they ultimately endorsed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Very, very well put. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. As Novem Linguae notes in their comment above, no consensus on source reliability is not the same thing as no change or keeping the status quo. We have here a source which where reliability is a matter of contention among editors, with dozens of well explained and policy-grounded arguments for both declaring the source as unreliable and reliable. Even discounting arguments focused on bias instead of reliability, I can see no weighing of the arguments that comes to any conclusion besides that editors do not agree on the reliability of The Telegraph on transgender topics. WP:MREL exists for a reason. RSP provides guidance on whether there is broad consensus on the reliability of common sources. Source evaluation within articles is always a matter of judging the specific claims and context. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits) 02:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn and reclose to same result. People have already pointed out the problems with the close statement itself, but I think "no consensus" is the correct conclusion to be drawn from that discussion. WP:MREL says Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate which I think is certainly the case here. It would be very hard to close the discussion for one side or the other without that close being a supervote itself. Pinguinn🐧 11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse outside of paragraph 3 The INVOLVED concerns do not move me per CNC, and I think S Marshall's interpretation of RSP (that a lack of consensus for reliability should be explicitly noted, not keep the status quo) is correct. With that being said, no consensus was found that the Telegraph articles about the Rye College debacle constituted promotion of a "hoax"; the closer writes about it as if the proposition there was hoax-promotion was agreed upon, and editors disagreed whether that alone was enough to make the Telegraph unreliable. Still, there was definitely not consensus the Telegraph is reliable for these issues; Aquillion's presentation of academic sources that criticize the Telegraph's reporting on this subject was never adequately rebutted, for one.
Even if S Marshall's close was flawed, I really do not want to go through the whole song and dance of reclosing with what will almost certainly be the same result, stated more verbosely. Sometimes I feel as if the consensus model tends toward rule by CAVE people. Mach61 13:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn Agree with the those who have argued that this should be reclosed properly. Even some of the editors who endorse the close recognize there's problems with wording of the close. The best way forward is to overturn the close and close it correctly. I realize this might seem like a waste of time, but when editors invest this much time into a review we might as well get it right. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse Its pretty clear from above that many agree with the close substance, like I do as well. It seems that the closer made a comment in the close that led to this discussion, but that doesnt lead me to question the substance of the close. I do not find the supervote nor involved arguments to be convincing either. If the source isnt generally reliable, which clearly it isnt from this and other discussions, then it starts to look more like a drop the stick or SOAP issue to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: - regardless of the substance of the close, the controversial comment I suppose you are referring to was explictly referred to in the added RSN entry: ("In the 2024 RfC, The Telegraph's "unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked litter boxes in schools hoax" was discussed, and it was noted that the misrepresentations about this remain unretracted.) How do we solve this issue if the close is endorsed? starship.paint (RUN) 00:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The obvious place would be discussing it at RSP, to discuss how a summary should read. I don't think you'll find any support for including that quote in future, based on this discussion alone. Common sense can simply prevail here. CNC (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't question the substance either, but it is extremely bad for what's supposed to be a neutral summary that saves peoples' time to mislead its readers on such an important point. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with CNC that this additional and unnecessary summary of the close should be trimmed over at RSP. The fact that we are discussing such far off theories (even if untrue) associated with this source should point to the validity of the close. Again I endorse, I am confident the additional comment can be struck without needing to re-run the discussion. Just do what is simple rather than making it complicated. I believe whoever closes this discussion can just find that the close comment as a matter of fact is incorrect (while the overall close is non-controversial), strike it, and thus subsequently remove the summary over at at RSP. Seems simple enough to me Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
So now we've got the nominator at this close review who wants to overturn, and an uninvolved contributor who endorses, both giving exactly the same reasoning for their position.—S MarshallT/C 10:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Important to note that I dont agree that the closer was involved, so we disagree on a key policy issue. We can be clear from this review discussion as well as the original discussion that there is clearly no-consensus that the source is reliable, or anywhere close to reliable for that matter. This isnt a matter where this discussion is going to be overturned and then spontaneously the source will be viewed in the next discussion as reliable. So common sense means we would not need to overturn this to put it back to another discussion, as if the matter was undecided. We are only dealing with a close summary that was a bit off, but the close itself is correct. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that overturning that paragraph counts as overturning the close. It seems Jtbob feels like the biggest damages can be resolved without amending the close statement and that the summary isn't damaging enough to amend, the latter of which I definitely disagree with. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
You're right that directly amending the close would be overturning. Hence for example I endorse the close as the correct outcome, but can understand overturning based on the summary. The reality is this RfC could be closed specifying that parts of the closing summary X, Y and Z, were inappropriate and/or inaccurate, while not directly overturning that RfC, only adding an additional summary to it, based on the discussion that has occurred here. Ie as a note to the top of that RfC, but not within it, thus not actually overturning the close itself. Sometimes it'd be nice to simply think outside the box to avoid a lot of legwork of re-closing such a long RfC. CNC (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how the additional summary would work. If it doesn't mention that the close's language on Rye College is inaccurate, then it won't really be effective. If it does, I feel like we'd need consensus that it's inaccurate. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Consensus based on the close of this RfC, attached above the previous. It would be the same concept as re-closing with the same result, without the extra hassle. A new concept you might say. CNC (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I feel like that would require the same level of consensus as a closure review. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
It wouldn't no. It would be another RfC closure, as this is an RfC. CNC (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
This isn't an RfC, and if it requires consensus here anyway I'd rather we just amend the original language than invent something untested and potentially confusing. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse except paragraph 3. S Marshall's interpretation of RSP is right. However, 'unashamed embrace' of the litter boxes hoax is an inaccurate summary of consensus. That incorrect phrasing was immediately being used in RSP for anyone looking-up the source. Rewriting that part might be the simplest way of resolving this, some editors have helpfully suggested alternative wording. I can believe the closer is usually good, I agree with much of what they say and know closing detail is tricky, but the summary currently doesn't do justice to the editors who spent time analysing the sources. It makes sense to bring up the further explanation added by the closer afterward, up into the main summary, so it's all easily accessible without further clicks, Tom B (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn The close was no doubt in good faith, however it is not well argued, and indeed it should not really be argued at all. It also isn't really a close.
It gives platform to the most flagrantly gender-critical tracts by anti-woke activists. This is irrelevant. Tracts by activists are opinion pieces, and whether they are the "most flagrant" or the "most Satanic" or the "most wonderful" they should not be cited for anything other than the opinion of their authors.
widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax - as remarked elsewhere the Telegraph pointed out that it was a hoax. The only factual error seems to have revolved around whether there was a cat identifying pupil, which to me seems irrelevant. The crux of the story is the, undisputed, unkind criticism of the child who thought such a thing would be silly.
We label a source as "generally reliable" when there's widespread consensus that the source can be trusted to publish fact and retract error. I think this is overegging the pudding. In general there is consensus among relatively few editors, which we believe would be widely shared.
We must say […] that the Daily Telegraph is generally reliable, except as regards trans issues and gender-critical views, where the Daily Telegraph's reliability is disputed. This is really not a close. It's a continuation of the RfC by other means.
Overturn - too much of the closer's own opinion on the issue in dispute was in the closing statement; not enough of the statement was spent summarizing the discussion and explaining how votes were weighed. Let someone else close it; no comment on how it should be closed. But a "no consensus" result at RSN (for a perennial source) should mean a 2 (yellow) listing at RSP. That's what "2" means: no consensus on reliability. "1" if there is consensus it's reliabile, "3" if there is consensus it's not, and otherwise, 2. Levivich (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn. I did not participate in the discussion and have no interest in this dispute other than an interest in broadsheet newspapers generally. The close misrepresents consensus. For example, the close says that the Telegraph embraced the hoax. In reality, there is at least no consensus that the Telegraph embraced the hoax, and a lengthy argument about whether it did. Similarly, the close misrepresents and displays a failure to understand policy. For example, the close claims that a source is not "generally reliable" unless there is widespread consensus that it is. In reality, the policy WP:NEWSORG says that news reporting from well-established news outlets is "generally" reliable for statements of fact. If it is possible under that policy to dispute the "general" reliabilty of the Telegraph at all (and it is not obvious that it is possible to dispute it under the policy, if you accept that the Telegraph is "well-established" as a national daily quality broadsheet newspaper of record established in 1855, and one of at most five such newspapers still published in England), the policy must create a presumption that it is generally reliable and place the burden of proof on those who seek to rebut that presumption. Likewise the closer claims that WP:ONUS applies to disputes over the reliability of sources. In fact, WP:ONUS applies to the disputes about the inclusion of content in articles, which is a completely different matter concerned with the exclusion of verifiable content on grounds of "due weight" and similar issues. Likewise the closer claims that the question in the RfC was where does bias become unreliability? In reality, policy WP:BIASED says that reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. Finally, the closer misrepresents the effect of no consensus in a discussion where there are already policies, namely WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED. If there are policies, there is an existing site consensus. WP:DETCON says "consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" (my emphasis). That appears to mean viewed through the lens of the policy WP:NEWSORG. I think I should also point out that WP:RSP is not a policy or guideline, does not override the policy WP:NEWSORG, and should have been weighted accordingly. I think it could also be reasonably argued that no consensus is capable of meaning "no consensus to change the text of RSP", but I express no opinion about whether it does mean that. James500 (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:NEWSORG isn't policy, and it doesn't say all newspapers are reliable unless there's consensus otherwise. We've rightly found parts of the British mainstream press, notably but not only the Daily Mail, properly unreliable in the past. The burden of proof doesn't lie where you say it does.—S MarshallT/C 09:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, upon closer inspection, I find that WP:NEWSORG is in fact a guideline, and not a policy. However, if WP:DETCON does not apply to guidelines, the effect would be to throw all guidelines out of the window. I am not aware that we have ever found a quality broadsheet print newspaper to be unreliable. The Daily Mail is a tabloid, and it is not, and as far as I am aware, never has been, quality press. It is not apparent that the Daily Mail is "well established" within the meaning of WP:NEWSORG. I think I should point out that NEWSORG makes a distiction between news sources being reliable and their being generally reliable. I am not saying that the Telegraph cannot be unreliable for a particular fact or statement, or even for a particular topic. I am saying that "generally reliable" means something different to that in NEWSORG. James500 (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, exactly so. The discussion we're analysing is about whether the Telegraph is unreliable for a particular topic, to whit, trans people. My position is that there's no consensus about whether it's reliable for that topic, and that WP:RSP should say so. Do you think there's a consensus it's reliable?—S MarshallT/C 11:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Even if all well-established broadsheet newspapers are presumed to be generally reliable until found otherwise, this requires that there be some mechanism by which such newspapers can be found otherwise (otherwise we would be saying they are always generally reliable regardless of any evidence to the contrary). That mechanism is a discussion at RSN, and this RFC was an example of such a discussion. It follows that it must be possible for that discussion to find that a well-established broadsheet newspaper is something other than generally reliable, either for all topics or for some subset of topics. Whether this discussion did establish that is the point of this discussion. Additionally, the reliability of a source can change over time - just because the Telegraph has a long history of being regarded as reliable does not imply anything about whether it is or is not reliable today. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I am going to strike my !vote, since it appears that it might actually be unitelligible. I was not asserting that the newspaper was reliable on this topic, a matter on which I have no personal opinion. All that I objected to was to was certain reasoning and wording used in the closing statement and by the closer to produce a particular outcome. I did not mean to express any opinion on the outcome itself. James500 (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it was unintelligible. The close mispresents consensus. For example, the close says that the Telegraph embraced the hoax. In reality, there is at least no consensus that the Telegraph embraced the hoax, and a lengthy argument about whether it did. This on its own is a perfectly reasonable and widely shared opinion that argues for overturn, before any weighing of the second part of your comment.
Your opinion about the relative weight of the status quo in the presumption of reliability in established news organisations should not have been read by anyone as an argument that the Telegraph was reliable. I think it was an important response, especially that you pointed out that no consensus is capable of meaning "no consensus to change the text of the RSP". It was certainly my understanding of the RfC, and the way that I framed my contribution to it, that the question was whether the evidence presented merited downgrading the Telegraph, and that positive arguments for its reliability were assumed. I'm sure some editors would have put those arguments had the discussion been framed in the way that some people in this review now interpret it. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The question was "What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?". If the outcome of that discussion is "no consensus", how can an RSP entry saying "Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases" on trans issues be accurate or appropriate? This is a genuine question - I am trying to understand the arguments for that position because I currently do not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The RSN RFC question was exceedingly clear, and is the standard question for RSN RFCs: What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues? The questions was not "should it be downgraded," or "should the RSP entry be changed", in which case, one could argue that no-consensus means no change. But since the question was "What is the reliability?" with the standard 4 options, no consensus on the reliability means Option 2, at least in my view. And that's true for all RSN "What is the reliability?" 4-question RFCs. Levivich (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
This is absolutely fair, but a reading of the discussion shows that the approach that was taken was "should it be downgraded", although I take your point that these were not the terms of the question at the RfC. I think a fair summation of the discussion would recognise this. Personally my involvement on the RfC was just to say that after the refutations of the RfC nomination, I didn't see that there was any case to answer for unreliability. I think if contributors had thought there were any need to make a positive case for reliability, rather than just refute the case for unreliability, they would have done so. If the RfC is re-opened with this point clarified, I'm sure they will. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that is a fair summation of the RFC - from what I can tell the majority of people were answering the question that was asked. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
If you read Closer's statement at this review, you will find in his explanation: In other words, I decided to treat this as more like a content decision governed by WP:ONUS than a procedural one governed by AFD consensus. In doing this, I removed the first mover advantage that the "generally reliable" side expected and I think relied on.
Closer saw that GREL side expected that the status quo had weight, and didn't feel that they had to make a positive case for general reliability. Meaning if this RfC is closed no consensus, why wouldn't we have another RfC straight away containing the positive case for Telegraph's reliability as part of the Option 1 case? As closer says, GREL-supporters relied on this argument being assumed last time, so this would be new evidence in the discussion.
The remedy here seems to me to re-open the RfC under discussion to allow that case to be made (and rebutted) now, and then close with those arguments explicitly considered. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I would concur with this perception. In the absence of a legitimate case for unreliability (ie, the presented evidence was roundly and comprehensively debunked) there was no positive case to make.
This RFC discussion in practice proceeded very much like "is there a consensus that the catgirl story was a hoax, and thus that the Telegraph is unreliable", and the consensus was quite clearly no it was not a hoax (especially if reading only votes that went beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and any fair reading of the evidence was no it was not a hoax. The case was so poorly made, what else was there to do? Yet the closer insisted on still describing it as a hoax, and proceeded to downgrade the source citing that as a basis, unilaterally widening the subject beyond that stated in the RFC in the process. Void if removed (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I didn't think it was unintelligible either; seemed well-reasoned to me. Levivich (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse except paragraph 3. A no consensus close is well within closer's discretion, and it would be hard to envision this being closed any other way. S Marshall is one of our most experienced and competent closers. His summaries tend to be more colorful than others ("willing warrior in the war on wokery"), but we can accommodate a variety of closing styles. I think the "unashamed embrace" part is more than just color, and since so much of the discussion was spent supporting or debunking that assertion, I don't think SM got it right that there's consensus on that point. I would be fine with reclose with the same overall result as a second choice, and I think most of our experienced closers (including SM, if so directed) could manage a close that's more dispassionate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it would be surprising if whoever closes this directed me to reword the close giving the same result. I think that would be a distinctly unconventional outcome for an RfC close review, but I suppose I'd comply if so asked.—S MarshallT/C 13:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
It won't happen. Just a vote of confidence in your skills and nature. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, thank you. Thanks to the kind words of quite a few people including yourself, I'm reassured that in general and despite a few exceptions, I do seem to enjoy the community's confidence as a closer (whether or not there's consensus to overturn this particular close, which isn't for me to judge).—S MarshallT/C 14:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
As someone who thinks you got this one wrong, I also respect your overall closing ability and experience. The ones I've seen are overall very good. Accurately determining consensus is really hard, even for the most experienced editors. Anyone who closes enough contentious discussions is bound to make a mistake once in a while, and I don't think it has any impact on the community's overall trust in your judgement. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. As you might see, I'm very confused by the structure of this survey and discussion, and would not be surprised if this endorsement gets relocated to a more appropriate location within it. This closure was more than reasonable and well thought out. Frankly, I would endorse S Marshall's closures all the way out to the edges of the Universes and back, but that's just me. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 19:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: Moved from the "Subpage" section. How do you think the format can be improved? This kind of sectioning has been the default recommended by the closure review template for a little more than 8 months now. Are there any comments you'd like to make on the reasonings of the editors who opened this discussion? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't know about this format – it seems the more subsections there are, the more confusing it gets. My endorsement comment is complete, thank you. Perhaps my confusion should be taken cum grano salis since I have spent no time at all on this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 20:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, the same arguably applies to your entire comment then. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps. If I had to defend the rest of my words, I would begin by using "irrefutable". I've seen far too many great closures by Marshall, and much of what I've learned about closing I've learned from him. I don't think you'll be able to make me understand what motivates such a statement... arguably :>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 15:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
So his closes are so great in general that no matter the arguments made about this specific one, it should be maintained? Not sure Wikipedia should work that way, and very much hope whoever closes this review gives no weight to this !vote whatsoever. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Not at all. I just disagree with non-endorsements herein. This closure should be endorsed not because the closer is correct, but because the close is correct. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there 15:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you can disagree with an argument if you haven't even spent enough time to read the subheadings. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Support close. So, technically speaking, the Telegraph may have "only" supported a clearly false assertion that is very similar to the litter boxes in schools hoax, depending on how narrowly you read that page. However, IMO this is a nitpick. In practice what they said has all the important elements of the litter boxes in schools hoax: the important bit is that they claim a school officially supported students identifying as animals, and not the literal litter box part. If you object to the wording at WP:RSP, then edit that. Loki (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I object to the wording of the part of the close quoted at RSP. As long as the quoted content remains part of the close, I'm pretty sure arguments for removing it are unlikely the gain ground.Regardless of whether the hoax includes the situation in the articles mentioned, casual readers are likely to misinterpret what the misrepresentation is at first glance, which is something a summary should avoid. This "nitpick" has been raised at the closer's talk page and he has refused to change this wording. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
As was clearly and prominently refuted during the discussion, the Telegraph did notclaim a school officially supported students identifying as animals. They reported, as a reliable source is allowed to, that the parents of a suspended student claimed that the school was doing that, and citing that belief to the parents themselves. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
If you think that was refuted at all, much less clearly, you're wrong. In fact I personally think you're lying, since it very clearly wasn't. Loki (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It very clearly was, based on the relative amount of “legitimate” !votes for 1/3/4 after it was (legitimate meaning not based on “it’s biased” or “I don’t like it”), and for you to accuse me of lying shows a massive lack of AGF. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It should be pretty clear that you can't just count votes to decide on a factual claim. Many people weren't convinced by my argument as a whole, but also many were, including several who were specifically convinced by the Rye College thing. Conversely many Option 1 voters, like the closer noted, waved off the Rye College articles as a single mistake without denying they were false. Loki (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Yet significantly more people were either not convinced by your claims in the first place, or - and this is the important part - were convinced by the refutations. The mere fact that a relatively small proportion of editors claimed to still be convinced by your evidence does not change the fact that there can be consensus on reliability. If 10% of editors think it’s unreliable, but 90% were happy with the refutation, then it’s laughable to suggest it should be listed as “unclear” - that would be one of the clearest consensuses possible. Yet the closer didn’t even attempt to evaluate how the discussion evolved or the relative strength of the arguments. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I've just re-read every bolded "Option 1" !vote, and and while I may have missed something I can't see any who waved off the Rye College articles as a single mistake without denying they were false. If I did miss something, can you link the !votes? BilledMammal (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
For the record, I also do not think that S Marshall is INVOLVED based off personal experience closing an RFC while having previously participated in an RFC in the topic area, and having that firmly upheld on close review. Loki (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn, and reclose. The closer did not take into account, or at a minimum failed to explain how they took into account, the number of !votes (primarily on the "unreliable/deprecate" side, but also a few on the reliable side) that were based solely on "I don't like it" or "it's biased thus by default unreliable" standpoints. That fact alone should merit overturning the close, since the closer did not take the strength of those arguments into account and down-weight them accordingly. However, the closer also admits on their talk page that they basically supervoted. They didn't assess the community's belief, and especially Chess's refutation, of the claims regarding the "cat" hoax/"litterbox" hoax. They assessed, without explaining how they felt the community came to that consensus, that it was blatant misinformation, and they based their close in large part on the fact that, since the source published information about that, all arguments for unreliability must be accurate. In fact, Chess and other users (including myself), refuted the fact that it was a "hoax" published by the Telegraph - the Telegraph published what others were saying about it, and cited their sources accordingly when they did report the views/opinions of others. However, the closer did not take into account any of these arguments made. Lastly, there was a clear turn of the discussion after Chess and others discussed and refuted the claims at length during the discussion. Before Chess's comments and the ensuing discussions, there were people claiming that the evidence presented at the start was grounds for unreliability on its own. Many of these people admitted that Chess's refutation was valid, and that their arguments were much less strong. But even more damning for this close, after Chess's refutations and the ensuing discussions had been discussed, there were virtually no !votes for unreliable/deprecate that were actually based on the evidence presented at the beginning. The vast majority, if not all, of the !votes after the discussions were based on the improper arguments such as "I don't like it" or "It's biased thus unreliable", which were not properly weighted by the closer. Ultimately, I thank the closer for making an attempt, but it is clear that the close failed in three primary ways: It did not evaluate the strength of the arguments, it did not evaluate the "turn of the tide" after the opening arguments were largely refuted, and the closer injected their personal opinion as to the "cat/litterbox" hoax into their evaluation. For these reasons, the close should be overturned. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn. The close is not close to a faithful conclusion of the discussion. The issues with this close are in the third and fourth paragraphs. In the third, the close takes as a fact The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax. Any reading whatsoever of the discussion will show that the idea that the Telegraph promoted some version of the litterbox hoax is contested, with many editors subscribing to refutations of this point. The next paragraph goes on to assert that On trans issues, Wikipedians simply do not have this level of confidence in the Daily Telegraph. The only argument referenced to this point has been the litterbox one. Editors who took issue with the third paragraph therefore found the fourth, which finds that reliability is disputed, to be invalid. However, the closer clarifies on talk that Fourth paragraph is independent of the third.The assessment that reliability is disputed was therefore not given any justification in the close itself, so closer expanded the close. The expansion provides but one reason why to give weight to the argument that the Telegraph is not generally reliable on trans issues: Although some members of the community have confidence that the Daily Telegraph is reliable on trans issues, this view is strongly disputed by significant numbers. In other words, closer is counting votes. Except closer tells me on talk that the point is not to count votes, and I didn't, but to weigh arguments, which I did. Closer has shown no evidence of weighing arguments (except in the case of the litterbox hoax claim, in which closer showed no evidence of weighing arguments fairly). Closer claims both not to have counted votes, but also bases their close of "Reliability disputed" on the claim that the view that the Telegraph is reliable "is strongly disputed by significant numbers". If closer is not willing to revert, close should be overturned as closer won't give a consistent account of what the reason is for the close. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Support close because I think it's a perfectly reasonable close despite me thinking very negatively of The Telegraph. My emotions want it deprecated, but I know that this is the best we can get. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 07:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, you can't reopen the discussion when it's still at AN... I would say the same if I wanted it overturned. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 11:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Support close, but what the hell is (The Telegraph) is a willing warrior in the war on wokery. It gives platform to the most flagrantly gender-critical tracts by anti-woke activists. I'm not sure what "woke" is being used as a synonym for here, but there are better words for the Telegraphs "anti-woke activists". They are called transphobes. Most of them even call themselves "gender-critical", which is the same thing. Also, radical feminists like Julie Bindel are not "anti-woke". Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see gender-critical and transphobic as 100% synonymous although Julie Bindel certainly qualifies as both. I specifically wanted to say that the Telegraph is activist on this issue.—S MarshallT/C 10:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn - first I would like to thank S Marshall for their effort in closing such a large RfC, as they have done so many times before. Unfortunately despite that, I share the concerns of Berchanhimez and Samuelshraga particularly regarding the litterbox issue, it was far more disputed by editors than what the original and extended closures portrayed. Since this was a significant and prominent part of the close, that causes the entire closure to fall into doubt. starship.paint (RUN) 12:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Kind of overturn I agree with the closing in that when we have such a clear 1 or 3 split we can't just say no consensus so no change. Certainly such a gap means on this topic we need to use caution. I also agree that the closing was not a summary of the arguments and for that reason the closing statement either needs to be changed to align with a true summary of the discussion or another editor should close the discussion. That the source was biased seemed to have consensus but how much did not have a consensus. The closing suggests there was agreement on how biased the source was. I also agree that some of the language used in that part of the closing appeared to be expressing an opinion rather than summarizing the discussion. Since much of the discussion centered on the litter box hoax it is important to get that part of the close correct. I think all would agree that there was a clear dispute regarding if the source was just reporting or if they were embracing. As such the claim that the statement, "The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax" is clearly inaccurate. I don't have a strong view on the involved claim but I'm not sure I view that as disqualifying in this case. Springee (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn The close expansion includes: Towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. I don’t see this in the discussion. Also, there is no mention of the general disparity between those who supported Option 1, who generally discussed the question of whether the Telegraph is reliable on transgender matters - which is what the RfC was supposed to be about - and those who supported Option 3, who mostly said we should not use the Telegraph on transgender matters because it is biased – which is not what the RfC was supposed to be about.On the contrary, the closing comment summarises the attitude of those who preferred Option 3, It is a willing warrior in the war on wokery. It gives platform to the most flagrantly gender-critical tracts by anti-woke activists.without making the obvious conclusion that such views are irrelevant to an RfC on reliability. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn, the weighting and evaluation of the arguments was done poorly, and the tone of the original close leaves much to be desired. Unfortunately, some of the summaries of the arguments (like the cat story) was either done poorly, or added onto through the closers own arguments trending towards a supervote. Lastly, whether or not the closer is clearly involved, there is definitely a strong appearance of involvement, which is enough IMO. FortunateSons (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Support closer, oppose close. It's a real stretch to accuse S Marshall of being involved for having an opinion on a related matter (or even on this matter). We're not robots nor should we pretend to be - and I have previously seen S Marshall demonstrate high competence in separating personal views from the principles at hand in a discussion. However, I do agree that the close rationale erred in endorsing a point that had been thoroughly rebutted in the discussion, and in taking a bold interpretation of WP:ONUS. It is not clear to me that the policy on onus with respect to article content should automatically apply to discussions of general reliability. This is a point that could potentially be argued in the abstract, but in this specific case, when our starting point is a previous RfC finding general reliability, then the onus should very much be on bringing new evidence, and the focus of the close should be on whether or not that evidence has been successfully rebutted - not on whether there was a dispute. If there's no consensus that the new charges are valid, then they should be considered unproven, and the status quo should remain. Proving unreliability should be hard, as a countermeasure to the chilling effect of a downgrade. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn. The closer was WP:INVOLVED with respect to The Telegraph's reliability in the context of political topics, as their comment from April 2024 shows. And the sort of involvement does somewhat show in the close; the close does not faithfully represent the consensus attained on key points, and it doesn't appear to attempt to summarize what the arguments on each side were. Instead, the close reads much more as if it were a !vote in the RfC, where the closer inserts his own analysis of the source (It is a willing warrior in the war on wokery) and appears to give definitive weight to one questionable interpretation of The Telegraph's reporting (unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax) as if it were to have reflected the broad consensus of the discussion.Because the closure should represent the discussion faithfully, and this closing summary is more of an argument than an attempt to do so, it should be overturned. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 13:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
SMarshall was not INVOLVED. I'm not going to express an opinion about the close as a whole as I fear I would fail to avoid the relitigation that multiple editors here are doing) but I see absolutely no evidence that SMarshall was INVOLVED within the meaning of that policy and so that allegation should not be factored into the assessment of the close. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn - the finding that there was no consensus the Telegraph is not reliable, but the source should still be considered "not generally reliable" (in some unspecified way) is unreasonable. It is probably better to vacate it entirely rather than modify it to a pure "no consensus" close. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
No consensus (MREL) also means "not generally reliable" (GREL). It does not mean "generally unreliable" (GUNREL). Everything that isn't GREL is not generally reliable to put it simply, such as a "pure no consensus close". CNC (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
That's just how WP:RSP works. The normal rule of no consensus = no change doesn't apply. Instead "no consensus" is a status, and it's WP:MREL. Loki (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. If there is "consensus for no consensus" that is one thing, but a "no consensus at all so a specific change must happen" is a supervote. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
You might think it's ridiculous but that's how RSP works. "Generally reliable" is defined to mean "there is a consensus that this source is generally reliable". There is a specific category for sources about which there is no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we're at the point of "beating a dead horse". I've asked below in the clarity section on whether this RfC should be an exception to the status quo, or whether RSP should be changed, and if so whether it should be retrospectively; but so far there are no proposals. Any closer of this discussion is surely aware of how RSP operates by now. CNC (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Support close to prevent time-wasting: I supported option 3 but find the close a clear reading of the discussion. While it's not a vote count, we should be on the same page about the trend of the discussion. By a quick count: ~55 editors said option 1 (with many arguing it was biased but not enough to effect reliability), ~8 supported option 2, ~50 said option 3/4, ~8 said 1/2, and ~4 said 2/3. That leaves us with a clear majority in favor of "there are issues with calling this straight up reliable" (~8070(fixed per starship) v ~55, with, as I noted, many in the latter camp acknowledging it does have a GC slant). Editors presented RS that supported the claims of bias as well. When such a large outpouring of editors have significant concerns regarding a source's reliability, that must be reflected in the close - there was no earthly way this could have been closed with "the community agrees this is reliable on trans topics". WRT claims that those questioning it's reliability did so on WP:IDLI grounds - editors considered platforming anti-trans activists and talking points in every article a clear sign of unreliability/bias just as if their editorial line was obviously pro-flat earth or pro-race realism (please note that regardless of your opinions on whether the GC movement is correct or not, RS do overwhelmingly say it's a hate-based movement supportive of disinformation). Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Addition error. 70 per your numbers. Not 80. starship.paint (RUN) 16:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I simply don't see how you think counting votes is an argument in support of a close, especially when the closer's only justification is that they counted votes. (Leaving aside the fact that counting 1/2 !votes as against calling it WP:GREL is a stretch. Those votes explicitly support calling it generally reliable, and are broadly saying they would accept/support adding a note in RSP, not downgrading the source. I conclude this by actually reading those comments, rather than counting them.) Samuelshraga (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Could you address the reasons we, or at least I, brought up the close review? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Gladly: to start, please take my comment in the context that the close review grew beyond your point.
Regarding the "overturn whole close": I do not believe the closer was involved (which would, in my view, entail either participating in the discussion or being generally active in GENSEX). I do not believe he misread the discussion in finding MREL.
Regarding your specific note on the litter box hoax: I actually agree with you it could have been better (though on procedural grounds I think it was fine and this 2 pronged close review is wasteful of editor labor). Being more specific:
The litterboxes were extensively discussed and would inevitably have been mentioned in the close. An uninvolved editor weighed up the arguments on both sides, and believed that the "hoax promotion" had better ones - but it could have been the other way or more equivocal and still be a valid close imo. To be clear, I think The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax is discussed could have been better phrased as Whether the Telegraph embraced the widely-debunked ...
That being said, I think it should have been a more general statement on misinformation: misrepresenting the Cass Review, incorrect statements on "desistance", use of meaningless scarewords like "gender ideology" or "trans agenda" in its voice, and etc. Particularly, as many noted, platforming FRINGE groups to make false statements on issues while portraying them as experts and disregarding more mainstream ones.
Sidenote to that, I disagreed with the extended close's statement about its historic homophobia and advocacy for conversion therapy (neither of which is the paper's current editorial position). - They no longer support LGB conversion therapy, but its blatant in practically every article that they support it for trans people, and I would further argue that their repeated framing of issues as LGB v T, as if they're mutually exclusive, is homophobic in itself.
To your point on the "litterbox hoax" and their reporting on it, your recommended alternative sentence starting with "whether" changes the meaning completely. SM's close referred explicitly to the fact that many people "believed" they "embraced" the hoax, and did not address the fact that, aside from those whose !votes were based on their opinions on the underlying subject as a whole, the majority of editors did not see it as being reported as truthful in the reporting - and in fact a reading of the articles in question confirms that they are right to not see it that way. If editors base their !votes on "facts" that are disproven, whether before or after their !vote, then their !vote needs to be weighted down accordingly - not given full/extra weight as SM did. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be a bit of a point of dispute in these discussions. I think some of the endorse editors look at the yellow rating and reasonably say, "with arguments on both sides and a clear 1 vs 3 division yellow is the only reasonable outcome." I can get behind that. However, I also agree with editors who note that there were clear errors in the summary of the arguments. I don't see how a reasonable close could state as fact that the source embraced the litter box hoax. That was a clear point of contention and if neither side convinced the other then we shouldn't treat it as some sort of consensus outcome. When doing a closing it's not just that the color needs to be right, the summaries need to be accurate as well. We don't have that here. At minimum editing the summary to reflect the actual state of the discussion is warranted. Personally, I think having a new closing is better. Springee (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn. Two distinct issues here:
Imbalance and inaccuracy in the summary. Rather than fairly sum up both sides of the discussion, the close is weighted towards the unreliability perspective to an extent that does not reflect the genuine course of discussion. Vigorously contested assertions (e.g. the notion of The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax) are treated as fact. At times S Marshall appears to be carrying on the argument in his own close (e.g. Towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. And if the Telegraph has published a correction, then the "generally reliable" camp hasn't unearthed it.)
The, um, let's call it "novel" interpretation of ONUS such that a supposedly "no consensus" close somehow ends up in effect a consensus to downgrade? I don't have much to add to what Barnards has already said: (1) ONUS is geared towards discussions about whether to include specific things like an image or a certain paragraph in an article, not broad discussions about the reliability of a source; and (2) there's an existing RfC finding consensus for general reliability, so that should be the assumed baseline we're working from.
S Marshall made an odd comment about the decision to adopt this interpretation: In doing this, I removed the first mover advantage that the "generally reliable" side expected and I think relied on. The part about editors advocating for reliability "relying on" a supposed first-mover advantage comes across to me as if he is taking the view these editors are abusing or at least leaning on procedure to get a preferred result. This does not seem to be a fair characterisation to me.
I don't see how S Marshall is INVOLVED, though. – Teratix₵ 16:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Support close. It was a very reasoned, balanced close. I would have preferred a "generally unreliable" close, but I accept that S Marshall made a good faith effort to close this RfC in a balanced and impartial manner. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn, and reclose per Berchanhimez. S. Marshall deserves some credit for stepping in where angels fear to tread, but a no-consensus outcome doesn't justify changes to the status quo. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It explicitly does at WP:RSP, and in fact "no consensus" is part of the definition of WP:MREL. Loki (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Let's leave it for Part 2 to deal with. CNC (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse close and this relentless badgering of closers when a consensus doesn't go someone's way needs to stop. I've seen it a lot in the last year and if it's not stamped down on it's going to be next to impossible to find anyone to volunteer to close anything but the most obvious community discussion. Daveosaurus (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse close. It accurately reflects the discussion and the state of consensus (or lack thereof) on the topic; and the arguments it mentions are summarizing ones from the discussion, not new ones presented by the closer. The WP:QUO / WP:ONUS argument doesn't make sense to me - those policies are for article space, where we have no choice but to decide on one version even when we lack consensus. RSP isn't an article, it's a summary documenting where the community stands on specific sources; a lack of consensus can and should be documented there. No-consensus outcomes get lodged there as a matter of course; AFAIK that's how it has always worked. It would be misleading to do otherwise and would lead to disputes where people attempt to rely heavily on a source only to face conflicts and be told that there's no consensus on it. There is an entire category for no-consensus outcomes on RSP, and numerous entries on the table that use that specifically in their language; it makes no sense to not use that here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Summarizing a minority opinion that was strongly refuted, and the refutation of which was agreed with by a majority of editors commenting after the refutation, does not a no consensus finding make. Even if you believe that SM was not imposing their own opinion on the closure, the summary of the opinions presented and their relative strength was insufficient as it did not take into account the "turn of the tide" in !votes after the refutation, and in fact it tries to claim that after the refutation the reliable camp's arguments got worse - the exact opposite of what happened. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
endorse close. I think the language used could have appeared to be more neutral, but it is clear that there is no consensus on the telegraphs reliability on this topic. That some people seem to think consensus is needed to confirm there is no consensus seems nonsensical, unless we all do a close that could never be decided. I don't think the close is perfect but it's certainly good enough and every editor involved could probably be more useful spending time elsewhere. For transparency's sake I voted option 3 on the RFC and was deemed a SPA. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn The assumption that people saying that mistakes happen were conceding that the specific example brought up was actually a mistake was not supported. That leaves a fundamentally damaged evaluation of the wider consensus as to whether there were mistakes in this area, which is a key aspect of changing the assumed reliability of this source. The result is an artificially strong consensus not supported by the arguments. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn. The only policy-based reason S Marshall's close was based on is whether or not The Daily Telegraph endorsed the Litter boxes in schools hoax. The conclusion S Marshall reached is that The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax is discussed at great length. This is a WP:SUPERVOTE because it sides with Loki's original claim without any explanation. One of the central disputes of the RfC was whether or not the "Litter boxes in schools hoax" encompassed a student merely identifying as a cat, which is the falsehood The Telegraph supposedly said. The assumption that these were equivalent made it impossible to reach any other conclusion than Option 2 or 3, which I will show below.S Marshall's only mention of specific Option 1 arguments is that the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. This misses the point, which is that The Telegraph promoting a blatant hoax is not equivalent to getting a detail in a story wrong. S Marshall did not address this in this point in their close because of the aforementioned SUPERVOTE, which assumed equivalence between kids using litter boxes and kids identifying as cats. If the equivalence was treated as a disputed point, the concession that the article is misleading matters much less, since it is no longer a concession that The Telegraph promoted a blatant hoax.Closers are also supposed to disregard votes not based on policy per WP:DISCARD, and not judge on headcount. S Marshall's close does not obey this. Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, but S Marshall says Although some members of the community have confidence that the Daily Telegraph is reliable on trans issues, this view is strongly disputed by significant numbers. as an explanation of their decision. [13] The close also makes references to the controversy over homophobia, transgender breast milk, and other factors, but does not explain how those subpoints helped reach a decision. If the closer does not analyze a point I will assume it did not play a part in the decision.To summarize, the close began by assuming that Option 3 was correct on the most significant part of the discussion, and then judged the entire rest of the RfC on those grounds. This assumption should not have been made and a proper close would fairly summarize the dispute over whether implying a student identified as a cat is equivalent to saying students are using litter boxes in schools. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
It's actually worse, as S Marshall claims that the close is not based on the finding on whether the Daily Telegraph embraced the litterbox hoax. So there was no policy-based reason for the close. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn close. It is clear from this edit[14] that the closer had a POV that should have been declared. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC).
This isn't just two discussions in the same topic area; it's two discussions about the reliability of the same source. BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and in the previous situation I had !voted in an RFC whose result was directly relevant to the close. However, the community very clearly endorsed the close and overwhelmingly said I was not WP:INVOLVED.
The thing you're missing here is that WP:INVOLVED is not about bias or opinion. It's closer to WP:COI: the point is that you cannot close a discussion that you participated in. But having an opinion on the discussion doesn't matter, that doesn't make you involved at all.
In general, Wikipedia policies don't prevent an editor from doing something due to having expressed an opinion on that topic. Instead, they prevent editors from doing things because of concrete relationships with discussions or topic areas: you can't cite your own research and you can't close a discussion you !voted in, regardless of what you think of it. This is also the case over at the perennial WikiProject dispute where community consensus soundly rejected your interpretation, which I bring up to make the point that you appear to have similar misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy in multiple areas. Loki (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
There's situations where there's only one correct POV. This is one of them. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 19:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Whatever the criticisms of the body of the closure may be, and there seem to be some, the closure is tainted because the closer did not declare a POV (whether that POV was "correct" or not). Xxanthippe (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC).
Overturn (Option 5, but I would be happy with 2 too). Reading the original discussion, I thought that the accusations about inaccurate reporting of "litter boxes in schools" had been well argued against. In their initial statement, the closer appears not to consider these arguments, but simply labels the Telegraph's statements as misrepresentations. At the least the closer should have addressed these prominent arguments and explained why they did not agree with them. This implies to me an insufficiently in-depth analysis. The closer's revised statement says a little more on this topic, but I was shocked that the decisive step of their reasoning is an obvious non-sequitor: "The 'generally reliable' camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading." This seems almost flippant; Wikipedia should be able to do better than this in analysing the evidence and arguments. JMCHutchinson (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse and overturn (I did 'participate' in the RFC although I didn't comment on the reliability of the Telegraph in this RFC, but I did comment on a previous RFC that the Telegraph was unreliable on this specific issue). The close that 'there is no consensus on the reliability of the Telegraph on transgender issue' (or WP:MREL), is IMO the correct reading of the discussion (so I endorse it). However, with apologies to an editor I respect, I do think the reasoning in getting there is flawed. The close doesn't engage with all the arguments and rebuttals in the discussion, dissatisfaction with which has lead to this review (not helped with how the RSP was updated). Given this is now the third RFC on the matter in a short space of time, a close that satisfies all involved (even if it doesn't agree with them) is sorely needed. I do wonder if the RSP had simply been updated with the plain "In regards to transgender issues the reliability of The Daily Telegraph is disputed.", without the additional details then we wouldn't be here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 11:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn. I appreciate the sincere attempt on such a divided issue, but I believe that such a contentious non-consensus warranted a more conservative close, both in resolution and in wording.As others have noted, the close turned largely on one story, the notorious "cat" drama. That the closer refers to a story that categorically was not a "widely debunked litterbox hoax" in such terms does not inspire confidence that the arguments have been properly weighed. A story featuring elements of otherkin in schools is not automatically a "litterbox hoax". The incident in question happened, and absolutely nobody denies that. The school acknowledged it and reviewed its processes in the aftermath. I wrote out a transcript of the recording here for anyone still for some reason curious about this debacle. I won't rehash the arguments yet again but I don't think any fair weighting of the refutations can support a close describing this as a "debunked litterbox hoax" when there has been no hoax, no litterbox, and no debunking.As for the specific wording, as I raised on talk, the closer needlessly inserted the text "and gender critical views" into the closing statement, widening the unreliability notice beyond what was suggested. This was not part of the original RFC, and no evidence was presented either way as to the reliability of The Telegraph for "gender critical views". Editors may have personal opinions on how separable "gender critical views" are from trans issues or what the closer even means by "gender critical views", but that is a discussion in an of itself, and one which simply did not take place and whose outcome should not be assumed like this. This unsolicited addition is unwise in an already polarised RFC, and if this is overturned I would suggest a future closer stick to the wording of the RFC only and leave this particular can of worms unopened. Void if removed (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Support overall close because of what it isn't Overturn....needs another look per my post lower down Folks, let's look at what the structural result of the overall close is, which I think many folks have missed. It is "no consensus on trans issues" and "generally reliable on non-trans issues" I can't see people arguing for a close other than this. The "embrace of the cat story" statement should not be in there but that really doesn't change anything. And it probably needs a shorter more direct summary such as I just gave. If they were an admin, SMarshall would be in the top 5% of admins regarding knowledge and expertise to close this type of thing, so NAC is not an issue except maybe for the optics of it. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Arguing that the close is fine because while it misrepresents the discussion, it gets you the answer you want is ... refreshingly direct, though sadly not unique here. If you can't see people arguing for a close other than this, you might read this comment above. Not to mention many of the other comments supporting overturn. Are we not people? Or can you just not see us? Samuelshraga (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I encourage you to review the problems many of us have with this close. Similar to how an RfA that (pre-recent-changes to RfA) had a significant early support but was then followed by a “bombshell” that caused a turn of the tide, this discussion was started based on inaccurate representations of the source, which I will assume was not Loki’s intent. This was not called out immediately, and many people !voted while discussion of the initial claims was continuing. But a clear consensus emerged that the initial claims of misinformation were, to put it bluntly, wrong. They claimed the Telegraph said in their own voice things they didn’t, they claimed the Telegraph didn’t retract what other people had said and it merely reported on. And that refutation was widely accepted by a clear majority of editors who posted substantive comments after it was done.
That is why people are believing there was a consensus here - after properly considering how to weight the !votes that were based on the initial inaccurate information, and/or solely based on their personal opinion whether they like the source or not, or of if the source is “biased” or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@Samuelshraga:@Berchanhimez: I'd be happy to take a deeper dive on this and revisit but would like clarity on what I think you are saying that the correct close should have been. Is it that there was (simply) a consensus that they are a generally reliable source? (without the separate wording for trans issues) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
My personal reading of it, which I accept is not necessarily in line with what others may read, is that yes - those !voting for option 3/4, and many (but not necessarily most) for option 2, did not care about the veracity of the claims in the initial filing by Loki, and took them at face value. Very few of that group as a whole either provided clear arguments as to why the refutation by Chess and others should be discounted, and many of them admitted that their arguments fell apart once the refutations started coming through. Further, the “turn of the tide” to significantly more option 1 votes, and significantly more (if not all) votes for option 3/4 being based solely on bias or flat out lies, I believe that this all comes together to lead to a consensus that the source is, by our own policies, biased but generally reliable, even on the subject of transgender issues. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Ugh, wrong link there, it’s supposed to go to the page about bias of a source not generally affecting its reliability, but mobile. Hopefully you know where I’m talking about, will fix later when I’m home. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@North8000, I'm probably one of the less experienced editors here. I didn't come because I felt I would have been competent to close myself (had I not been involved), but because the close we got was so clearly flawed. That said, I agree with Berchanhimez's reading of the discussion. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
So the difference between your thoughts and the close which I supported is that the close said that there was no consensus on trans issues and your thought was that the result was that they are reliable on trans issues. (BTW my sentiment expressed at the RFC was that it should be #1, with #2 also being OK.) I took a harder look. IMO there was a plurality for #1 between #1 and #3 bordering on a consensus and if you include #2 sentiments regarding suitability to use on trans issues (a sort of "sufficiently reliable") then there would be a clear consensus for confirmed usability ("generally reliable") on trans issues. So now I think thhis sould get a second look. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that was my “rough count” too (remembering that it’s not a vote count). Combine that rough plurality for “reliable but biased” with the fact that the main arguments in favor of unreliability were contested and refuted and many editors agreed with the refutation, there is really no path to “no consensus” here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The analysis that caused me to reverse my position is this: The operative results regarding trans issues were in essence: 1. Prohibit use on trans issues (RFC choice #'s 3 & 4) 2. (RFC choice #'s 1 & 2) Don't prohibit use on trans issues. By this analysis (if arguments roughly follow head count) "don't prohibit" was overwhelmingly favored by a factor of 1.73 to 1.
No, those weren't the options. There were four options, three if you exclude 4 for being essentially impossible to implement. 1 != 2 != 3, and people who voted 2 should not be assumed to support 1. Indeed many of those people explicitly said they were voting 2 because they did not support 1. Loki (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Support close, this is a very tough debate to find any resolution for and I think that S Marshall's decision is a pretty fair and balanced choice. S Marshall highlighted the key aspect of the debate which is a general agreement on the bias of the Telegraph but a disagreement on how much that bias affects the paper's journalistic integrity. Saying that when dealing with the subject of trans people the Telegraph should be used carefully seems like a reasonable precaution. (I voted for option 2 on the basis that reviewing a number of the linked articles showed a fairly strong bias on the topic, my primary concerns being their deliberate misrepresentation and laundering of sources. If I was working on material related to the subject, I would want to cite more neutral and nuanced sources that had clarity and more journalistic integrity.) Gnisacc (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn per JoeJShmo, The Wordsmith, Berchanhimez, Samuelshraga, Teratix, Chess, Void if removed, etc. The close is frankly an inadequate and inaccurate summary of the discussion. Others have already noted multiple issues with the "litterbox hoax" paragraph, which treats one side of a hotly disputed point as fact and proceeds from there. Almost no weight is given to the rebuttals, which disputed not only whether the Telegraph "embraced" the story, but whether the story was an instance of the hoax and whether it even was a hoax at all. I do not believe the original text supports the bizarre claim that these users were "reduced" to arguing that the Telegraph is "allowed to make mistakes". The next paragraph that summarizes the rest of the RfC is equally bizarre. It devotes no attention to the handful of journal articles which were held up multiple times as evidence of the Telegraph’s supposed "unreliability", but in actuality explored only the source’s bias. It highlights a single brief comment one user made about Julie Bindel (whose "platforming" as an opinion columnist would indicate bias, not reliability) but fails to mention more significant points of debate such as the Thoughtful Therapists issue, which was brought up in the RfC's opening statement and rebutted at length by multiple users. And it elides the well-reasoned rebuttals by simply saying that "there was discussion", while neglecting to evaluate the relative merits of those discussions. I do not have confidence that the close properly engaged with the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments being made on both sides. Rather, the close seems to treat the fact that the source's reliability was vociferously disputed as justification enough. Astaire (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse - The close was a reasonable read of the discussion and came to a very narrow decision. All of the arguments for overturning focus entirely on process wonkery & nitpicking word choice in order to try and unravel the close by tugging on a loose thread. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I brought this here because the closer refused to amend his egregious word choice on his user talk page and insisted that he came to it after weighing all arguments. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so you think that unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked [conspiracy theory] in place of saying A teacher at Rye College, a state secondary in East Sussex, was recorded telling a pupil who refused to accept her classmate was a cat that she was despicable., of which all they got wrong was that the cat was a rhetorical device, the latter being consensus, is a mostly fair and accurate representation of the discussion. I do not see how one could arrive at that conclusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. Look, I'm not going to lose sleep over some minor changes to the wording per the OP's concerns, if that's the ultimate result here, but for my part, I think this was a mostly reasonable summary of the results of the discussion. Did I feel there was a bit of unnecessary color commentary with pointed observations about the source frame as objective facts? Yeah, I did get some twinges about that while reading the close, and I think it's worth S Marshal taking that into consideration in the future. But I rather suspect that, rather than this being a case of the closer trying to interject unnecessary personal perspective into the result, it was a conscious rhetorical method for acknowledging the understandable and unavoidable emotional subtext of the dispute. I get the feeling that S Marshal recognized that there was really only one way to close this discussion under existing policy and consensus of the discussion itself, but was uncomfortable doing so without paying some recognition to the circumstances under which some editors have come to dislike the source. So he called the spade for the spade in a way that would make the Telegraph skeptics at least marginally less likely to feel that their sentiments had been dismissed wholesale. But any caveats not withstanding, I think S Marshal did an adequate job with this close, given the complexity of the issues and the highly divisive nature of the discussion. Personally I would have been marginally more supportive of a straight "no consensus" result as opposed to "reliability disputed", but this a fraught area, and we have to start finding a way to come together on these issues (or at least reigning in the constant relitigation of habitual issues. In that light, I think we could have gotten a lot worse here. I understand the quibbles, and I came close to casting a different !vote here, but considering all factors, I don't think S Marshal's something-for-everyone approach here was arbitrary, unintentional, or ill-advised. Further, I think there's more to be gained by just embracing an overall reasonable close than by micromanaging every last sentence into a form that is most pleasing to the majority, even if I was a part of that majority and even if I feel that the result would be more ideal. For the benefit of procedural efficiency and community harmony, I think we need to start leaning back towards the traditional tendency of just letting the initial close stay, warts and all, so long as it does not obviously and massively misrepresent the actual consensus. I don't love every syllable of S Marshal's close, but I still think that it was a well-executed one made under difficult circumstances, in the final analysis, and I don't blame him for trying to pay some lip service to the concerns of the minority. SnowRise let's rap 19:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think most Overturners here are objecting mainly to the colourful commentary. I have no problem with the willing warrior in the war on wokery or even the gives platform to the most flagrantly gender-critical tracts by anti-woke activists comments in the close. The narrow overturners object to unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax because it clearly misrepresents as consensus what was only one side of a very prominent part of the discussion. The broad overturners think that given that practically all of the RfC nomination's accusations were directly misrepresented and were not, on any examination, evidence of unreliability, the arguments for unreliability were entirely without weight and should have been discounted (in this context, the question of whether they feel that feel that their sentiments had been dismissed wholesale is immaterial, as long as the dismissal is explained).
Whether you stay endorsing the close or not aside, I don't appreciate the idea that this is about micromanaging every last sentence into a form that is most pleasing to the majority, it seems like a baseless minimisation of actual concerns that directly concern what you think close reviews should be about: that the close if allowed to stand would obviously and massively misrepresent the actual consensus. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse: I don't want to spend too long saying things which have already been said, but I know in recent discussions and here some users have opined that anyone saying ~"I'd just be using the same rationale as X, let me just say 'per X'" should be discounted and people should be required to be repetitive, so with apologies to whichever panel of three admins has to close this discussion (to avoid it being challenged) for making it longer ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ : both the "involved" argument and the argument that the close was a supervote are unconvincing. The "involvement" is not only tangential (as amply discussed above), but in the other direction, so unless the implication is that another closer would've found outright consensus that the source was unreliable(?), the argument doesn't make sense. In turn, as many users have noted above, while closing this as either "option 1 because I know option 2 voters really meant option 1" or "option 3 because I know option 2 voters really meant option 3" (as some people want) would've been a supervote, "there was no consensus →means→ close as no consensus" is just reading the arguments (and "no consensus →means→ no consensus" is just following WP:MREL). It is unsurprising that much discussion here is relitigating the same points as the RFC, as if saying "actually they were never wrong, it was proven they were never wrong, by me saying they weren't wrong" several more times will make it true. Indeed, re the suggestions below about ways to align how closes should occur and be reacted to vs how closes are actually reacted to, and the issues with those suggestions (e.g.: mandating multiple people volunteer to find time to close discussions would mean discussions go unclosed for even longer, potentially until stale, wasting/filibustering the effort), the other obvious possibility is to write down in the guidelines that all closures are only "prospective, non-finalized" closures until sustained by an AN discussion where the participants relitigate positions a second time: while I'm not sure that would be the best option, it seems like it could be the easiest one to get people on board with because it's how we see many people already operate... -sche (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
If you say "per X" and X's original claims have been proven inaccurate/misleading, and you don't address that fact, then your !vote will be downweighted accordingly - just as the initial claims should be downweighted when a refutation that enjoys broad support from those actually discussing the topic (rather than drive by !voting) would. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse close - As has now become clear after further discussion here, while some people had issue with some of the wording of the close, the ultimate outcome of it being a "no consensus" seems to be agreed upon here and is a good reading of the original discussion, since there simply was no consensus on the topic, so the close to no consensus and marking it MREL for transgender issues is the appropriate outcome. Raladic (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
At least amend the third and fourth paragraphs to reflect the actual consensus. In cases where there are comparable numbers of good-faith !votes, finding in favor of either of them (or splitting the difference) should necessitate a close summary mentioning why a given argument did not prevail. The close should summarize the reasoning of any significant minority/non-plurality, but should also make it clear what the major arguments against that reasoning were and how they were weighted. In cases where the closer finds consensus that does not align with a non-trivial majority of good-faith !votes, it is particularly imperative they explain why arguments in the majority camp were downweighted.In this close, only a rationale of Option 3 !voters is presented at any length, and it is implied there was consensus agreement with this rationale. However, the close does not address the various refutations of that rationale that, necessarily, were strong and numerous enough to result in Option 3 not gaining consensus. This is especially problematic given that there was a solid majority against Option3/4. Even if we count every "Option 1/2" !vote toward Option 2 and count every "Option 2/3" and "Option 4" !vote towards Option 3, we still have roughly 60 Option 1 to 49 Option 3 (and ~16 Option 2). A more charitable accounting (for example, assigning any "Option 1 or maybe 2" !votes, like my own, to "Option 1") yields a more lopsided result, and splitting the options into 1/2 vs 3/4 reveals something approaching a 60% supermajority ~75 1/2 to 49 3/4 (and that's still counting all "2/3" !votes toward Option 3). Any finding against Option 1 should thus expand on why this wasn't enough for consensus (which could be perfectly reasonable if the strength of the !votes just wasn't there--but that still should be explained!), meanwhile any finding for Option 3 would absolutely need to demonstrate a very substantial imbalance in argument strength. JoelleJay (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree that there was not consensus for Option 3, but the closer did not claim there was. Meanwhile, you've missed the obvious reason why there wasn't consensus for Option 1: by your own count, there were 60 Option 1 voters but 65 voters who were against it. Since there wasn't a consensus for any option, there was no consensus, which has special meaning at WP:RSP and isn't just "status quo wins". Loki (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I’m interested, since you seem to want to vote count, for you to do a few things. First, split the proportion up into “before the refutation” and “after the refutation” to examine how the discussion evolved over time. Second, count up how many of the 65 votes on the “against it” side were based solely on bias, or did not address the refutation of the claims at all. Thirdly, count up how many people agreed with the refutation after it was posted versus disagreed - without assuming what anyone who didn’t comment directly on why would’ve said.
If you do this, rather than trying to shoehorn the vote count to your favor, you will see why many people are arguing there actually was a consensus present. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
What "refutation"?
Also, obviously all the things you are saying are simply not how closing discussions works. The closer can evaluate the arguments but they are under no obligation to pretend that an argument that you happened to find particularly convincing was objectively strong. Loki (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Closers are expected to determine consensus based on the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
In this context, a good close will need to give little to no weight to !votes that argued the Telegraph endorsed the litter boxes in schools hoax (as this was disproved by the articles provided in support of it, and thus is not a quality argument), and little to no weight to !votes that argued that it should be considered unreliable on grounds of bias (as this is contradicted by policy). BilledMammal (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Whether or not it "was disproved" is a matter for the closer to decide. The closer decided it was not disproved. All you are saying is that you disagree with the closer. Loki (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
This case is unusually clear cut. You said "this source endorses this hoax", and provided an article where the source said "this is a hoax". It is not possible for a reasonable close to say that it was not disproved. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
If I say that a source endorses the conspiracy theory that the moon landings were faked, and the source says "There's a common conspiracy theory that the moon landings were faked, which is not true. However, look at this evidence that the 1969 moon landing was filmed on a sound stage in California.", is that or is that not "endorsing the conspiracy theory"? Loki (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Obviously not. It's called presenting all sides of a story. Otherwise, we'd only hear half the story. You may think that hoaxes are never newsworthy - what would the news report on if not saying "it's a hoax, but look at the evidence that the other side uses to try and convince you it's not a hoax"? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
It could, depending on the specifics. However, it's a false equivalence.
What the Telegraph said after calling it a hoax was say that people do identify as animals. This is true, and nobody in the RfC claimed otherwise. BilledMammal (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah, but they said this specific student identified as an animal at this specific school with the support of the administration, all of which is false and which fulfills all the pillars of the hoax except for the literal litter boxes. Loki (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Everyone, regardless of your views regarding this, it is clear that (maybe a little less than) half of the RfC participants agreed with Chess's refutation against that incident being an endorsement of the litterbox hoax. Let's accept that and move on without directly arguing the RfC again. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The issue is you proved none of that:
they said this specific student identified as an animal - based on your mistaken understanding of presuppositions
with the support of the administration - based on your definition of "support" (which you extend to "calling students despicable" - in other words "telling students off for bullying")
all of which is false - The school said one thing, parents said another, and the Ofsted report declined to comment
fulfills all the pillars of the hoax - based on your definition of the pillars
For a closer to say that your close was not disproved they would need to say that every one of these four claims was true. No reasonable close can do that. Aaron Liu does make a good point, and so I will step back from this discussion now, but I felt it was important to make this point clear. BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree that no reasonable person who reviews all the facts could conclude Loki's claimd (there's a freakin' TAPE RECORDING OF THE TEACHER calling the girl "dispicable" for not accepting a cat identity, FFS! How much more evidence is needed here?!).
I suppose the real question here is, what happens when a large MINORITY of Wikipe#ians all assert something that is objectively false, in lock step with each other? (Which does not have to be in bad faith, and I do not say that it is, here). I'm not sure the mechanisms exist to deal with this effectively, which is a dangerous precedent, and expect more of it, and not only on this topic from this POV, either. 73.2.86.132 (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
It was later clarified that the recorder brought up the scenario of a student identifying as a cat for her rhetorical devices. If that happens, the WMF and checkusers first see if sockpuppetry or states are involved. If not, then we simply assert that "something" is true, since the scenario of them all being wrong at that specific time is unlikely and we have WP:NOTTRUTH. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I think if you really wanted to step back you wouldn't have insisted on getting the last word, but regardless I think that this argument is going in circles enough that I'm not even bothering to read your comment fully. Loki (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
by your own count, there were 60 Option 1 voters but 65 voters who were against it.That's not true -- a significant portion of the 16 "2" !votes included in the 65 were "1 or 2", which clearly are not "against Option 1". 67 people considered Option 1 to be acceptable, at most 61 did not. Whether that warrants "NC, therefore Option 2" should actually be explained by the close in a way that accurately summarizes what the arguments were and how they were weighed; this is not achieved by repeating a major contention from Option 3 as if it had consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn per @JoeJShmo—and maybe we need some language in policy discouraging NACs on RfC’s of certain length or impact. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
This should be posted in the Participants section. Parabolist (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn per Red-tailed hawk. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 21:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Endorse The overturners over-read the close. It was patent from the discussion and the evidence from the paper, that the paper mishandled and was irresponsible with people's lives in the so called 'litter box' series. By policy, Wikipedia values living people's info and their lives more than that. The paper was either incompetent in reporting on a delicate classroom discussion unaware of what that context means for classroom control and student safety, including, fighting, harm and self harm risk of young people, or the paper was malicious in favour of whatever hobby horse it is on, perhaps both, and either way, unreliable by the standards Wikipedia needs. The close followed from the discussion and properly read consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
No need for your repetitious condescension. Were your arguments any good, you would not have to keep repeating them, especially to editors with significant experience in RFCs. It's the overturn argument that is trying to re-argue that the evidence did not show what it indeed showed. Your repetitious link is not even responsive to what I said, and merely shows bad arguments about a so-called half in regard to basically nugatory, when not irrelevant observations. But the evidence was significant, as I said. And the well argued consensus, drew the correct close, no matter your now odd and senseless appeal to counting heads, or your quibbling over phrases in the close. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker this is by far the most condescending message in this discussion and the closest thing I can recall seeing to a personal attack. I suggest you withdraw it and make your point without needlessly personalising things. The repetitiousness is the presenting of opinion as fact that is being done almost entirely by a small number of those in favour of the Telegraph being regarded as generally reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Not in the least, I have not repeated anything,I only made two comments, and I'm not the one saying SMarshall was acting incompetantly.
In the past few months, we now have a history you and I where you come and complain about facts and opinions. It should be plain to you that in a forum for securing things like, 'endorse someone's else's statement', it necessarily a matter of opinion. Perhaps you just either don't or just refuse to understand my comments in these context, perhaps it is cultural. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Apologies if I was unclear, but only the first two sentences were related to your comment. I agree you have not been one of those being repetitious or presenting opinion as fact. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It's the overturn argument that is trying to re-argue that the evidence did not show what it indeed showed. No, what it (or endorse arguments) should argue is whether what is "shown" has much hold among an existing discussion's participants.
Usually, reviews are initiated because someone disputes the outcome stated by the closing editor (e.g., a summary statement that some editors find confusing or incorrect), rather than the decision to discourage further discussion.
Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself. — WP:CLOSECHALLENGE
I linked to my prior comment so I wouldn't have to copy-paste how I explained this idea more.your now odd and senseless appeal to counting heads I have never counted nor do I intend to count to show that an argument has hold among the participants. You can take a sample from the discussion and see !votes that argue similar to or per Chess. 7_template� It's not quibbling when it asserts a consensus that isn't there and people directly quote it from RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
What the closer drew was the correct conclusion of consensus from the discussion and the evidence. I know you don't agree with it, you have said it over and over. But your arguments did not convince me or others before me, you will just have to live with that. And yes you are counting when you say half, and contend it by implication of some else's statement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
There were many before you that agree with my argument. To say that I or Chess did not convince a substantial amount of participants is simply not true, and just in my opinion which you need not to satisfy (nor do you need to satisfy anything), you need to address that. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It's true that you and Chess convinced a substantial amount of participants. However it is also true that you did not convince a substantial number of participants. What matters is not which group was the larger but whether there was, overall, a consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
But you were not convincing enough. So consensus was against your position. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Thryduulf's comment. However, I don't see how anyone could come up with the conclusion that there is a consensus for GUNREL after a good reading as you claim, as I have seen no arguments for that conclusion. After reading the rebuttals against claim of perpetuating the litterbox hoax and the proportion of !voters convinced (call this "counting" if you want, I think it's correctly measuring consensus as it's towards evaluating an argument), I don't see how one can find consensus that it is patent that the Telegraph perpetuated the hoax. Additionally, even after you factor out the bludgeoning, it seems to me that the only rebuttals unaddressed are arguing against option 3. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're addressing me, but I advocated for MREL in the RFC and have argued in this review in favour of their being no consensus. I agree there is was no consensus for GUNREL. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I take a similar stance and only my first sentence was addressing your comment. It's funny how history repeats itself onto others, with you also doing the same thing today. The unknown secrets of the universe. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Since I am endorsing the close, I'm not sure why you are saying this, perhaps if I said 'counter-consensus against your argument', it would have been better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Because it was patent from the discussion that the Telegraph did not embrace outright falsehoods such as the litterboxes hoax. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Your view is your view, you saying the same thing over again, is no help. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Neither is presenting your view without any evidence and refusing to provide them when asked. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Stop your bludgeoning, Aaron Liu. You already know I referred to the evidence in the RFC. You already know you judge that evidencence differently, and you should already know that I don't think your view demonstrates any serious care about reliability for the encyclopedia, and you just think any source will do for the pedia, no matter the context. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
You are putting words into my mouth. I do not see how replying to one, conitnuous subthread is bludgeoning or where you've referred (or, preferably linked) to specific evidence or rules. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
While I don't think that you're bludgeoning either, I do think that this thread is kinda pointless and both of you should take a step back from responding to each other. Loki (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments like this that consist solely of your personal opinion and are based on, at best, a misunderstanding/incomplete reading of the actual reporting they did should be down-weighted accordingly. This discussion isn't about "valu[ing] people's lives" or not. It's about whether the source was reliable or not. Being indelicate does not make them unreliable. And the vast majority of option 3/4 supporters were unable to actually provide concrete evidence of unreliability - as evidenced by the fact you are now "tugging at heartstrings" (multiple times) here to try and encourage the eventual re-close to ignore that fact. It doesn't matter how many people !voted for unreliability when their arguments were as poor and non-policy based as this comment from you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Really? So somehow contend you are not sharing your opinion? Opinion is what these forums are for and your opinion apparently is the other sides arguments are poor. And I think your arguments are poor and I have stated why. I already said it is about reliability in issue and why the paper is an unreliable narrator based on the evidence. That the closer did not see what you claim to see, happens, you just have to live with it sometimes. And sometimes accept, no you were unconvincing, to the closer, to me, and to others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
When the only "evidence" produced is a blatant misrepresentation (whether intentional or not) of what the source actually did/said, and that point is correctly brought up during the discussion and not refuted, then the closer needs to take that into account. If you only convinced editors by misleading/misrepresenting the source, that needs to be taken into account. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I've lost count now of how many times people have told you that what arguments were and were not refuted is a matter of opinion, and no opinion on the matter is shared by an overwhelming majority of participants. Can you please stop presenting your opinion as if it were somehow factual. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
When the arguments of the side arguing "but it's not false" are reduced to "well I want it to be true so it must be!" after they are refuted, then that refutation succeeded. This is regardless of whether the "losing" side openly admitted it or not. It is not a vote count. It is about the strength of the arguments. And arguments that people don't openly agree with but have no refutation to are the weakest type of argument there is.You have continued to claim that because many people did not "openly" voice that they were wrong, they can't be considered to have been wrong. And that's simply not how consensus works. If they were proven wrong, and they couldn't disprove that proof, they were wrong whether they admit it or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Once again you are claiming your interpretation as if it were objective fact. It is not and it does not and will not become so by virtue of repetition. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
And you're still not providing any evidence that the refutation was refuted. The onus is on you, who is claiming the refutation was not strong, to provide some evidence of that which was present in the initial discussion other than "not enough votes agreeing with it". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The evidence is in the discussion, that you are wrong about what it portends does not make it disappear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Then you should be more than capable of providing diffs or quotes of that refutation. Claiming something is true doesn't mean there's evidence just because you want there to be. This has been the common tactic of yourself and others repetitively claiming "but the discussion" without being able to provide any evidence whatsoever of your claims that there was a refutation of the refutation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I did no such thing. Your statement is unreliable. And you are wrong in your characterization of the evidence. I assume you wish me now to say IMO, as if drawing conclusions is not a matter of inference and implication drawn by the individual. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Your comment, like the close, is a bizarre reading of the discussion. Loki's opener, and the discussion, didn't turn only on the "the litterbox series", and the outcome of even that section of the discussion was not simply acceptance of the claim of unreliability.
RfC nomination contained 14 links to Telegraph articles, alleging they are examples of going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things about trans people or trans issues. Of those 14, from the discussion at RS/N, at least 9 of them did not in fact directly say false things. As far as I can tell this is now uncontested. The remaining 3-5 ("the litterbox series", though 2 of those don't actually directly make the cat claim) are contested about a single claim. Somehow closer took this to mean that the parts of the discussion worthy of mention concerned only the (single) subject of the remaining 3-5 articles, not the (many more) unreliability claims that were debunked, nor the secondary sources that did not say what closer claimed they did. Closer goes on to misrepresent the status of the outstanding claims of false reporting as accepted, rather than contested.
You might have important points to make about journalistic ethics vis-a-vis whether paper was either incompetent in reporting on a delicate classroom discussion unaware of what that context means for classroom control and student safety, including, fighting, harm and self harm risk of young people, or the paper was malicious in favour of whatever hobby horse it is on but these opinions are irrelevant to the topic at hand - did the close reflect the consensus at RS/N - and are even irrelevant to the underlying topic of the reliability of DT for this site. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Did the close represent the discussion. I already said, yes. Your counts may be interesting to you but it is your counts that are not relevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not actually any counts that matter. It's the strength of the arguments. And arguments (like yours) that are based on blatant misrepresentation (read: lies) about what the source did/didn't say need to be weighted accordingly (i.e. next to no weight). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
There is no strength to your arguments, because what you argue is just not true, or you misunderstand or mistake. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not counting votes, I'm counting false claims. It turns out that Loki made more false claims in the opening to the RfC than he could find in all the Telegraph stories about trans issues put together, but if that's not relevant to you... well I don't think we will reach any form of agreement. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood and then over read him. It is like your somehow not understanding why my comment addresses the so-called litter box unreliable reporting because that part of the close where some think they have a smoking gun against Smarshall. Its just a bad day for the pedia when some go to the mat for such bad sourcing for the encyclopedia Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
They didn't report the "so called litter box" as fact. They reported it as the claims of an involved individual. Or are you saying that news organizations should be unreliable if they report on what Trump says that turns out to be false after he said it, but is plausible and neither proven nor disproven at the time of reporting? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
They didn't report the "so called litter box" as fact. They reported it as the claims of an involved individual. I don't get what you mean. They didn't report anything about a litter box, nor did they attribute it to someone instead of reporting it as fact. The article text in question is A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat. (not to mention that all of us should be arguing the close itself) Aaron Liu (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
That's my point. That's why I put it in quotation marks. They reported that the schoolteacher said something, and that was what was said by the student's parents. And that is not some failure of reporting - they reported what they were told by a reliable source (the student's parents) about what the teacher told them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I dispute that I made a single false claim anywhere in that RFC. Loki (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Loki, you claimed they endorsed the litter box hoax. Not only did they not do so, they explicitly called it a hoax in one of the sources you presented in support of you claimBilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Here is an articlethat you accused ofdirectly saying false things. And this one. And this one. When what it transpired on examination were these were all articles that did not contain a single objective factual inaccuracy, but simply quoted people you don't like and described them in terms with which you don't agree. Or tell us in which sentence they are directly saying false things in this article for example? Should I go through the rest?
Because since you've felt free to accuse people of lying, I wonder at what point does this misrepresentation become blatant dishonesty? Maybe you have abysmal reading comprehension skills, or you were so motivated to find evidence against the Telegraph that you somehow misrepresented these articles unintentionally at first. But after it's been pointed out? So many times? Feel free not to answer. I already know, nothing's been refuted, your evidence all still stands. I didn't write this for you, I wrote it for anyone who wonders why some editors are so outraged by the downgrade being made on such shoddy evidence from such clearly bad-faith actors. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
This thread got extremely combative, extremely quickly. Nobody is going to be able to convince anyone with a conversation like this. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I already explained what false things they are saying, but if you need it spelled out to you:
1. Maya Forstater, who is on the board of Sex Matters, a human-rights organisation that campaigns for clarity on sex in law and policy: I didn't even catch this one the first time TBH, but Sex Matters is not that, it's an anti-trans hate group. The original thing I identified as false in this article was the implication that James Esses was a subject-matter expert.
2. She said the tweet contravened the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979. where "she" is an activist being quoted as an expert. This claim they are repeating is simply and obviously false.
3. Her comments were welcomed by Sex Matters, a women’s rights group. Sex Matters isn't a women's rights group, they're an anti-trans hate group.
4. Milli Hill, a campaigner for women’s rights in childbirth, said: “Male people, however they identify or describe themselves, cannot breastfeed.” Again, claim they are repeating is simply and obviously false.
I'd like to request you strike your accusations. I'm fine with people saying my argument was wrong or unconvincing, but we're crossing the line here into accusing me of directly lying. That's not true, I stand by every word I said in that RFC. Loki (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The UK doesn't register hate groups as charitable organizations. Your opinion that their advocacy makes them a "hate group" is not cause to silence their opinions/views. Whether you like it or not, Sex Matters advocates for "clarity" in law that many people think matters.Nobody can force you to change your opinion on things. But Wikipedia does not censor ideas just because you don't like them. And you were unable to provide any actual evidence of your claims - so you were directly (whether intentionally or not) lying. The fact your lies garnered people "supporting" your opinion does not change the fact they are not and were never evidence of unreliability. Having people claim they agree with you does not change the fact your basis is not in line with policy. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The UK doesn't intentionally register hate groups as charitable organizations.
And I would again like you to strike the accusation of lying. Call me wrong or whatever, that's fine, but I very much believe and stand by what I'm saying, and I did provide evidence of my claims both at the time and just now, as well as several times in the middle. It's not my fault you refuse to accept it. Loki (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Your evidence is not evidence of the truth of your statements. If I parrot Trump's lies of voter fraud, providing "evidence" that is not evidence of voting fraud, you would be right to say that I was lying. You are doing the same. You are free to have your opinions. But your desire for something to be true doesn't make it true. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I really don't think this is lying as Loki seems (along with others) to still believe that his evidence sources his claim. I would concur that the accusation of lying nears the border of incivility as it's more not getting the point in good faith. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Believing in a lie doesn’t make it any less of a lie. I don’t think Loki is necessarily lying in bad faith - but they are lying. I do not believe that calling out a lie as a lie is a personal attack, nor uncivil. If someone was parroting the “big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen, it would not be uncivil to call that out as a lie, regardless of how much the person parroting it believed it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
If you're saying that I don't believe what I'm saying is false, then I really need to insist you strike your comments because that means even you don't believe I'm lying. Loki (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
As has been quoted by Samuelshraga, you do know that what you're claiming is false. You're claiming things that are bluntly, untrue and provably so. And you've been pointed out how they're untrue. So continuing to parrot those things, you are intentionally making false statements. Whether this is "naivety" (i.e. you just refuse to see that you're lying), or whether you're intentionally trying to mislead others, you are lying by continuing to make false statements after they have been shown to be false. This is even worse because your own quotes show that you do not believe that they must only be a hate group. You disagreeing with them doesn't give you the right to label them that just to be able to discount their opinion.To put another way, it is in fact you that's trying to engage in laundering - you're attempting to designate an advocacy group as a "hate group" to state that a reliable source must not "platform them", you're attempting to use how they identify that group as an evidence of unreliability, and you're then taking both of those claims and acting like they are evidence that any information the source has reported is false.The only possible way to assume good faith at this point is to look at you as having such strong feelings on the topic that you can't see how absurd your arguments have been. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
That is a misrepresentation. It's more that there isn't an independent organization in the UK, such as is the case in the US with the Southern Poverty Law Center which tracks hate groups in the US where similar groups (such as Genspect) are tracked as hate groups and labelled as such on the Wikipedia article, which are often cited in the same sentence with Sex Matters, such as on the article on the UK Cass Review. Just as the UK has allowed the LGB Alliance to register as a charity with self designation with lots of opposition from LGBTQ groups in the UK several years ago. Raladic (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
People opposing an organization does not make it a hate group. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
As has been quoted by Samuelshraga, you do know that what you're claiming is false. He knows that Telegraph isn't saying it in their voice and attributing it. He's claiming that 1. the Telegraph is using false characterization to make the attributee an expert 2. that giving such prominence do non-experts should prevent the source from being BREL. He has never said that he doesn't believe any of these points. Claiming that he's lying is a belief in bad faith. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
They aren't using a "false" characterization. He thinks that the organization should be labeled a "hate group" because he disagrees with it. Furthermore, bias does not equal unreliability - so even if he disagrees with their attribution that does not make them unreliable. Yet he claims it does, even after people have pointed out repeatedly that even if that is evidence of their bias, it does not equal reliability. So yes, him continuing to claim "they don't label this group a hate group and that makes them unreliable" after being pointed that out repeatedly is at best an intentional refusal to accept that bias is not unreliability and push his belief on Wikipedia as a whole - which amounts to a lie when he knows (or should know) that his claims are false. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this seems like IDHT. I strongly disagree that he is lying.While I agree that this isn't improper attribution, "even if the attributee is improperly cited as an expert, the source is not unreliable" has no grounds in policy.There's is currently a thread at ANI on the conduct row. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The original discussion highlights that there is confusion around the reliability of quotes in reliable sources. While IMO this article correctly highlighted the quotes and claims as from activists who are otherwise unaccredited, the closest thing to a guideline about the case of an uncharacterized quote is WP:INTERVIEW, an essay. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
If a newsorg regularly got quotes from both sides of an issue, or even portrayed what kind of activism their anti-trans quotes were coming from honestly, I wouldn't have nearly so much of a problem. But the Telegraph does the thing I object to in these articles constantly: pulling a quote from an anti-trans activist group, disguising the true providence of the quote by mischaracterizing the group it comes from, and not including any opinions from anyone who might call them on the deception.
This definitely makes them responsible for their false characterizations of groups like Sex Matters and Thoughtful Therapists, and I would argue it also demonstrates enough of an intent to launder the quote that it makes them responsible for the factual content of the quote as well, which is almost always BS. Loki (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The characterization isn't false. According to the UK government, they are registered as a charitable/advocacy organization. Your disagreement with their viewpoint doesn't make the characterization of them as such false. You don't get to censor viewpoints you don't like by calling them a "hate group" just because you disagree with their viewpoints. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Points 1 and 3 are positive presentations of Sex Matters, a group that you consider a hate group. As you yourself wrote: "Similarly the way they describe Sex Matters as a "woman's rights group" is arguably not false but clearly misleading." So is it directly saying false things or, at most, a misleading implication? By your own admission the latter. In reality, it is simply another point of view. In point 1 you reference your claim that James Esses was falsely presented, and yet here you agree that the way they described James Esses is not, technically, false.
This was all pointed out at the RfC. And many times since. So no, I won't be striking my comment, and your pearl-clutching about accusations of lying are simply laughable. LokiTheLiar indeed. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Adding to Endorse: I'll have to add to my endorse down here, since the above interventions have brought it to my attention. Many of the overturns appear to basically have a more-or-less warped view of what is a "reliable source". According to good sense, and the RS guideline, context always matters. No matter what the newspaper writes, it is not reliable for medicine, for psychology, for science, for sociology, for philosophy, for history, and the list of disciplines it is not reliable for goes on and on, and indeed covers most of human knowledge. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
This view is unnecessarily scoped outside of this discussion and directly contradicts consensus that The Telegraph is generally generally reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The reliable source guideline is not outside the scope of this discussion, and no this view does not contravene any consensus, indeed it is the consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
As an opener of this discussion, the reliability of The Telegraph outside of the transgender topic is verily out of the scope of this discussion. Ignoring the interpretation of WP:RS with consensus at WP:RSP#The Daily Telegraph only serves to significantly weaken your argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
You point to that out-of-context, further suggesting you confuse generally reliable with reliable about everything, at the top of RSP, it explains, context always matters. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah, that's what you meant. By "list of disciplines it is not reliable for goes on and on" I thought you meant that it should be generally unreliable.However, I see no overturns arguing that the Telegraph should have a status below no consensus or mention such topics exempted under rules similar to MEDRS. The overturn argument is that the close summary was too biased towards unreliability, not the reverse.Also, isn't this a duplicate !vote? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
No. As I explained. But you an others decided you had to interject, it makes the addition where it is. As for the overturns, they are partly silly, since the interposing of the no consensus is the close. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I do not understand. Why shouldn't we discuss in a discussion? How does that give you any reason to !vote twice? What's the interposing of the no consensus? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
You are confused. There is no voting twice. The close outcome is what I was referring to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
If it's not supposed to be a separate !vote, I'd recommend that you remove the bolded text.Overturning does not necessarily mean we think that the status of the source at RSP should change. In the case of my rationale above, I have explicitly mentioned that I agree with the new status and that I want to overturn because the closure summary is misleading and weaponized to do things the consensus does not support. That is also the most popular view here. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
And such fears are silly. And no reason to overturn the close, as it is the same outcome either way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Seeing closes as only outcomes is absurd. The fear is not silly, as the quote from the closure statement has already been cited to remove the Telegraph from articles (see above). That is also the most popular view here. The end isn't all that's in sight. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
What's absurd is the desire to drag this out to come to the same place. Nor should anyone care about what is popular. The end is the purpose of being here, at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
You're in a community, so you should definitely take notice to what most of the community thinks, which sets the rules. The closure summary will and has been quoted on RSP. An editor in interest of checking the reliability of this source will and has read the misleading quote of the Telegraph spreading a hoax and acept that as a consensus of the community and proceed to remove the Telegraph from the topic area. To claim taking care of that is absurd, is absurd. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
RSP summaries are determined by consensus at RSP, and this is an ongoing discussion at the talk page. It's true I did more or less as described, without any real push-back from other editors, but it's also notable that inclusion of the Telegraph RfC is under increased scrutiny at RSP at present. In summary, let's not use my initial edit of RSP as a scapegoat. This is an issue with an initially badly summarised RfC, not necessarily with the RfC itself. Thanks. CNC (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how that discussion discusses the misleading closure statement. If the closing summary is not overturned, then inclusion of material from it perfectly plausible as the agreed-upon consensus. I also agree that the RfC itself doesn't have any issues and we're here right now to try and amend the summary. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
No. The popularity is still not something to care about. And the close is not holy writ. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
You are the only one who believes that the closing summary does not change anything (in your words, not being holy writ). This seems like a User:Guy Macon/One against many situation. The summary statement aside from the new status is still part of the summary, and summary statements are grounds for challenging a close per WP:CHALLENGECLOSE. Your arguments have no basis in any projectspace documents. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I've been trying to avoid engaging here but seeing you talk past each other is quite frustrating so let me try to reach some clarity:
@Alanscottwalker, do you think that a no consensus close will not alter the status quo for the Telegraph regarding trans issues? Are you perhaps under the misconception that trans issues are 100% medical issues and that because of this the Telegraph wasn't reliable for trans issues anyway? Because if so, that's not true.
Alternatively, are you under the related misconception that because the Telegraph was generally reliable, a finding of general reliability and a finding of no consensus mean the same thing? Again, because of the special way "no consensus" works at RSP, also not true.
Regardless of what it is you mean, I feel like speaking only in cryptic one-liners is not doing you any favors here. Please say at least once as clearly as possible why you are endorsing the close. Loki (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I already endorsed the close and I already said why in two paragraphs, and my second paragraph was not limited to only medical. And contra your advice, my advice to you and others is don't continue to drag this process out, saying it once, and with brevity, is enough. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The reason I am asking you to be clearer is that a closer gets to evaluate the arguments and not just count votes. Your current argument is cryptic enough that the two other people who have responded to you don't know what you're talking about, which bodes poorly for how a closer will evaluate it. Loki (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I have more faith in that the closer knows what they are doing, the BLP and CONTEXT values should be well known to them. Alanscottwalker (talk) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Aaron Liu: If you are only concerned with amending that sentence, do you mind withdrawing this request so that those of us are who are concerned with the close more broadly can submit? The issue is that it makes it difficult to focus on the broader issues if you start the discussion with a narrow scope, while the opposite is less true. BilledMammal (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
If we really need multiple requests, then maybe those could be in parallel? I feel like we could do all of them here and hopefully find "express" consensus for that sentence while the rest of the discussion continues.Unfortunately I'm ill-equipped to discuss this out right now as I have to go to sleep, sorry. I sure have planned my day well. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I've attempted to make it parallel as you propose; if you feel that isn't an appropriate way to handle it, please move my comment. I've also renamed the sections "participant", "non-participant", and "closer". BilledMammal (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 09 July 2024 (UTC)
A close review can and should result in discussion of all the issues present, as I've done in my comment above. Ultimately, the one issue Aaron Liu identified should be grounds enough to overturn this close, as it amounts to a supervote, but I doubt this is going to be closed quickly and you (BilledMammall) should feel free to identify your issues in your !vote for people to consider. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@Aaron Liu: you wrote a couple of times in your reasoning that you want amendment to the first paragraph with reference to the litterbox claim. Just wanted to nitpick that it actually appears in the third paragraph, if you want to edit for us pernickety types. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
By first paragraph, I meant the first paragraph of my statement. It seems that this has been... misrepresented! I'll fix that soon. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: You commented 44 times in the original RfC; now you've opened this close review and you are already badgering people here, seven replies in a few hours. It's wearysome. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I didn’t open this, and I’ve commented less than other editors involved here - I don’t think my participation has been unreasonable, although if you disagree I encourage you to raise the issue on my talk page as this is the wrong location for that discussion and I won’t reply further on that topic here. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The threading makes it look as though yourself and AaronLiu opened the close review together. If that's not the case, then perhaps your long section should be under a separate Level 3 subheading. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
To simplify the maybe-confusing structure of this, I think claiming that we both opened it would be for the best, as with retaining the current formatting of rationales. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment As a close review I think we need to focus on the mechanics of the close. An editor who endorses or rejects the close because they agree with the outcome doesn't add weight to the discussion. Specific concerns were raised with the closing. Endorse responses that address the concerns with reason should be given weight in these discussions. Responses that simply endorse (or reject) the outcome without addressing the concerns raised should be discounted. This is like a legal appeal where we aren't arguing the case, rather we are arguing that the process was or wasn't followed (with supporting evidence). I feel this is a standard that should apply to all close reviews which often seem to devolve into a second round of litigating the original question. Springee (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Just a comment for non-British editors who might not know: The Daily Telegraph is one of the most prominent newspapers in a country where a large proportion of the population still read newspapers. I think you'd struggle to find an adult British person who doesn't have some sort of opinion on it, even if it's just "as absorbent as the rest of them, in a pinch." If the contention is that nobody with an opinion on the Torygraph (damn, there's me out) should have closed this discussion, you're likely disqualifying all British editors. Kind of like saying that an RfC on Fox News couldn't be closed by an American. Which may be fine, I just thought I'd mention it. – Joe (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
As a Brit, I can confirm this sentiment. This is also true of The Guardian, The Independent and The Times. We have a small selection of notable left-leaning and right-leaning broadsheets, and most Britons have an opinion on them. This is potentially similar to WaPo and NYT that are widely known, as I assume most Americans have an opinion on these either way as well. CNC (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I assume that most Americans have never heard of, or would not recognize, the majority of British newspapers. I would even wager that more would confuse The Times with The New York Times than would know what The Daily Telegraph is. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Precisely. The point was that S Marshall is from the UK (maybe that wasn't obvious), so naturally they would have some sort of opinion on The Telegraph without necessarily being bias. The "as well" was in reference to the overall comparison, not Americans knowing British newspapers. There's a rationale for having non-British editors close this one. CNC (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that (non-)Britishness is required here; it isn't reasonable for us to ask people to not close something on the basis of nationality. Instead, As WP:INVOLVED reminds us, people are at times incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. When one is able to put their feelings aside and objectively read a discussion, this is less of a problem, but having strong opinions to such an extent that one's ability to faithfully summarize a discussion become colo(u)red by them is incompatible with our expectations for a closer. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 14:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
But nobody has demonstrated that Smarshall does have such strong opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I've admitted in this discussion to having strong opinions about some of the Daily Telegraph's political columnists. Fact is, the Telegraph gives platforms to people who want to privatize the NHS and bring back the death penalty, and I find that abhorrent. I don't (and still don't) have a personal opinion about the Telegraph's view on transgender people, and I deny that gender and politics are the same thing.—S MarshallT/C 15:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Just thought I'd point out that the (now-reverted) new entry on RSP has already been used to justify content removal with unwarranted stridency: [15]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, yes? WP:MREL is not WP:GREL. Almost everyone in the RFC including the vast majority of Option 1 voters agreed that the Telegraph is biased, which would mean that citing them without attribution is inappropriate. So I don't know what your point is here. Loki (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
There was WP:INTEXT: "The organisation has said". Based on attribution, it's not necessary to state the source if you are stating the author(s) of the claim. Overall, kind of a moot point when it's not due in the lead anyway. CNC (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree the text was undue, and I have removed it. The point of mentioning it here was that the wording of the RSP entry was being used to support strident assertions about reliability that were in no way reflective of the much more circumspect discussion. If that's what people take away from all this, the process has failed. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
While I see your point, the misinterpretation of source reliability listed at RSP isn't exclusive to that entry (as you may well agree). The RfC itself was also used a source, which is merely what the RSP entry was summarising. It's fair to say that misinterpretation of MREL sources is widespread, and this example just provides more weight to that argument. CNC (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think what's notable is that it took a mere 2 hours from the update to Perennial Sources to an edit war breaking out, and this does not lend to an interpretation of "no consensus" that favoured stability. Void if removed (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree to a degree, but also don't think any GREL to MREL change ever intends to favour stability, or necessarily makes things unstable. Personally I think we should favour reliability of sources over stability, meaning context-based rationales in this case. I don't believe editors misinterpretation of MREL is a good reason to change the status quo though; the cause of the problem is a lack of understanding, the edit warring is just a symptom of that. CNC (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The issue is how RSP works; its very subjective how we assess sources, and that means that the interpretation of our assessments is also very subjective. I think we should rework the process, but that's a different discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Given that the party employing that rationale was WP:INVOLVED in this RFC and voted 3/WP:GUNREL, I wonder: if you don't understand what it is you're voting for, is the vote valid? Void if removed (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Yellow doesn't mean attribution is required nor does it mean Green source beats Yellow source. Instead it means we need to use caution when deciding if the material is being given undue weight by the source in question (which can effect how much weight it should be given on Wikipedia). It also means we shouldn't take interpretations as always correct. However, it doesn't mean we should question basic facts taken from the source. If they say 500 people attended or the topics were X, we should assume they are correct. This by the way is a general issue issue with RSP's buckets, not specific to this topic. Springee (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:MREL is questionable as it stands because it is unable to distinguish "no consensus on whether a source should be used" from "consensus that it's unclear when a source is used". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
What is the practical difference between them? Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: None, right now. That's the problem, since WP:MREL is seen as "unreliable with exceptions" in practice. Editors !voting "Option 2" can win by default simply by preventing a consensus from emerging. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, why would that be harmful? If numbers are filtered and weighed into a close, I don't see what's wrong with that. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
If there is no consensus, why is it harmful for RSP to state that there is no consensus? If there is no difference in practice between between "no consensus for general reliability or general unreliability therefore it's medium reliability" and "consensus that it's medium reliability", why is not distinguishing between the two harmful? Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Are RfC participants supposed to reply in the Non-participants section, or should they keep comments in their own section and/or §Discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I’ve never seen a close appeal where it doesn’t happen, so I assume they are allowed to. BilledMammal (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
In fact, I haven't seen any close review with the headings format of the {{RfC closure review}} template, lol. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I have no objection to participants replying in the non-participants section. I think the goal of the headings is to group the top level comments together, which is accomplished even if those top level comments are getting replied to. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
That's completely irrelevant to the close. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Not entirely. That this was the motivation of certain editors on the RfC and the expected result of a non-WP:GREL close was brought up in the discussion. The fact that the closer ignored this in their close (and that it immediately turned out to be spot on) is yet another demonstration that the closer didn't do a very good job of weighing arguments. If they did, they certainly didn't show their working. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Editors are putting a lot of thought into closer's arguments about whether a "No consensus" finding on the RfC moves the Telegraph into WP:MREL or preserves the status quo. I think this discussion is premature, given that the closer has given next to no justification for a "No consensus" close - they explicitly disavow that it depends on the (misrepresented) summary of the litterbox hoax discussion in the close, and in their expanded close their only argument is a count of votes (which they also explicitly disavow on their talk).
First we can determine whether we have a valid close - and if not we vacate and somebody else can close by weighing the arguments. Maybe they too will conclude "No consensus". Then the discussion of what exactly that means will be ripe. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
There is no discussion needed about what a no-consensus close means - it's explicitly defined at WP:RSP (that wouldn't make sense if the lack of consensus was only between options 3 and 4, but that's unarguably not relevant to this discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Wonderful. I very clearly said that I don't think we should have that discussion now, and the first issue at hand is whether the close itself, meaning the judgement of "No consensus" and the reasoning given (or not given) for it should stand. Afterwards we can discuss, or not discuss, whether further discussions are or aren't needed on any topic that becomes germane. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I've requested clarity below due to the popular argument of "no consensus = no change". It seems pretty clear that this is a discussion that needs to take place, based on support for this proposal. CNC (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@CommunityNotesContributor I understand that. However I think that relevant points unrelated to the "no consensus = no change" debate have been raised, and call into question the validity of the "no consensus" finding itself. This seems to me to be a logically prior discussion that could potentially make the "no consensus = no change" discussion moot. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Granted, and if anything it's intended to draw these arguments out of this discussion and instead clarified below. Even with the RfC overturned, in the meantime, there is a valid discussion of whether this RfC should be exempt from the RSP status quo, or whether there needs to be a more thorough discussion on reviewing how RSP lists sources. Given this discussion has already surfaced, I see no reason why it wouldn't surface again regarding another NC close. CNC (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
True. I just don't want the discussion about this close - especially the arguments about it's basic failure to in any way weigh the arguments from the discussion - to get lost in the procedural discussion in what to do if the NC close is upheld. Of course that's more complicated because some people have now supported Overturn referencing closer's positions on what the outcome of NC is... and anyway now we're in a discussion about discussions about discussions.
Hopefully people coming to this review will still put appropriate weight on those who point out that the close is a supervote, that it doesn't weigh arguments, that it counts votes, and other failings, notwithstanding that more and more of the discussion is about the "NC = change or no change" issue. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
A lot of the comments here seem to be implying that partially overturning by amending language isn’t an option? Can we at least obtain consensus that the language I mention should be amended? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't object to removing the language you want amended. I just think this is very secondary to the much more serious problem. There is no argument here that the close weighed the sides of the discussion in any way. Some people endorsing the close have asserted that it was reasoned, but they haven't elaborated on its reasons. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I was talking about many of the endorse !votes. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I think at minimum the removal of "and gender critical views" from the note, else what's the point in having a per topic discussion if a closer can unilaterally widen it?
For example, this is a story in The Telegraph about a social worker who won an employment tribunal on the grounds of her gender-critical views. There seems to be no exaggeration or inaccuracy. It also does not mention the word "trans" at all. It is entirely a story about the legal protection of those views, and the discriminatory acts of the council and regulatory body. It is a notable legal case (ie, the first time a regulatory body has been found to have committed unlawful discrimination) and as such not given undue prominence.
As written, this would come under the purview of this note, because the note has been expanded beyond anything discussed in the RFC. Why? Void if removed (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Without commenting on whether is should come under the close, a single accurate story (assuming it is, I haven't looked) is not at all incompatible with a finding of MREL or even GUNREL. Neither category is saying that all stories (in the relevant topic area) are inaccurate, heck even the Daily Mail gets things right at times. At the most basic level GUNREL means they are generally unreliable, MREL means they are sometimes unreliable - often enough that they are not generally reliable but not often enough that they are generally unreliable. In the same way generally reliable doesn't mean infallible. Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The point is that this is a story that is not a "trans issue", it is a "gender critical views" issue. The RFC was "unreliable on trans issues". If people wanted this to be part of the RFC, it should have been part of the RFC. Adding it in in the close without it being raised in the RFC and with no discussion is a WP:SUPERVOTE. Void if removed (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
That is nonsense, Gender critical, or its original non-whitewashed term TERF, which even has it in the name, is a trans issue and whether specifically called out or not, it's implicitly covered under the topic.
There is no change in scope, so the accusation of a supervote for this is arbitrary, but simply WP:COMPETENCY is assumed on an obviously linked subtopic that the closer simply chose to call out. Raladic (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
And all of that is of course extensively disputed (including the crack about "whitewashed") and none of this was discussed in the RFC, and your framing of the issues in this particular POV exemplifies the problem with closing in this way. ("call out"? is that the role of closer?).
To make this clear, consider a hypothetical RFC brought claiming that "Pink News is unreliable on gender-critical views", which plays out as a mirror opposite of the Telegraph one.
Ie, where the Telegraph is claimed to present trans issues in a biased and misleading way, and overly focuses on trans people in a negative light, inflating non-stories into breathless ragebait, the inverse claim is made that Pink News behaves the same about people with "gender critical views". Lets say that the arguments all play out exactly the same, in the same proportions and a closer decides it is a no-consensus result.
Do you think it would be defensible to say that the reliability of Pink News was therefore disputed on "gender-critical views and trans issues"?
These are distinct subjects with some overlap, and with a huge amount of conflict where they meet and even what terms mean, but here the POV of the closer has widened the scope of the close beyond the question that was asked. Void if removed (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Just simply no, it is consensus on Wikipedia (and as such the wider world, since we simply summarize the RS) that Gender critical views are a subtopic of transgender issues, as is very clear from the lead of Gender critical, so there is simply no leap here.
There is also no crack about whitewashing, again, we discuss this in Gender-critical feminism#Terminology, so I simply re-stated the consensus on Wikipedia on the issue.
Picking on words that were included in the close doesn't change the fact. Raladic (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
But WP:NOTSOURCE so, no. And given these are exactly the arguments the closer has presumed the conclusion to, based on no evidence, and the many, many protracted discussions on talk there, it would be much simpler not to have needlessly expanded the close to include this completely undiscussed POV, for no good reason. Void if removed (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Hopefully this discussion isn't stale, but recent coverage of Imane Khelif's Olympic victory made me realise that the Telegraph's reliability for reporting on the like of JK Rowling's attacks on Khelif would be considered MREL under the close, even though I don't think anyone involved would consider it a trans topic. It is not impossible that this will be a relevant question for editors in the immediate future. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I haven't read enough of the relevant policies to have an opinion on the Wikipedia:ONUS questions behind option 2-3. My sympathy is to 1, as I think the Wikipedia:GREL choice got the better side of the argument once @Chess stepped in, and I saw many other editors thought the same, but I'm not nearly experienced enough in these to attempt to judge a consensus myself. So by default I will go to Option 5, because as I have argued here - the only reason you gave (and you only gave it in your expanded close) for giving weight to the view that the Telegraph was unreliable was this view is strongly disputed by significant numbers, but you told me on your talk page that the point is not to count votes, and I didn't, but to weigh arguments, which I did. There is no evidence of argument-weighing, and the close was not remotely a reasonable reading of the discussion, so the policy questions relied on to implement its outcome don't need to be addressed in my opinion. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Overturn to allow someone who intends to actually address the problems with your close to re-close the discussion with the consensus (or lack thereof) they find after doing so. If a closer actually weights arguments appropriately and explains how their close takes into account that, aside from the “it’s biased” and “I don’t like it” !voters, the majority was solidly swayed by the refutations of the initial discussion, then that close will be sufficient. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
aside from the “it’s biased” and “I don’t like it” !voters, the majority was solidly swayed by the refutations of the initial discussion I think you must be reading a different discussion to me. Many people were swayed, to a greater or lesser extent, by some or all of the refutations. Many people were not. Even if you discount all of the "it's biased" comments (many of which were actually more complex than that and accompanied !votes of all options) calling that "a majority was solidly swayed" is a misleading oversimplification. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
When the refutations were based on the actual text, and nobody was able to actually present cognizant and clear refutation of the refutation, it does matter. Anyone !voting based on “I disagree with the refutation, even though it’s English language facts and provides the exact text of the article to support it, but I can’t say why I disagree” should have that opinion decreased in weight accordingly. Otherwise, those commenting early in a discussion have absolutely no reason to continue in the discussion to form a consensus - since their opinion, no matter how badly it’s proven wrong, will still count just as much.
If someone is proven to have based their opinion on inaccurate/misleading information, as many people commenting both before and after the refutation did, and they refuse to clarify/update to explain their opinion in light of new information, their opinion must be weighted accordingly. And that is what happened here, with people - including the closer himself - subscribing to an outright falsehood that the Telegraph said something that they didn’t, and nobody could ever provide proof that they did. If people are allowed to “win” discussions by blatantly lying and not providing proof just because enough people agree with that lie in furtherance of their political goals, then this is no longer an encyclopedia, but a propaganda machine.
The new close needs to take into account the fact that many (to use your preferred word) !votes for unreliability were based on falsehoods, that many more were based on not liking it, and that many more were based solely on bias in combination with these other things. And this goes for both sides - but the unreliable camp had significantly more !votes that were inaccurate at best. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 2, as I stated above. You closed as no consensus but then inserted your own opinion on what should happen instead of just leaving the status quo in place. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Your opinion regarding Option 2 is appreciated below in Part 2. CNC (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 5, since I thought the close rationale was flawed. starship.paint (RUN) 16:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
If the close is reverted, then it should be reclosed by someone else based on their reading of the arguments presented in the discussion, taking into account any relevant comments here. So sort of option 5 but not exactly. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 3/4 The result of no consensus can't be ignored by RSP as the status quo of RSP is to categorise sources (or topics by sources) with the relevant consensus established or lack of. The Telegraph can't be used as an example of "there was no consensus so there is no change", as this would have broader implications on other sources listed at RSP; Fox News and HuffPost (politics) come to mind as examples of GREL turned NC, but I imagine there are many others that were GREL by default prior to NC. It's unclear whether editors believe we should be making an exception for The Telegraph, or whether the proposal is to re-format how RSP categorises source discussions. If it's the latter, this requires a broader RfC on how RSP categorises sources and has little to do with this RfC. CNC (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Given that this section was opened as a way of disambiguating the intentions of people who support Overturn, I think it's a little unhelpful to have people who endorse the close choosing options as well (not that I think your arguments are unwelcome at all - I already said that I don't as yet feel confident or experienced to get involved on this issue and what you write seems cogent, even if it prejudges the idea that "No consensus" close will be retained). Samuelshraga (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
That's a very good point and had overlooked that, apologies. I've struck my comment and encourage anyone to collapse this discussion. CNC (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm neutral to Option 4 and would oppose everything else. I think the conclusion was the only reasonable reading of the discussion, and closing to any consensus (including, by the way RSP works, WP:GREL) would be inappropriate. I'm not particularly attached to the summary though, and honestly do think that the exact phrasing was stronger than was reflected in the discussion. Loki (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@LokiTheLiar, this section was to disambiguate the intentions of people who support Overturn, it could be a bit misleading to include the opinions of people who endorse the close. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 5. Springee (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 2. The default in a case of no-consensus is to maintain the previous status quo. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not, see comment above re status quo of RfC closures regarding source reliability. Are you suggesting that it should be, and should it be enacted retrospectively as well? This isn't the right venue for that proposal, but I'd appreciate clarity from the "no consensus means no change" crowd as to what they are proposing, so we can draft up an RfC for it and move forward. CNC (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
For WP:RSP that is not true. Look at the page; it has an entire category for sources on which there is no consensus, and sources are described as lacking consensus repeatedly throughout the table. Its purpose is to document the current consensus of the community (or lack thereof); it doesn't have the same need for stability or the need to reach a hard decision on some version that applies to article-space. We can't realistically leave an article in no-consensus state, but for RSP we can and frequently do. --Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Since my preferred option isn't there, my ideal would be overturning the close for a re-evaluation, with no assumption that anyone who didn't assert that the specific examples of alleged reliability presented was conceding the unreliability of those specific examples. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I didn't think so since I'm not suggesting no guidance, but no guidance with the direction of making sure not to make what I personally feel was a particular previous error in determining consensus. I think a closer needs to approach the arguments about reliability more than the feelings about reliability, which I believe (again, my personal opinion) is more in line with establishing consensus and decreasing the chances that this becomes a whole new dreary casus belli in what is already a controversial area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 5. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 4 as per my statement above. I think you got the result right, but the reasoning (especially introducing ONUS) is wrong. Also to note I reject the premise behind Option 2. The RSP (and so RSN) does have a way of indicating that editors don't agree on the reliability of a source (MREL), so I also don't agree with editors that no consensus means no change. The RSP is not article content, and this wasn't an RFC on how to update the RSP. The RFC was on the reliability of the source, on which there isn't agreement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 11:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, okay then. I see nothing that tempts me to revert myself, so when, after the requisite amount of wrangling, someone else comes along and closes this, their entire menu of options seems to be either (1) no consensus to overturn or (2) consensus to overturn but no consensus what to overturn to, in which case the next closer has a great big problem. If you want, you can make this less of a headache for that hypothetical person by supplying with reasoned arguments for what the close should have been. It would help even more if you could take the trouble to ensure that these arguments are compatible with the rather idiosyncratic way that WP:RSP works.—S MarshallT/C 16:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The closer requirements involve being compatible with policies and guidelines. WP:RSP is neither so no arguer or new closer would have any obligation to be compatible with its idiosyncracies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm certainly refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.—S MarshallT/C 17:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
What polices and guidelines is RSP not compatible with? Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
If you would like to overturn a ton of our existing consensus and system, you may open that as a separate proposal. For now, let's please operate within the status quo. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps I've caused a misunderstanding, see reply to Thryduulf below. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
You explicitly claim that RSP is not compatible with policies and guidelines. It is not irrelevant to ask you to substantiate that claim by listing which policies and guidelines it is not compatible with (and ideally explaining why). Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think I belatedly see where you got that idea and it's my fault. After the sentence "The closer requirements involve being compatible with policies and guidelines." I said "WP:RSP is neither ..." i.e. "WP:RSP is neither a policy nor a guideline ...". You seem to have taken it as "WP:RSP is neither compatible with policies nor with guidelines ..." So I should have written more carefully. Anyway, it's true that WP:RSP is neither a policy nor a guideline and your question doesn't relate to that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome to explain how you think RSP should be changed in discussion below. CNC (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps I've caused a misunderstanding, see reply to Thryduulf above. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Policies and guidelines aren't the only kind of consensus out there. RSP's consensus is not overridden by any broader consensus, thus it stands. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what that's arguing for, it remains true that no arguer or new closer would have any obligation to be compatible with its idiosyncracies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
The word you're looking for with "idiosyncrasies" is "consensus". Aaron Liu (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
The next closer does not have a great big problem, because presumably they will actually evaluate and weight the discussion appropriately, rather than taking the initial commenter’s claims at face value, ignoring the amount of support for the refutation of those claims, and in fact repeating those inaccurate claims as part of the close.
I respect you a lot S_Marshall, I really do, and your closes tend to be quite well crafted and explain your decision making very well. This one missed the mark woefully, however, as seems to be clear looking at the consensus forming above that your close was not appropriate. I don’t want you to think that I’m trying to say you intentionally supervoted here - but the fact is you seem to be unable to accept that your close amounted to a supervote, and you, to use your words, “unashamedly embraced” the initial, refuted claims, the refutation of which was agreed to in large part by most editors providing substantive comment after it. You also basically begged it to be taken here - I’m not sure if you did that because you felt confident that your close was not a supervote (when it was), or whether you just didn’t want to deal with it. But you were given the chance to expand on your claims in your close - and you instead posted basically the same closing statement with only a couple additions that did nothing to address the significant plurality (if not majority) of editors who directly discounted the claims you took as fact in your closure. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Well said. I believe S_Marshall almost always does a terrific job, and is extremely valuable to the movement. I disagree with the close, for a similar reason you do, but I really hope it's not taken as a personal attack, but as a polite disagreement on something that is important to get right. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 4 per my !vote above. Option 2 is against current policy and would require changing WP:RSP or establishing a specific carve-out for this case, neither of which are palatable. Pinguinn🐧 11:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 4, if that wasn't obvious yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 5. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 5. James500 (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
This user has struck his overturn !vote.—S MarshallT/C 07:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 5 or Option 2 (preference in that order) Buffs (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 1/2. I think it probable that after properly weighing the votes consensus on reliability may be found, but failing that, I believe option 2 is warranted here, and every RfC should be determined on a case by case basis. JoeJShmo💌 21:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Option 5 except with a bit more direction as suggested by CoffeeCrumbs > Option 4 or Option 2. JoelleJay (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Could we be more specific about this "a bit more direction", please?This is a 36,000-word review of my close, so this close review is longer than Hamlet. It's also longer than MacBeth and The Tempest put together. (In comparison, the original discussion was 60,000 words or so. In total we've got a full novel's worth of text that we're proposing someone else evaluates.) Obviously, it remains my hope and expectation that the closer of this discussion will see that there isn't a consensus at this close review. But there's an unpleasant possibility that they will see it as consensus to overturn, and if they do, then I hope they will at least see that to revert my close as per option 5 and then give the new closer no guidance at all would be appallingly wasteful.So in that event, we definitely do need to provide this "a bit more direction" that JoelleJay and CoffeeCrumbs advocate. What should it say?—S MarshallT/C 14:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
The "particular guidance" would be to take into account the refutations to the nomination statement. Berchan's comment above expounds on this. I read the "no guidance" option as "leave it up to the closer what to overturn to". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Yep. The fact that S Marshall clearly views this as the least desirable option has no bearing on the fact that in the absence of a consensus otherwise, overturning would mean just that, and no more. And despite his framing of the question here, that seems to be where a lot of the overturn support is leading.
The crack about how many words have been spilt on this is disingenuous - it's not the fault of the Overturn supporters that S Marshall misrepresented the discussion so blatantly, any more than it is the fault of Chess and others at the RfC that there were so many false representations of the cited evidence in the RfC's proposal. There are a lot of bad arguments to dissect, it takes a fair number of words to do it. Personally, I'd blame the editors who clearly are here to right great wrongs by downgrading sources that disfavour their POV. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
It's definitely true that someone is making blatant misrepresentations to right a great wrong, although we differ about who it is.—S MarshallT/C 23:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
In case you thought I was saying you are here to WP:RGW, let me clarify that I don't make that accusation. I do think that of various Endorse and Option 3 supports here and at the RfC, based entirely on the content of their contributions (happy to bring specific examples if anyone demands them). My criticisms of your close have nothing to do with your motivations, I won't rehash those criticisms here, I think they speak for themselves.
But you're welcome to think whatever you wish about why I'm here. If you've written me off as acting in bad faith, that might explain why I find your responses to my criticisms so unsatisfying. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
For !voters of Option 2, could you also clarify how "no consensus, defaulting to no change" should work based on the status quo at RSP:
Option 1: The Telegraph RfC should be an exception to the status quo, therefore the no consensus close wouldn't change previous consensus
Option 2: The Telegraph RfC and future no consensus RfCs should no longer replace any previously established consensus
Option 3: All sources with no consensus should default back to any previously established consensus, retrospectively
Option 4: No consensus RfCs should only be included on a case by case basis
Option 5: Disagree that this is how RSP categorises sources
This is not an RfC, simply trying to clarify how "defaulting to no change" is supported. Pinging additional editors who expressed this view or touched upon it for comment: @Amakuru @Walsh90210 @*Dan T.* @BilledMammalCNC (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is an easy answer here. If we had say 50% (by numbers and quality of argument) say a source is 1 while the other 50% say 2, I would be inclined to go with status que. However, if things are the same ratios but we are dealing with 1 vs 3 (green vs red) then it seems hard to justify status quo. Perhaps I'm thinking about it a bit mathematically, but if nocon shifts it a half point I would err on the side of no change. If nocon shifts a whole point, I would move it. I would also note that if we are talking about moving the source up vs down I would err on the side of more general source inclusion vs less. As this applies to the discussion above, I would say such a clear divide should be yellow with an understanding that we really mean case by case, not yellow is generally excluded but perhaps could be used here or there. Springee (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:MREL does state "may be usable depending on context." but nonetheless you make valid points, even if it's a big can of worms. If I understand correctly, what you're suggesting is a "case by case" assessment based on the RfC itself? The next question would be should this be decided by the closer, or by discussion and consensus at RSP? I've otherwise included another option for "case by case" basis of inclusion, which while I still think is a CoW, appears a relevant option based on your comment. CNC (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, when I was talking about case by case I was referring to a source that is decided to be yellow and how we use it in articles. This is a general complaint about how yellow sources are sometimes treated as less legitimate than green ones. Sometimes editors play a game of green source beats yellow source and ignore case by case usage context. For example, if a green source briefly said, "this is bad" while a yellow source offers 3 detailed paragraphs discussing pros/cons but mostly pros in detail I wouldn't presume the green source article proves the yellow source wrong. In this case I would say the yellow source is the stronger of the two. As for RSN closings, I think they will always be case by case but hopefully most cases will be easier to untangle. Springee (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
My mistake. Naturally I agree that a compilation or MREL sources is more reliable than a single GREL, depending on the context of course, but generally I agree with the concept. I'm not sure what you mean by "As for RSN closings, I think they will always be case by case but hopefully most cases will be easier to untangle". CNC (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Looking at WP:RSP, for several of the first "no consensus" colored topics, the discussions were closed with consensus (Anadolu Agency, AllSides Media, Apple Daily, Arab News). This "no consensus" supervote is not inline with general practice, and cannot stand. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
So Fox News and HuffPost (politics), among others, should be overturned, per Option 3? CNC (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
No. Per WP:FOXNEWS: "Historically, there has been consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. However, many editors expressed concerns about the reliability of Fox News for any topic in a 2023 RFC. No formal consensus was reached on the matter, though." Should it be overturned then? Please tell me you otherwise looked past RSP entries beginning with A. CNC (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Would you like me to reference WP:HUFFPOLITICS as well? CNC (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I am strong on assuming that the status quo for no consensus at RSP holds for this discussion. I don't think we should be questioning the long-standing tradition at RSP, which has its own reason, to derail this CRV. If someone would like to change that, they should start their own proposal. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm also of the strong opinion that "the status quo for no consensus at RSP" is relevant, but the reality is many editors have expressed their concern over RSP listing prcoess and therefore it requires evaluation, here and now. This section of "Request for clarity" is not an attempt to "derail this CRV", but instead to refine discussion of this topic to this section. CNC (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that nobody wanted to destroy our efforts here. However, in my opinion, if we try and bite off more than we may chew, that is what's going to happen. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Putting aside policy questions around privileging "status quo vs MREL", I think it's relevant that many editors who supported Option 1 and Option 2 in the RfC found that - especially after the detailed rebuttals (by Chess and others) - that there was simply no case to answer on unreliability, notwithstanding that some editors continued to allege it.
The discussion wasn't framed around an open discussion of the question "Is the Telegraph reliable?" It was framed as "Do the examples brought by (mainly) Loki establish that the Telegraph is not generally reliable?"
Editors who supported GREL clearly thought that the case for GUNREL had been refuted, and saw little need to make positive arguments in favour of GREL. If a finding of MREL is really the outcome of this close (or the close which follows it after overturning) of this RfC, it's implausible to me that a new RfC will not quickly be generated to make the positive case for reliability on transgender issues (and gender-critical views, which the closer inexplicably included).
Quantitative arguments to do with the volume of articles published and number of factual inaccuracies, any retractions or corrections which have been published, Wikipedia:USEBYOTHERS and others spring to mind. I am sure that such evidence would have been raised if GREL supporting editors thought that the discussion would be interpreted this way. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
UBO was actually raised, though sources supplied to evince UBO were disputed; the dispute was not resolved by the time the second month came in and discussion fizzled out. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Between this imbroglio and the one about the ADL RfC a few days ago, maybe we should just write down somewhere that any RfC with more than (500kb? 1mb?) of crap in it ought to be closed by a panel. Obviously not as a requirement, but it just seems practical. Is this anything? Does this have legs? jp×g🗯️ 21:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree . Because based on your threshold, it will always be contested. CNC (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Before some offsite brane-geniouse[sick] [sic] adds to the red-string corkboard that this is some kind of veiled attempt at shady political ministration, I already commented in the RfC, and furthermore I do not particularly give a rat's what parliamentary hocus-pocus ends up happening here (or at XRV), it's just taxing to see one person try and sit down to close a Tolstoy-length RfC, immediately get massively BTFO at AN over the close, and then all their effort is wasted when a separate group of people sit down to write a panel close. jp×g🗯️ 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
This now sound like some kind of veiled attempt at shady political ministration. CNC (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Back in 2006 the phrase "muhahahahahahaha" was considered extremely random and funny, and I think we should have a revival. jp×g🗯️ 21:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about absolutely requiring a panel close, since that would mean that some of these discussions would take months and months to be closed, but I do think I'd support a requirement for either an admin or a panel close. I think this particular close was good, but I'd really rather skip the inevitable-closure-review part of the process in the future as much as possible. Loki (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think recommending (not mandating) that such discussions are closed by a panel or highly experienced, clearly uninvolved single admin would be good. Not because non-admin closures are inherently bad (they aren't - some non-admins are better closers than some admins) but because close reviews based on alleged minor procedural errors or the admin status of the closer (which are becoming more common) are a bad thing. Maybe some sort of restriction that said someone who was involved in a discussion may not initiate a review of such a discussion within 48 hours of the close unless they get agreement from someone uninvolved or someone who supported a different outcome to them that a review is justified. However I don't know whether this would actually work or how it could be enforced - it would need more thought before it could be a viable proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I do think recommending an admin or panel close would be good for RFCs over a certain length, but it would also be a good idea to tack on RFCs in WP:CTOP areas. Most of the contested closes I see are in WP:AP2, WP:ARBPIA, or WP:GENSEX; for those we actually could require it and I think it would help significantly. There are a lot of CTOP areas and many of them are pretty quiet nowadays, so we might just want to do it in certain ones like what I listed here. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there is solid evidence that panels (even admin panels) are less likely to be challenged these days. Also given the difficulties we already face in finding closers for such discussions I do not think it wise to add an additional procedural hurdle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Sure, it would be bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo in some cases, but I don't think the alternative is having no bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. The alternative, which we are currently posting in, is a hundred-thousand-byte AN thread paired with a twenty-six-thousand byte XRV thread (and this is just on the first day of both). jp×g🗯️ 22:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
If you do the heavy lifting then you're going to get close reviews, panel or admin or bureaucrat or founder. We need to think about how we conduct them. I've noticed that someone who doesn't like your close virtually always alleges involvement, as well as supervoting and all the other things that challengers pretty much have to say, because we have this weird culture where saying "I think the closer was wrong" always fails but "the closer made a technical procedural error" often succeeds. If we change that culture we'll make better decisions.—S MarshallT/C 22:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, this is the most annoying part: even if the close is (imo) a correct interpretation of consensus, a single closer will often give rise to all sorts of objections along the lines of "well how do we know this random person is correct?" or "but they aren't even an admin!" or "they said while instead of whilst!" et cetera. This can give people a ready-made rationale to disregard or overturn the result later on because "well the close was half-assed" etc... in the example of the ADL RfC, there were actual think tanks and newspapers talking shit about the close, so I think that making it more difficult to raise objections to the manner of the close is overall better for the decisionmaking process.
Of course this doesn't need to be done in all cases, but I think it would be condign to at least point out that people are prone to demanding it. jp×g🗯️ 22:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the root of the issue is that closers are often vague. For example, in this close you say on the basis of scholarly sources and an Ofsted report, various misrepresentations contained in that article are noted. You don't explain what those misrepresentations were, which ones were supported with scholarly sources and an Ofsted report, or what the community consensus was on each of them. This makes it very difficult for editors to determine if your close is correct.
Sometimes this is even done deliberately, to make it harder to challenge the close, something I very much disagree with - if there is something wrong with a close we want to be able to identify it. I'm not saying you do this but some closers, by their own admission, do.
Because this makes it difficult to determine whether the closer is actually wrong editors need to consider the information that is available to them - whether the close appears to be a supervote, and whether the closer has previously expressed opinions on the topic that might have tainted their reading of consensus. I think if we fix that issue, if we expect closers to provide more detail, then I think the rest will fix itself.
That's not to say every close needs such detail, but some, including this one and the ADL one, would have benefited from it. BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Nobody at all is ever satisfied by providing more detail about the closing method, in any circumstances.
In the 10+ years I've been closing RfCs on Wikipedia, I've been asked to expand on my close more than a few times. Exactly 100% of the people who asked for this have gone on to issue a close challenge, and exactly 0% of them have been satisfied.
I'm afraid that long experience of this tells me the only reason anyone ever asks for more detail is because they're hoping you'll say something they can attack at AN.—S MarshallT/C 15:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I haven't been closing discussions for as long, and I focus more on RM's, but my experience differs - I find that sometimes the editors are satisfied by my expansion.
Other times, they do go on to use what I said in a close appeal - but personally, I think that's a good thing. If I said something wrong then that means I probably made an error in my close and I want the community to be able to find and rectify that error. When closing, my goal isn't to write a close that will survive a close review, but to write a close that will accurately reflect consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
To expand on this, I wanted to use the example of a question I asked you: What misrepresentations are you referring to here? As far as I can recall ... the only alleged misrepresentation raised was whether a student actually identified as a cat.
If I was asked a question like this as closer I would be happy to answer it. This is because the nature of it means only two things can happen; either I can satisfy at least that concern, preventing or at least reducing the scope of any close review, or can I discover that my close was flawed. I see both these results as a positive.
Honestly, I greatly respect you as a closer. In discussions about NACs I've previously cited you, along with Paine Ellsworth, as two of our best closers. In this case, however, I think you made a (very rare!) mistake. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The legal system has tried to solve this problem by having a standard of review. We should implement this on Wikipedia by clarifying what level of deference we give to closers, given that we already have this as an informal policy. In my opinion, we should only defer to the closer when a closing statement considered an issue being disputed, and when the closer's judgement is based on the arguments people have made. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Barkeep49 that there is no evidence that having a group of evaluators of consensus leads to less followup discussion. I also don't think it's appropriate to treat admins as being specially privileged to evaluate consensus. In my view, the problem is that the community has certain expectations regarding how consensus is evaluated, and typically there'll be someone whose viewpoint didn't prevail that chooses to point out any deficiencies they see. I know the community historically dislikes bureaucracy, but if we were to introduce some, I'd suggest building up a list of experienced evaluators of consensus who can be asked to determine the result of divisive discussions. Note that the only way to become experienced is to evaluate some discussions, so the community needs to be tolerant of users stepping up to do so, even if they make mistakes. Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion could serve as a place to foster greater experience in evaluating discussions (at its genesis, I had feared it would be just another place to where disputes would spread, but up until now, that hasn't happened). isaacl (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
At one point I had thought about proposing a userright flag called discussioncloser that could be given out to trusted users like template editor and rollback. It wouldn't have any technical permissions, but maybe there could be an edit filter restriction non-discussioncloser users from using our close templates on certain pages. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Closes are legitimate when they consider the necessary facts and provide clear reasons for decision. Panels assist greatly in this, because editors can compare notes and ensure they're not missing any relevant information. Obviously, people are going to complain no matter what, but a good close will explain why certain !votes were disregarded and others were not. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this too. And especially when a discussion becomes lengthy, it is much more likely that whether intentionally or not, a closer misses significant portions of the discussion, or in other words, unintentionally falls into a vote-count just because one side may have significantly more words than another. It is not reasonable to expect one person to be able to read a lengthy discussion and not error in some way even if they take hours or days to read through it and attempt a closure. The beauty of a panel is that if one person, or even two, miss something, it is likely that the third/further person will catch it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
While panel closes have their uses, I think that generally the best way to catch issues is by having the closer be more verbose. It doesn't increase their workload significantly, and it makes it easy for participants to catch errors and raise them with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
One of the main benefits I found in doing a panel close on the ADL RfC was being able to workshop the close statement. Any of the three of us could have closed the thing in a way that was within a reasonable closer's discretion, but together we were able to talk through how the close statement would read to participants on both sides, to non-participants, to people looking back later, and to catch statements that might be too easy to take out of context, could be twisted to claim bias in one direction or the other, etc.The downside of a panel close is you need to find multiple people willing to take the same level of heat—all three of us in the ADL close panel have been criticized in multiple publications—and then get those people to coördinate. We spent hours on voice calls. Others may exchange many emails. With most things in life, teamwork reduces the total number of person-hours required, but with panel closes it actually increases it. Because of that, I'm not sure to what extent our volunteer ecosystem can support a greater number of panel closes than organically emerges. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you make an important point about having at least a bit of review in the closing process, something the panel allows. Is there a way that we could have something like a RfC close, pre-close discussion for some of these topics? I think sometimes there is a level of momentum once the close is "official" but if the closer could state what they are thinking and allow editors some ability to chime in before the ink is dry, would that reduce some of the issues that you pointed out? I'm not sure if this is a practical idea or one that might cause more issues than it solves but perhaps it would help. Springee (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
As someone else noted somewhere in here, WP:Discussions for discussion exists. That said, when a major concern in closing a sensitive RfC is avoiding becoming part of anyone's narrative (to the extent it can be avoided), having a public drafting/review process, where everyone can see suboptimally-phrased past wording, would defeat a lot of that. But I think it's still better than nothing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@JPxG, there's already often a backlog of RFCs for close at WP:CR. I don't see adding a suggestion that any RFC over certain length be closed by panel is going to help that, in fact it may just give challengers more ammunition in their claims that entirely reasonable closes are somehow bad. TarnishedPathtalk 03:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I can think of 3 panel closes off the top of my head that I strongly disagreed with. I won't name them because I don't want to call anyone out, but my impression is that panel closes do not help improve RFC closing accuracy, so I don't think it'd be a good idea to require them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
What would be helpful would be a way to stop editors turning RFCs into huge walls of text. In every RFC that ends up this way there are always a small handful of editors (not the same editors, but rather the editors who most care about the issue) that generate the most text. The rebuttal of an argument happens each time that argument is used, but that shouldn't be necessary (it not being a vote). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 11:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Yet it basically was necessary here, and the closer still didn’t account for the rebuttal in their closure of the discussion. So if anything, this close, even if overturned, and the number of people supporting it shows that it is necessary to ensure people whose !vote is based on inaccurate information or an idea that has been disproven/rebutted strongly are aware of the fact their opinion is based on that and given a chance to review and expand upon it. And if they don’t, it can’t be claimed “they didn’t see the rebuttal” - it would have to be seen that they did see it, since pointed out to them, and chose to ignore it - which should result in a significant down weighting of their !vote indeed, as it’s basically an admission that “I can’t rebut that rebuttal”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Outside of Wikipedia, this is done by having someone moderate the discussion. The English Wikipedia community has so far placed a higher priority on ensuring everyone gets to weigh in, out of a concern that any moderation would be unduly strict. isaacl (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, WP:BLUDGEON is a conduct issue; people can and have been ejected from topic areas for repeatedly bludgeoning discussions. (If it's just one discussion where they lost their cool then it's probably not worth worrying about.) There's always the option to look up repeat offenders, nudge them to stop bludgeoning discussions, then drag them to AE or ANI if they don't listen. Doing that more often would encourage people to not be so bludgeon-y in general. Another thing that might discourage bludgeoning: Make it unambiguous that closers may, at their discretion, ignore all non-top-level comments in an RFC, if the RFC is already massive (of course this would have to be combined by making it clear to everyone that if they feel some point is vital, they need to edit it into their one top-level comment), and should even say that they're doing so so people understand that their elaborate back-and-forth arguments aren't even being read - to be clear, I'm not saying "exclude them when determining consensus", I'm saying closers should be specifically empowered to say "I'm not reading all that, I'm only reading the top-level comments." RFCs aren't supposed to devolve into threaded discussion anyway, so "at a glance this all looks like pointless natter between people who just want the last word and I'm going to disregard it" seems like a reasonable thing to encourage. Maybe even some sort of "just the main argument" viewer that specifically removes all responses. Or we could flatly forbid threaded responses in RFCs, confining them to a separate comment section that the closer is not required to read. --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there is a consensus agreement in the community that requests for comments aren't supposed to have threaded discussion. Many of the editors who like to weigh in on how decisions are made think threading is important for facilitating efficient communications. (My variant on this is that I think we should consolidate discussion so the same topics aren't discussed in multiple threads, but that hasn't gotten a lot of support.) Since English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions are based on the idea of building consensus, I don't think enabling evaluators to say "I'm going to ignore the discussion" would gain favour.
Yes, extreme cases of swamping discussion can get addressed. But communications rapidly bogs down way before that point, and before any point where sanctions would be deemed reasonable. The N-squared problem of trying to hold a large, unmoderated group conversation (where there are up to N-squared interactions that can occur) means that everyone can be acting in good faith and yet it becomes very difficult to follow all the points being made. isaacl (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Bludgeoning is a lot different than asking someone to reconsider their opinion or explain it further in light of information that they did not address in their original comment - regardless of whether that information was already present or not. Closers should certainly not be permitted to ignore the threaded discussion - because that in and of itself results in "first mover advantage". People would be able to make whatever claims they want, or make their initial !vote based on inaccurate information, and then the closer should just be allowed to ignore the replies/discussion that points that out? Absurdity. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
You have to let people seek consensus by talking to each other and you have to pay particular attention when someone changes their mind after being persuaded by a convincing point. But you can't allow a passionate editor to have a disproportionate effect on the discussion by sheer volume of text when they're not convincing anyone.—S MarshallT/C 07:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
If I infodump a wall of text and a dozen other editors cite it, that's not bludgeoning. Neither is posting rebuttals on their own.
Bludgeoning is when an editor repeatedly makes the same argument. This is disruptive because redundant information does not add value to the conversation. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I've been trying to think of the way to address this - you say you have to pay particular attention when someone changes their mind after being persuaded by a convincing point - that is exactly what happened in this discussion, yet you not only ignored it in your close, you actually found the opposite to have happened. You took those not commenting on the refutations to be claiming that they were wrong, you viewed those arguments to be "stronger" than those refuting the original claims (when the discussion makes clear it was considered opposite by a clear majority of those commenting on the refutations, rather than ignoring them), and you then impressed your personal opinion of the claims onto the close. You seem to be trying to claim that you ignored the refutations and their support because the editors supporting that view were passionate - that's absurd. Just because someone is passionate and/or points out and asks for others to address a comment that a significant plurality of editors not only addressed but agreed with (and in quite a few cases, changed their !vote after reading) does not make it bludgeoning, and even if it was bludgeoning, it does not make their opinions null and void. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of panel closes either. The only concrete effect they seem to have is to make things take a lot longer. I also often get the feeling that the summaries suffer from the lack of a single author. Instead I'd encourage closers to make greater use of WP:DFD to workshop and solicit feedback on contentious closes before they post them. – Joe (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
For the concerns about backlogs noted above, I’m not sure mandating a panel closure for these long sorts of RfCs would be the best idea (having one person close it takes long enough, mandating that 3-4 negotiate a close would be a bit excessive) - that said, I’m supportive of mandating or strongly recommending that an uninvolved admin handle these closures. Yes, admins aren’t infallible, but it feels more appropriate to have someone who the community’s already entrusted with responsibility handle lengthy/contentious RfCs in CTOPs, rather than a normal user. TheKip(contribs) 18:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The credibility of people like S. Marshall should be the least of our concerns here. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I don’t have any opinion on the Telegraph RFC specifically as I didn’t participate nor have I read it - just giving my 2¢ on the proposal regarding large RFCs in CTOPs and such. TheKip(contribs) 06:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
We have many credible non-admin closers, so I don't think this is something we should "hunt down". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Also not a fan of panel closes. It's anecdotal, but I think the ratio of bad-closes/all-closes is worse for panel closes than individual closes. At the very least, anybody thinking about mandating panel closes in any situation should first gather some data about whether panel closes are any less likely to be wrong, challenged, or overturned, than non-panel closes. My impression is that Wikipedia has a lot of non-panel closes -- like dozens or hundreds or thousands, depending on the time scale -- and like less than 1% are wrong/challenged/overturned. Whereas Wikipedia has very few panel closes -- like single digits, maybe a dozen or two dozen in the last like 5 or 10 years? -- and a huge proportion of them (like half) are wrong, challenged, and/or overturned. But my anecdotal impressions aren't data; data would be useful. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Any idea where to start looking to gather that data? Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not useful data to have. People don't even ask for panel closes unless it's really super-contentious, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that more panel closes get challenged or overturned (which I don't know if it's true, but it does seem likely to me).—S MarshallT/C 19:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
For individual closes, maybe Legobot's contribs, and/or the page history of WP:CR, to gather a list of RfCs/discussions. But then after that I don't know, seems like a difficult task to calculate the total number of closed discussions vs. how many of them were challenged (AN archives will find some official close reviews, but that wouldn't include those that never went past the closer's talk page).
As for panel closes, I don't even know... probably manually plucking them out of the gathered list of RFCs/discussions.
Overall it strikes me as something that would basically have to be done manually and would take many hours. For a single year, it's maybe doable, but that would leave a tiny sample size of panel closes (maybe low single digits). For this reason, the efficacy of panel closes may never be fully understood. Levivich (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
One place to start might be extracting RFC closes from {{archive top}} and {{discussion top}} and checking for more than one signature/timestamp/userpage wikilink. That would reduce a lot of the noise and manual work. I've also thought about having the bot add an RFC tracking template when it removes the current RFC template after the 30 days expiration, that would improve data collection going forward. But on this issue specifically, I think admin or panel would be better than just mandating a panel. I'd also endorse creating a group or userright flag for experienced non-admins who the community trusts to close controversial discussions, and S Marshall would absolutely have a place on that list. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Given that the attempt for a a single user to attempt a close ended up reverted and eventually led to a discussion where the user withdrew their close, I would say it needs more than one user to attempt a close. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I think we could, instead, just let a second person try to close it, rather than throwing in the towel on single-person closes after one close. There has been so much ink spilled over one person's close. Levivich (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
At the time of typing we're just over 30,000 words. I'm minded to move it to its own subpage?—S MarshallT/C 13:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the relevant discussion has already run its course, and now it's mostly people just venting their personal dislikes of each side at one another. Probably better to just shut down the side discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it's worth adding that I read much of the discussion, researched some of the references given by the proposer, came the conclusion that they did not support what was claimed, saw that the inaccuracies had already been pointed out by other editors and decided not to contribute.
I'm now very confused. Since the allegations against the Telegraph were shown to be incorrect, I can't see how I could have added to the discussion according to Wikipedia practice, which is (or is supposed to be) don't simply repeat what has already been said. Perhaps the idea of consensus has now swung so far into the realms of "guess the majority" or perhaps it's "follow your political nose". The close to this RfC is not neutrally written - that's a shame. And it seems a political campaign has succeeded here, where it should not have.
Discussion seems to have died down, any chance a passing administrator wishes to evaluate if there is consensus to do anything about the close so that, if there is consensus to overturn, it can be re-added to the RSN page or at least given a new closure? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
When you think a discussion should be closed, leave a comment at Wikipedia:Closure requests, which I've just done. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
That's not a close. It's a !vote in a close box.—S MarshallT/C 11:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that - not least it is based in part on a fundamental misunderstanding of RSP. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Why do you see it that way?
I will note that "personal note" sections aren’t uncommon - I’ve used them before to lightly trout participants - and shouldn’t be considered when assessing whether the close is appropriate or correct. BilledMammal (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
If you do, you shouldn't.
Duly elected sysops get to make personal remarks that trout people, in threads about conduct. You won't find a single sysop who would have made that remark in this context.
Except for sysops talking in threads about conduct, a close box isn't a space for putting down other people. It's not your role and it's not okay.—S MarshallT/C 12:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
For example, this. I feel and continue to feel it was appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
That's a different example. You didn't make 'personal remarks' about other people in that close. Even though you quoted Tamzin, it is still making claims about how you feel on a certain topic.
This close instead has a 'personal remark' that S Marshall at least seems to have a stronger opinion on The Telegraph which almost read like a diss to me. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
And there's also the substantive problem that Thryduulf articulated above. I know everyone's sick of the Daily Telegraph dispute, but this isn't okay and it shouldn't be allowed to stand because of discussion fatigue.—S MarshallT/C 13:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Then you’ll probably need to open a close review; for convenience, the template is {{RfC closure review}} BilledMammal (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, no, that's not right. Firstly, I have to give the closer the opportunity to re-think; and secondly, this wasn't an RfC and doesn't get reviewed in the same way. Luckily there have been previous times when we've needed to review a review, so there is precedent for a process. That template's not it.—S MarshallT/C 15:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Passive aggressively linking a veteran user a template like this is the sort of temperature raising comments that a discussion like this sorely doesn't need, and reflects poorly on you. Parabolist (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I did it with the intent to be helpful; it's an obscure template that I think is useful and has been under-used in close appeals. BilledMammal (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Tone is difficult over text, but I'm not reading passive aggressiveness from BM's comment. I'm also a veteran, and I don't have every rarely-used template memorized. I could probably find it with a few minutes of searching, but a convenience link to a useful template or documentation of an obscure process comes off as a polite gesture to me. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
To add: it's not just an obscure template, it's also new, having been created less than a year ago. I wouldn't expect many editors, veterans or not, to know about it. Levivich (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Since I do seem to be coming down with discussion fatigue, I'm not sure how I feel about it, though I do feel like the version in the closer's sandbox was more concise and nuanced. Hopefully I won't be reverted if I add a separate GREL entry to RSP that says we find it biased but still reliable for facts. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I feel about it
Same. If someone appeals it I’ll consider it in more depth, but not until then. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Compassionate727, who had their close reverted, thought about it and stated below that they now want to rescind their close. Sounds like we should just pretend this close didn't happen and let someone else re-close it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In case anyone has subscribed to this threads the close of the RFC review has been reverted by Hemiauchenia as WP:BADNAC #2. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 21:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
My removal of the close has now been reverted. It says that close challenges should be made at WP:AN, so I guess this thread can suffice as place to make my case. As I previously said, It is not appropriate for a non-admin to close a highly contentious discussion like this per WP:BADNAC criterion #2. The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. If an admin were to reclose the discussion I would accept the result regardless of the outcome. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
This revert appears to have been reverted. Flounder fillet (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Copying my comment from C727's talkpage, as it fits better here: That should be reverted. By longstanding community consensus, BADNAC by itself is not a valid reason to unilaterally overturn a close. I'd do it myself, but I participated in the close review. If someone thinks this close was bad, then challenge it legitimately. This is exactly what SFR did to the original close and got dinged for. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
That should be reverted. You may want to specify whether you support or oppose the NAC. "That" seems ambiguous to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It means the reversion of the NAC. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to include my comment I left over at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources over here too. Though the BADNAC #2 reason by Hemiauchenia also applies in addition to what I'm pointing out below.
"Funny that literally the entirety of the history of how RSN no consensus closes are done can be ignored just because of a controversial topic discussion happening. Someone needs to have the backbone to actually close with a determination on one side or the other or follow RSN rules on a no consensus close, because precedent is very blatant and obvious when it comes to RSN that no consensus means no consensus on reliability for the source in question. Since RSN is about affirmative reliability determinations, whether a source is reliable needs to be something we agree on. If we don't agree, then the source can't be considered WP:GREL by definition. Follow that link, it even says in the first line "Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise"." SilverserenC 21:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what the process is at this point. I had hoped the RFC and its close would be at least satisfying to both sides of the discussion, but both closes have failed in that respect. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 21:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I didn't really want to do this (I don't have a strong opinion on the reliability of the Telegraph on transgender issues) but the unilateral precedent that "no consensus=no change at RSP" to the contrary of years of RfC discussions like the 2020 Fox News RfC in my opinion sets a really bad precedent that could badly affect future RSN source RfC discussions and couldn't go unchallenged. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
While I'm not entirely neutral (my !vote in the original RFC was for additional considerations) I absolutely agree with Hemiauchenia. Compassionate727's close was muddled in what it was closing and, even ignoring the other issues raised by others, cannot be allowed to stand based on the fundamental incompatibility between it and the explicit definitions (which are backed by literally years of consensus discussions) at RSP. It's a shame that Compassionate didn't self revert, and it's a shame we're now verging on edit warring about it, but some things are important enough that they need to be done right or not at all. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I completely agree, but I didn't mean the process for RSN/RSP in the case of no consensus. What I meant was what process to follow given that it doesn't appear Compassionate727 is going to self revert their close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 21:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
No consensus always means more discussion (apart from anything else it might mean). Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
True in general but RSN discussion are not article content, and the RFC was not about how to update the RSP page. Rather RSP is a log of RSN discussions, which has always listed no consensus results as no consensus results. If it should list them that way and how RSP should work is a more generalised question than just the Telegraph, as it will effect more than just that one entry.
As it stands the close of the review, specifically The more urgent question is the practical one of whether a note ought to be made at RSP downgrading The Telegraph on transgender topics. On this question, I do find a consensus that the community did not articulate a sufficiently robust objection to merit that outcome. Thus, there is a consensus to overturn S Marshall's close and restore the previous status quo, is a close that overturns the RFC close and recloses it as the Telegraph being reliable on trans issues.
Whichever side editors are on that is the situation as it stands. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 22:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm confused by the outcome of this close. Did Compassionate find a consensus in this discussion that the Telegraph is generally reliable for transgender issues because opposers not articulate a sufficiently robust objection or is this a "no consensus" close defaulting to the previous "generally reliable" status (contrary to previous RSP handlings of no consensus discussions)? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Based on my understanding of what they wrote on their talk page, they found consensus to overturn the original close, no consensus in the original discussion and chose to restore the status quo at RSP (contrary to everything), the latter in part because of objections to downgrading based on no consensus in the close review (which were not actually that numerous despite being oft-repeated). Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Without reading any of this discussion, given the original RfC close still stands, then clearly it hasn't been overturned. The note at the top of it means jack shit, as the RfC was never properly overturned. CNC (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@CNC I quite dislike C272’s close, but the note to me reads as “the reclose is located in the AN archives, since the original closer didn’t want to modify the {{rfc top}} template At RSN”. That is a way to overturn. Mach61 22:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Right, where there is a summary based on a review of the close, where scrolling through you get what you're looking for; "I'll dither on whether there was a consensus that the original discussion should have been closed affirmatively in favor of option 1, [...]", so this isn't the RfC close then? "Thus, there is a consensus to overturn S Marshall's close and restore the previous status quo.", so this is quasi-close then? That's one hell of a contradiction, as no doubt others have expressed already. Apparently the more important aspect was regarding RSP, but there was no consensus there either. Respectfully, the entire close review is a mess, and for anyone reading it it makes fuck all sense. I understand the original point you were making, but that is not how an RfC top note is supposed to work. It's supposed to be conclusive. CNC (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
FWIW I also oppose this close, but I'd suggest if we're gonna do a close review of the close review we should probably make it its own topic. Loki (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
If anyone does this, please just focus on the inconsistent nature of the close itself, nothing to do with the original RfC. The issue here is with a close that makes little sense, not whether the intention of the close was accurate or not. CNC (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
This was a BADNAC, and per policy should not be shunted into a sideline. Keep the discussion tight, and keep it here. SerialNumber54129 23:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm torn. I'm pleased Compassionate727's close has been overturned because I'm convinced that it was wrong both on policy and fact; but I'm also appalled that it's been overturned by one person straight up reverting it.—S MarshallT/C 23:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing much support for the close, and it has some fundamental problems. It's result, no matter how it gets there, is to say there is consensus for the Telegraph being reliable for trans issues, which is close to being a super vote. But nothing at BADNAC, other than #2 that can be controversial, covers overturning it. At this point I would support that SerialNumber54129 has reverted it again as IAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 23:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion about whether SN's removal again was appropriate, but I don't mind my original removal of the close being reverted either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
My goodness. There was a relatively clear consensus here that the initial close of the RfC got it wrong for a specific reason - that arguments were not weighted and examined in line with policy and the initial close treated opinions of bias as equal weight to those based on the "evidence" of true unreliability. The person evaluating the consensus here observed that reason and the consensus here, and rather than reopen it for someone else to close simply overturned to the consensus clearly present in the original discussion after accounting for the !votes that were not weighted appropriately. And now either because some people refuse to move on and accept that the arguments made were not accurate nor evidence of unreliability, or because S Marshall refuses to accept they got it wrong, we are saying that a non-admin can't close this discussion, nor the original discussion. I find it interesting that people are arguing that this closure was a BADNAC but not that the original closure was one. I furthermore question why a non-admin would be allowed to close the original discussion and it not be a BADNAC as "contentious", but now that another non-admin has tried to close the close review (and as a part of that re-close the original discussion) it's somehow suddenly an issue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
For the record, while I consider SMarshall's close was made in good faith, in retrospect it also seems like a BADNAC, which is why many participants in this discussion voted to overturn it. That why it's important an experienced admin closes the discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with the statement that seems like a BADNAC was why many participants in this discussion voted to overturn it. Rereading this close review, there was a clear consensus that the reason it should be overturned had nothing to do with how contentious it was, but with the fact S Marshall did not properly weight !votes that were based solely on opinion, did not properly apply the applicable section of WP:RS to !votes based solely on their bias, did not properly evaluate the fact that the initial concerns raised (and which many participants based their option 2/3/4 !votes on) were refuted and were shown to be at best inaccurate, and at worst deliberately misleading/misrepresenting... and the like. I disagree that an administrator would've been any more or less likely than S Marshall to make those errors. In fact, I don't even fault S Marshall for making the errors (only for failing to realize it after it was pointed out to him) - because it was such a large discussion. Call this reply a "defense" of S Marshall (in general) if you want, but it was not a BADNAC for an experienced user such as himself to make an attempt to close the discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
While I appreciate Compassionate727's willingness to read and attempt to understand and close this discussion, after reading his rationale here and on his talk page, I see no way to square his (I find no other way to put this) supervote with either the discussion he was closing [here on AN], the original discussion at RSN, or the way RSP works. I was going to say that if he won't rescind to let an admin who understands RSN close this, then his close must be undone, and I was going to suggest that perhaps Thryduulf (if you're open to this: if not, I don't mean to volunteer you; I just think you've articulated the problems with the close most fully, of the many, many people who have now articulated them) compose the formal close challenge to Compassionate727's close (which, AFAICT, would be its own new level-2-headered section on AN). I see that in the meantime the BADNAC has been (re)undone by SerialNumber on NOTBURO grounds, which is reasonable. While the closure of the original RSN discussion was by all appearances made in the good faith belief that the discussion's (no-consensus) outcome was so abundantly clear as to be closable by a non-admin, all of the subsequent discussion has made clear that this discussion, especially this discussion here at the Administrator's noticeboard, probably needs to be closed by a knowledgeable administrator. -sche (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I am curious how you clarify your view, in light of the fact that the consensus of this close review was that the original closer did not properly weight opinions in line with the policies/guidelines in play. In what way can you determine, without re-closing the discussion and explaining your weighting, that "no consensus" was the appropriate outcome given the consensus in the close review that there was not proper weighting? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment about "the consensus of this close review": whether this AN close review of the RSN discussion found consensus for anything has not been ascertained. (Compassionate727 attempted to ascertain it, but made so many errors obvious to so many other editors that his close was undone, so as of the time of your and my comment, the discussion has not been closed as finding consensus for the position you state, or any other.) -sche (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I'll wait to question the conflict in your statement until this close review is accurately re-closed as "consensus to overturn". There is a clear consensus in this close review, and if you're going to call the initial close by C727 a "supervote" without expressing why you are ignoring that clear consensus, then I feel you should expect to be asked to explain that. It sounds like you've made a determination that the initial close result of "no consensus" was correct - I am asking you to explain that in light of the many people above in this close review who expressed (without being refuted) that that was not the correct result, if weighting was done properly. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
There are a lot more people who disagreed with Compas's re-close to "retain status quo" than people who object to the "no consensus" assessment by Marshall. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I can't see that there are. There's maybe half a dozen in my count - to be generous, I'll call it a full dozen - editors who are disagreeing with C727's close. There were multiple dozens of editors who disagreed with the initial close by S Marshall. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
@-sche I'm honestly confused as to what the current status of C727's close is. If it does need to be formally challenged I could do that but I'd rather someone who has been less vocally involved in the discussion do it. Additionally I don't know whether I've got the block of time I'd want to spend getting such a challenge well worded before next week. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the argument that non-admins can't close contentious RFCs is a weak one. In practice, non-admins close RFCs, including contentious ones, all the time. If this was a newer editor closing this RFC, sure, that could be a BADNAC. But Compassionate727 has many tens of thousands of edits. If it had been pre-agreed that only an admin could close this, or only a panel could close this, then sure, that'd also make sense. But I don't see such a pre-agreement. I think we should restore Compassionate727's close, and then this can be handled in the normal way: accepting the close and having a de facto moratorium on discussing this for awhile, then re-RFCing this in 3-6 months. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this - and I would also be very uncomfortable with us treating the revert of C727’s close any differently to how we treated the revert of SM’s. BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Conversely, I think this was a classic WP:BADNAC, and not just because the closer was not an admin per se but because they went out of their way to ignore policy here, such as how no consensus at RSP works, and make a WP:SUPERVOTE not just on whether the discussion should be opened but on how it should be closed.
If the close is restored, I'm definitely going to make a close review for the close review, and if I don't someone else will. "Accepting the close" is not an option here since so many people think it's so bad. Loki (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
FYI, there is no policy about how RSP works. BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Of all the reasons why C727's close was bad, that they are not an admin is by far the least important and if I do end up writing a formal review request for it (as @-sche suggested above) then it is almost certainly not something I would even mention. An identical close by an admin would have been equally bad. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
To be completely honest, I don't have an informed opinion on the issue of the Telegraph's reliability on trans issues, nor do I have the time to read through the mountain of an RfC and discussion here to help develop one - however, as an outside observer of RSN and AN, what I do know is that it's been debated to death across these two boards over the last few months, and I find the idea of re-litigating the re-litigation to be a massive waste of the community's time at this point. Virtually everyone with an opinion has already had their say, and many on either side of the debate are continuing to beat the dead horse by restating their opinions ad nauseum, which is just as unlikely to lead to any sort of consensus as the prior two discussions. Therefore, I endorse Novem Linguae's proposal to restore C727's close with a moratorium on discussion - at least give it a few months before the next chapter of this mess, and maybe some fresher perspectives will emerge there. Either that, or have an admin panel give the final say here. TheKip(contribs) 08:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I very strongly oppose restoring/reinstating/letting stand C727's close unless and until there is a community consensus to fundamentally change how RSP works first. This is very significantly more important than discussion of any individual source as it alters the very definition of what "reliable source" means. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, now we've managed to make this so toxic that it can only be closed by a panel of three sysops, all of whom must be unsullied virgins who're intimately familiar with WP:RSP but have never expressed a view about how it works. It could be a fixture here on the AN for months.—S MarshallT/C 09:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
So far we have found no consensus in the original RfC and no consensus that there was no consensus; no consensus that the close was good or bad, and if it was, no consensus on why; no consensus that the close review of the close was good or bad, and if it was, no consensus on why; no consensus on whether there is a consensus about what no consensus means, or should mean, at RSP. I now see no consensus on whether the way forward is to open a close review of the close review of the close. Maybe we could open a subthread on whether to describe this all as a dead horse or a trainwreck (my vote is Option 1: dead horse). Maybe it's time for the current crowd to step aside, and let editors who have not previously commented on the matter take it forward. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I didn't participate until recently, to me nocon means discussion continues. As to what to do in the interim, I agree with Thryduulf, viz MREL = no consensus that the source is generally reliable or generally unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I think this comes down to how should a no consensus discussion be handled at RSN/RSP. I know there was a recent discussion on this question (talk:RSP ?) and answering it would probably be most helpful here. That said, it also highlights one of the big issues with RSP where we treat the colors as if they are rock solid vs what RS and NPOV say, asking if this specific source is reliable for a specific claim and should this claim be in the article. Anyway, at RSP we all agree that a consensus that a source is marginal/other considerations apply = yellow. The case of no consensus is less clear and I can see both arguments. Additionally, while some no consensus topics have gone to yellow, I suspect of we look back at some of the green sources that contain notes about bias concerns, some of those might also be no consensus if we are strict about the reading. It would probably be best to come up with a clear path for cases like this. That or tell people that RSP is only a guide and shouldn't be given much weight when deciding case by case questions. Springee (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The case of no consensus is less clear this is a claim I've only started seeing since the Telegraph RFC was closed. The definitions used uncontroversially for many years at RSP actually make it explicit: GREL = a consensus that the source is generally reliable. MREL = no consensus that the source is generally reliable or generally unreliable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion at RSP about the colors of NOCON. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
After reading everything here too, I'm going to rescind my close. It's clear very few people actually understood what I was trying to do, which is my fault for being vague and noncommittal. I had found a consensus that S Marshall weighed the votes incorrectly and the discussion should have been closed in favor of option 1, as well as a surprising lack of consensus that a result of no consensus should have resulted in downgrading at RSP. I tried to restore the previous status quo on the basis of both of those things; in hindsight, I should have stuck with the former and made the latter just a comment or something. Lesson learned, and I'm terribly sorry I put everyone through this circus. —Compassionate727(T·C) 13:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for making this decision, I think it's the right call. I don't doubt the original RfC could have been correctly closed as Option 1, and it seems clear now there was rough consensus for the original close should be overturned due to numerous issues. My main issue, similar to others, was with the RSP decision that had much broader implications without the consensus to support it. If there was lack of consensus that the result of NC should result in downgrading at RSP – personally I don't think there was as arguments were well refuted, but let's assume there was – then the status quo should remain for RSP, that of categorising as MREL. Naturally this puts this status quo, based on lack of consensus, in conflict with overturning the original RfC to the previous status quo, based on lack of consensus also. CNC (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me the obvious thing to do is to revert the RFC close and let someone else close it. Until that happens, all this other discussion is unproductive. Levivich (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this edit[16] it appears that the Dave Plummer Troll is now making the same accusations, but this time they ended up on Youtube. I don't think the Wikipedia editor who made the above edit is in any way at fault. I think they just found the link and posted it. I also doubt that the person who owns the Youtube account did anything except repeating the same accusations that the Dave Plummer Troll has been spreading online. All of the arguments in the above threads still apply. The new video once again assumes that if a prosecutor says it it must be true (odd that they don't treat filings by the defense the same way) and ignores the final settlement that the judge signed off on. Not sure what to do about this. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of the youtube link at Talk:Dave Plummer until the issue has been examined here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Nobody objected to the revert (I did notify the author), so I don't think anything else needs to be done here. I suggest that someone not involved should close this. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Edited to strike comment 02:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Guy Macon Alternate Account: I was looking at the discussion, but didn't really know what to say as again I'm not that familiar with WP policies. That being said, I think the revert wasn't justified, as it was essentially hiding a piece of evidence in my opinion.
I don't know anything about the "troll", but it is not clear to me why Enderman's link is considered invalid... again from the perspective of someone who doesn't know much. Leaderboard (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Guy Macon Alternate Account I'm not sure I understand what you want admins to do. If someone had tried to add the YouTibe video to the article, this would just be a normal content dispute, but it doesn't look like even that happened. Why is this here? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
This is here because false accusations against BLPs are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, including false accusations in the form of a link to a Youtube video that contains a false accusation. The BLP-violating content was removed and as long as nobody objected to the removal of the BLP-violating content, we were done.
However, Leaderboard has objected, so now I need to present my argument for why I believe that the link is a BLP violation, which I will do below -- please give me time to compose it. If I cannot establish that it was a BLP violation it most likely should be restored, but that is not my decision to make.
This is one of the two places I could have started that discussion. The other is the BLPNB, and I have no objection to someone moving it there and leaving a link here.
Once again, please note that I don't think Leaderboard did anything wrong - What I believe was a BLP violation was obviously innocent and unintentional. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
YouTube is not a reliable source and random YouTube videos are not "evidence." WP:BLP requires reliable sourcing for any contentious content, particularly for content alleging unlawful conduct. @Leaderboard: I'm a bit surprised you posted this, as you've been here long enough to have read BLP and know how carefully it should be applied. Anyway as Guy Macon has already said, please do not post material containing poorly sourced allegations against living people, anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Euryalus: see my contributions - I don't have a lot of familiarity with BLP policies. I knew that YouTube isn't reliable, which is why I put it in the talk page (requesting assistance) and not in the article itself. The video did link to a lot of sources though, and it did appear that the author tried to be as neutral and research as well as possible (which is why I was confused with the "Dave Plummer Troll" as that sounded as if an organised group is trying to discredit him). Put it this way: the question was not that YouTube isn't reliable, but whether the linked evidence (such as his memoir and court files) could be valid, and I did not know the answer to that.
TLDR; you know better than I, and hence if the YouTube link violated BLP rules even on the talk page, I apologise. Leaderboard (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
We know that the allegations in the video are poorly sourced for use in a BLP (see WP:YouTube), but are the underling accusations (found on many places on the web due to the tireless efforts of DPT) a direct BLP violation no matter where they are found?
Background: As detailed on his Wikipedia page, in 2006 Dave Plummer's company was sued by The Washington State Attorney General’s Office for alleged violations of the Consumer Protection Act. He ended up settling out of court, paying $150,000 in civil penalties and $40,000 in legal fees, and agreed to stop the practices that the AG objected to. A judge signed off on that agreement[17], and reliable sources that covered that primary document are the the main sources for our coverage of the issue.
Meanwhile, Plummer somehow made an enemy who I refer to as the Dave Plummer Troll. Every so often DPT tries to insert BLP-violating material into the Dave Plummer page, leading to long-term semiprotection. PPT has also posted the same material on Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, and a bunch of other places, and one place it ended up in is the YouTube video we are discussing.
DPT typically has the following message:
If an Attorney General accuses you of something[18], you are guilty and were convicted of a whatever crime you were accused of.
If an Attorney General releases a press release, everything in it is an established fact and you can ignore the actual settlement that the judge signed off on.
If you settle out of court and agree that you did some things, that means that you went to trial, entered a guilty plea for everything else in the AG's accusation, and were convicted of a crime.
You were also convicted of other crimes that the AG never mentioned. For example, deceptive marketing is upgraded to fraud and scamming.
In the YouTube Video[19] titled "Dave Plummer: The Man Who Scammed Millions (in 2006)" the narrator avoids the worst of DPT's claims, but does make the following claims:
Timestamp 3:08: "his villain Arc"
Timestamp 3:40: "he must be hiding something because naturally if the investigation accelerates and maybe some private investigator online takes on this he might get in legal trouble again how do I know he isn't doing Shady stuff with software if he did before and actively tries to hide it?"
Timestamp 26:25: "I want to say you'd be pretty pissed if you fell victim to software online being a child or part of some other vulnerable population you would hold the Vendetta especially when the person behind it doesn't feel any remorse and constantly tries to whitewash himself"
Those are legitimate opinions, but they have no place in a Wikipedia BLP. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Guy Macon Alternate Account The YouTube video has not been used as a reference in the article. It would not be appropriate to use it in the article. The question seems to be if it is a WP:BLP violation to allow it on the talk page of the article. I don't think it good judgment to post it on the talkpage calling it an "expose" but I don't believe it is a BLP violation. As you say, the YouTuber is expressing "legitimate opinions" even if those opinions are not suitable for Wikipedia articles.
I feel like you are fighting some sort of battle here. Do we usually doubt the press releases of Attorneys General, or is it just for this one particular case? This seems like a content dispute that could be handled on the talk page instead of an admin board. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The relevant policies on press releases are explained at WP:PRSOURCE.
I deny that I am Righting Great Wrongs. I contend that I am simply applying Wikipedia's rules for BLPs properly. When discussing accusations of crimes, we don't use anything from the prosecution as a reliable source. Not only is it primary, it is hopelessly biased. We also don't use anything from the defense as a reliable source for the same reasons. The only exception is when we use such statements as sources for themselves, as in "The prosecution said X" or "The defense said Y" with no implication in Wikipedia's voice that what they said was or was not correct.
In particular, in the initial charges the prosecution often overcharges to convince the defense to accept a plea bargain on a lesser change -- see Plea bargain#Disadvantages and issues. In addition, both the prosecution and the defense often publish biased press releases after the verdict in an attempt to put a spin on the actual results. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Guy Macon Alternate Account Are you sure we don't use anything from the prosecution as a reliable source? This external links search for just the Washington State AG suggests that maybe we do, despite what WP:PRSOURCE says. We're talking about a settlement here, not a plea offer, so overcharging doesn't come into it.
This isn't a case of someone being accused or charged with a crime but not yet convicted (the WP:BLPCRIME situation). This is an adjudicated settlement, but if you wish to treat the press release of a US state agency the same way you would treat a press release from Acme Widgets, That's fine. We can look at contemporaneous reporting:
Direct Marketing News Washington Settles With Software Firm, New York Sues Second Company
Computerworld InternetShield vendor pays to settle deceptive ad suit
A quick Google search found those and I am sure there are more if someone wants to look. I think you will find that they echo what is said in the Attorney General's press release. Again, this is a content dispute, not a BLP question. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Those are all examples of reliable secondary sources (Direct Marketing News, Computerworld, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Seattle Post-Intelligencer) reporting on the contents of press releases, which are allowed.
As for your extenal link search I started looking at the list.
Page not found, Used to support the claim "there are 26,000 health clubs in the US", so not an example of a prosecutor releasing a press release after a verdict or settlement.
Page not found. Used as an example of a bad page in a sandbox. Original was clearly a bio of Rob McKenna, attorney general of Washington state
Page not found. This one is a link to an AG press release about a settlement that is found on the talk page of a BLP, (to their credit the editor paired it with a link to reliable source that discussed the same settlement) but the settlement was did not involve any BLP. It involved a tobacco company, and thus is not under BLP rules.
Page not found. This was a standard user warning template on the talk page of someone who violated copyright by cutting and pasting from a www.atg.wa.gov page. (as an aside, I don't think it was a copyvio, because the source is a government page, but this was in 2007 so it is a bit late to try to correct).
I stopped there. I am not willing to check 138 links to find an example of Other Stuff Existing. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLPTALK allows for material that would violate BLP if used in mainspace to be discussed on talk pages for purposes about article improvement, but not anything else beyond that. In this case the user that posted the vid on the talk page appears in good faith asking if that was a source that could be used. Obviously the answer to that question is "no", but it is still a fair question to ask on the talk page. Unless there is further evidence the user poster the video is not acting in good faith and trying to plaster links to that video all over, it's nit a BLP to ask about it. Masem (t) 14:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Again, please note that I don't think Leaderboard did anything wrong - Their linking to what I believe is a BLP-violatiing video was obviously an innocent question about whether the information could be used.
WP:BLPTALK Says "For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating 'This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?' The same principle applies to problematic images." I don't think that any reasonable interpetation of those words implies that a link to BLP-Violating material must be retained even after the question is answered with a no. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Unless the material is grossly violating even if presented in good faith (eg the type of material that we'd used revdel to remove after reversion), I personally don't think BLPTALK implores removal of this material, and in fact would seem more logical per WP:REFACTOR to keep the material so that a later person, also acting in good faith to ask about such material, can search the talk page and archives to find that it was already asked. If its the case the link should be removed, that doesn't justify removal of the whole question, and I would, in the case of an admin cleaning up that link, leave behind something like "[Youtube video by (name) about Plummer, link removed per BLP]", so that later that source can at least be identified with some extra work by an editor but still retains that the question had been raised previously. — Masem (t) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's a longer history behind this and a more neutral summary might be "two editors using Wikipedia as a battleground after warnings about this issue, and after edit-warring blocks". I created a report at WP:ANEW without being aware of this section here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This complaint appears to be without merit, and this noticeboard is not a place for random complaints about arbcom anyway. WT:ARBN is there if you insist on pursuing this. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On 6 August, ArbCom opened a case on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections, after preliminary discussion as an ArbCom Motion (rather than, as is more common, after a case request). In preliminary discussion, ArbCom said that the case would be a "hybrid" case because it would involve private evidence as well as public evidence. I submitted a preliminary statement saying that I urged ArbCom to make as much of the evidence public as possible, in order to maintain the trust of the community. If evidence of off-wiki canvassing or off-wiki harassment was mailed to ArbCom, as may have been the case, that evidence should be made available, even if the name of the submitter is withheld for privacy reasons. ArbCom opened the case on 6 August, with a closing date for evidence on 20 August. At this point, on 14 August, the Evidence section consists of one statement that is not really evidence but only a statement, and there has been one entry in the Talk section, mine. One reason for the lack of response may be that ArbCom did not post a notice on WP:AN of the opening of the case. Some community members may not know that there is a case. Another related reason is that ArbCom has not stated what the scope of the case is. Even persons who know that the case is open may not know whether they have relevant evidence to provide.
I can think of three reasons why ArbCom might not have publicized the case:
1. ArbCom intends to deal with the case quietly.
2. ArbCom has been preoccupied with other matters or distracted.
3. ArbCom has been busy behind the scenes dealing with email submissions.
The first, dealing with the case quietly, is a mistake, unless ArbCom is deciding to close the case as improvidently opened. If ArbCom concludes the case with little or no public evidence, and takes action against editors, the community will be dissatisfied with the Star Chamber proceeding. If ArbCom concludes the case with little or no public evidence, and takes no action, the community may see a whitewash.
If either the second or the third explanation, which are the good-faith explanations, is true, then ArbCom should, in my opinion, extend the dates for the case, and should make a statement as to what the scope of the case is. I know that much of the work of ArbCom is invisible. But this case is now partly visible and partly invisible, which is problematic.
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
When was the last case opening that ArbCom created a central notification for? Doing so is not part of the usual procedures and the only one I could find with a quick search was Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_12#Fram_case_opened from 2019. The case's scope is "Conduct in the topic area of historical elections" and displayed at the top of the case's pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
And the only reason that happened for FRAM was because of WP:FRAMGATE; the community had been demanding very vocally that ArbCom take it up, and the WMF acquiesced. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 02:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The ArbCom didn't announce on this noticeboard that they had opened the case, but they did post here that they were considering doing so and invited comments, so it's hardly as if they were trying to keep the case as some sort of a secret. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I didn't think that ArbCom was trying to keep the case quiet. That was the least likely explanation. But if there was private evidence, then ArbCom should make as much of the evidence public as is possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it's a shame Robert that you start from a false premise - ArbCom did not advertise this case - and then use that false premise to cast aspersions upon the Arbitration Committee. I also am surprised you're unaware of how ArbCom works with evidence in hybrid cases in expecting the evidence to be public at this point. In the last several hybrid cases - including this year - ArbCom makes public the private evidence that can be made public at the end of the evidence phase. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A couple of weeks ago, Andrew Davidson showed up at WT:DYK with Special:Diff/1231899272, in which he called a hook "nonsense" and the nominator "The main culprit". He implied that DYK was not "a respectable publication" and expressed a desire to "shame" DYK in order to "deter sloppy work". Since then, he's been posting reports on WP:ERRORS#Current DYK almost every day complaining about something. Some of his complaints are legitimate, some are not, but the overall tenor seems to be the shaming theme. Yesterday he wroteIt's puzzling to me that others have difficulty in spotting such issues which leap out to me.
Multiple people have requested that instead of waiting for the problems he spots to hit the main page, he could be providing a more valuable service by pointing out mistakes before they get published. Yesterday I requested on his talk page that he stop. In response he gave a long excuse why he's going to keep doing what he's doing, and took another dig at the DYK crew, calling out "careless oversights". He even saw fit to take a dig at how we organize the page we use for our internal discussions, asking "How hard is that?" with reference to his doing something his own way. I guess because he knows better what works for us than the people who work here every day?
All of this would normally not be enough to drag somebody to AN, but I see he's got a long history of this kind of disruptive behavior and is no stranger to WP:AN. In 2017, he avoided any official sanction but was chided for being disruptive at RfA. In 2020, he was warned about bad-faith editing and "advised to take seriously the feedback (and in some cases warnings) offered by many, particularly around personal attacks". In 2021, he was TBANNED from deletion discussions.
It seems inevitable that what's going on at DYK will end up here eventually, so I'm bringing it up now in the hopes of avoiding additional disruption. Nobody's denying that errors get made at DYK. I've certainly complained about my share. But Andrew needs to understand that just standing on the sidelines throwing darts at the people trying to get the work done isn't useful. Like so many parts of enwiki, DYK is understaffed and overworked. We don't need critics, we need more people helping to do the work. RoySmith(talk) 14:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
If those responsible for creating DYK content aren't prepared to do the necessary work to get it right, why should anyone else feel obliged to fix it for them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the previous few days of ERRORS I don't see anything actionable. Pointing out issues at the forum for noting such errors isn't disruption: speaking as someone who has only infrequently dealt with the DYK system, it's byzantine and not a great place to browse discussions on hooks. I don't think his behavior counts as "standing on the sidelines" in this case (he is contributing, just not to the degree or in the venue you would prefer.)
Andrew might be occasionally more pedantic about aspects of the criteria than the regulars at DYK, but I don't see how calling out facts about DYK's regular issues is disruptive on the face. It seems like the fact there isn't any sort of disincentive for posting sloppy or erroneous work to DYK is one of the problems with the process, and should probably be explored if improving the quality of what gets posted is the main goal. I'm not a fan of much of Andrew's conduct, but I don't think poor behavior in deletion discussions is really germane to this situation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 15:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Waiting until the last moment to raise issues is a long-standing problem at DYK, and incredibly annoying. But I was rather surprized to see this complaint being initiated by a regular offender, though he doesn't wait until they are actually on MP. Pot and kettle? Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Having problematic or plainly wrong DYK entries on the Main Page is a long-standing problem of DYK, and incredibly annoying. Today, Andrew Davidson raised a complaint about the island hook at WP:ERRORS. But that hook was only in the DYK since yesterday 16.29, earlier there was a different hook[20]. Doesn't give people much time to check these... Fram (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
There are many excellent editors involved with DYK, both writing/nominating and reviewing/administrating but the structure and institution of DYK has perennially prioritised quantity over quality, which results in poor hooks and poor-quality articles repeatedly hitting the main page. And historically, DYK has failed to get its own house in order, leaving it to others to point out the problems. While I'm sure we would all appreciate it if Andrew was more constructive in his criticism, DYK is probably more of a net-negative than he is at this point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
It may be partially a time-on-task matter, rather than quantity, but with humans involved, mistakes, miscommunications, misunderstandings are going to happen, all the way until it roles off the page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but DYK is about filling sets regardless of whether the article is 1500 characters thrown together from a few marginally reliable gossip sites or 15,000 words built from days research using book sources, and the compulsory quid pro quo makes superficial reviews by people with no interest or knowledge of the subject a feature rather than a bug. And instead of requiring higher-quality articles, we just have an extremely complicated set of rules, additional rules, and supplementary rules. All because DYK is designed to keep the backlog down, not encourage quality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Interesting, I wonder if anyone really involved in DYK would care to comment, with ways to address, it seems like there could be ways to address some of that (although since there is no real system to qualify writers, qualifying editors seems a real stretch) but 'better articles' might still be a point to go for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
There are steps currently being taken to try to bring the focus away from pushing low-quality articles onto the main page. For example, we have started to "time-out" nominations that clearly aren't going anywhere and will cause nothing but controversy when actually on the main page. This may seem like a very small step, but it turns out that editors get rather unhappy at even the thought of their nominations not being accepted, and so we have to deal with the histrionics. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
This is an incorrect assessment of what is happening at DYK, and nothing will be fixed if this is problem is misdiagnosed like this. DYK is not about filling sets, nor is it designed to keep the backlog down. DYK regulars would be I'm sure extremely happy to have less sets and less work. Those are both symptoms of the core issue, which is that nominators don't like being rejected, and reviewers don't go out to upset people. Quite basic, people-focused issues (the same that cause trouble occasionally at GAN), rather than some apparent desire to push out sets. CMD (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, just from watching over the years, volunteer editor-general for Main Page DYK is probably bound to happen. I suppose counseling him to tone it down (and telling him, we are almost all sometimes less than satisfied at what others do, here) might help, as such annoyance, particularly when strident, eventually might boomerang -- there are just more chances to eventually fall down when doing such an in-others-face critiquing role, over and over again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Andrew violated no rules, I'm afraid. Just a matter of manners at worst, which isn't actionable. BorgQueen (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
When I was a kid, bad manners earned me an early bedtime without supper. But I guess that has gone out of style. RoySmith(talk) 19:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
This all feels very similar to how Andrew interacts with ITN: raising a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate criticisms in what is almost certainly good faith but arguably the least helpful way possible; complaining that things should be done his preferred way - even when (sometimes multiple) consensuses have not supported his changes; and/or refusing to see if there is a consensus for his preferences. This in unquestionably annoying and has understandably pissed off multiple people, but fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your point of view) it rarely goes beyond annoying into actionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 19:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Echoing this, pretty much. Unfortunately par the course for Andrew, it's genuinely annoying behavior but unlike his behavior at AfDs it's not disruptive enough to sanction. TheKip(contribs) 19:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I have wondered why he seems to prefer checking sets that are already on the main page (i.e. working against the process) to checking sets that are yet to appear (i.e. working constructively with the process). It seems he likes to appear as a lone ranger figure—turning up, shooting a few bullets and one-liners, and abruptly departing. Works for the cameras, not so much for the well-being of the Wild West town (to continue this increasingly involved analogy). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
If one of the goals is overall improvement of DYK, with error frequency the primary metric for evaluating the process, surely noting problems that did make it to the main page is still a solid positive even if it's too late fix them individually? JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I've agreed with Andrew Davidson in any Wikipedia-space discussion ever, and yet somehow I don't see any problem at all with what he's been doing at DYK. In fact I think it's very important that if we're going to be gauging overall DYK process success by the frequency it has errors we should make sure that that percentage is actually accurate and not just a sampling of whichever hooks a knowledgeable passer-by happens to notice might be problematic during the narrow windows they run. I know there have been several occasions where I've seen an issue but then realized there were only a couple hours left or the slot had already passed and figured bringing it up wouldn't be appreciated. In retrospect I don't think that was correct; just because a hook can't be pulled anymore doesn't mean an error didn't make it to the main page, and it's still helpful to acknowledge that it happened. Also the first few times I noticed something I didn't even know where to comment...the nom on the talk page is already closed, and clicking on the DYK link in the talk page banner just takes you to the template page which is useless for anyone trying to find out what DYK is or where to discuss the hook somewhere other than a TP that is almost by definition going to have almost no one watching it... David is right about "Byzantine". JoelleJay (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I have long said, one of those "joking, but not really" sort of comments, that I avoid Front Page processes, preferring to stick to less contentious areas like arbitration enforcement. Personally I find DYK a really unpleasant process to go through precisely because of the tension on display in this discussion - and indeed this process once introduced an error into a hook I wrote which was just incredibly frustrating to have happen after jumping through the various hoops DYK requires. I have a great deal of sympathy and respect for the work Andrew, and others like him, who is doing his best to try and serve our readers by making sure that we are giving them accurate information and is investing real time, effort, and care to do this. I also have a great deal of sympathy for Roy, and others like him, who is also doing his best and who is doing so in a system that is designed to reduce errors with multiple steps and checks only to then still be criticized by someone who is making no effort to participate until it's "too late" despite the real time, effort, and care he has invested. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Please note that I have participated in DYK in a variety of ways over the years. I have nominated over 100 articles, including articles created by other editors at outreach events. The nominations require QPQ reviews and so I've done lots of those too. And I've participated in DYK internal discussions over the years too. The only thing I've not gotten involved in is set-building and promotion of the queues. That's because it's quite a complex process and I don't have admin rights.
So, the idea that I'm purely lurking outside the process waiting to pounce is mistaken. I had a DYK of my own on the main page recently (Doris "Lucki" Allen) and I have another one in the pipeline right now (Quintus Quincy Quigley). My activity at WP:ERRORS arises because I usually read the main page every morning and most of the DYK hooks are new to me as there are a lot of them. I like browsing them, take an interest in the ones that attract my attention and take it from there. Sometimes I thank; sometimes I give a barnstar; sometimes I report an error; sometimes I go down the rabbit-hole; and otherwise I just move on.
@Andrew Davidson, re: That's because it's quite a complex process and I don't have admin rights, you don't need admin rights to promote hooks to sets. With over 100 nominations, and the amount of time you spend scrutinizing DYK on the main page, you should have zero problem with the complexity. It's not rocket science, and there is always someone around to tell you what you've done wrong this time. Valereee (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Helping to build sets has been a great opportunity for me to learn. I'm not perfect at it, but the people at WT:DYK, and especially the admins promoting sets, have been very helpful, kind, and patient throughout the process. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Roy and Andrew both agree that the error rate at DYK is too high. I would hope there would be a way for them to set aside differences and work together on solving that mutually-recognized problem. On the one hand, Roy, I don't think it's fair to expect Andrew to look at queues and preps and not the main page when there are still bona-fide main page errors several times per week. On the other hand, Andrew, pointing out main page errors doesn't help stop them from happening; there would be fewer main-page errors if we caught them in the queue or in the prep.
As always, I think everyone should listen to me: the reason this is happening is because we are running too many hooks per day. We don't have the human resources needed to create and vet 9 hooks every day. If we cut the number of hooks like in half, the same number of volunteers could spend twice as much time on each one in the review, prep, and queue stages, significantly reducing the number of errors that hit the main page. In the simplest form: if we cut the number of hooks in half, the same amount of time Andrew spends each day reviewing the main page hooks could be spend reviewing the main page and the next queue. That's the real solution here. Levivich (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich May I quote you the next time somebody suggests we go to two sets per day because we need to churn through the backlog? RoySmith(talk) 00:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
YES! And ping me so I can take them to ANI. :-D I remember this being raised/discussed at WT:DYK before I did the May and June error reports, and it seemed nobody at WT:DYK really wanted to seriously consider this. But I am convinced: one month of half as many hooks, and we can all watch the error rate shoot up from 93% to 99%. Levivich (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I sincerely hope we never have a month with an error rate of 99%. RoySmith(talk) 01:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I support the idea Levivich is proposing here. I think it would be helpful to 1) get consensus here or someone where else from a broader community to prioritize this so you're not quoting a single person but rather consensus and 2) for the DYK regulars to decide, broadly speaking, what hooks will be prioritized. I'm guessing this would default to First in, first out but I would suggest something that spread the wealth (in other words penalize the DYK writing regulars who might have multiple hooks in prep or who've recently had something run) would be a better method. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
For spreading the wealth, maybe a one-hook-per-nom-per-set rule? Levivich (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I would be fine with that partially. We would also need to figure out if it works the same way for editors who nominate articles started by non-DYK regulars or non-DYK editors in general. I say partially because it should be stricter than a one-hook-per-nom-per-set rule because a set typically already has one editor per hook per set. SL93 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
One-hook-per-nom-per-3-sets could work but it would be a pain to manage for prep builders, I imagine. Levivich (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
As someone doing a bit of work in prep over the last couple months, it really would be. That's the biggest issue from my point of view. When building sets, I'm typically looking at Template:Did you know/Queue#Prep areas, placing good hooks in appropriate preps to balance out bios, sports, music, etc., I'm not usually opening an individual queue and never focused on who already had pages in another prep or queue. This idea would involve opening up at least five queues at a time, to see two forward and back, in case anything in a slot behind that prep area has been filled. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I suspect people are too attached to WP:NOTPAPER. That's a great essay (whoops, I just checked, it's a full fledged policy) when applied to all of mainspace. But when it comes to the front page sections, there really is a space limitation; the exact number of pixels DYK is allowed to consume is a little squishy, but basically we have to play nice with our space or the OTD folks will want to know why. So, as I've said many times on WT:DYK, if we have a fixed output rate and the input rate (i.e. nominations) is bigger, we need to find another way to make it all balance. Any freshman engineering student who has taken Control Theory 101 knows that. As does anybody who has ever confronted a toilet which is draining slower than it's filling. It's all the same math. But people get bent out of shape over the idea that we need to judge submissions on their merits and reject the ones that aren't as good as the others. RoySmith(talk) 01:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
People getting bent out of shape is why I suggested both of my ideas. A community consensus with a selection criteria that has at least some objectivity to it is going to be perceived as more fair by nomination writers. I do think it important to also remember the pride and importance nomination writers have in the DYK process so of course there is going to be disappointment at being turned down. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't "agree that the error rate at DYK is too high" because I don't think that we know what the error rate is. We don't know this because we don't measure or record it. For example, WP:ERRORS is a noticeboard that doesn't keep archives. Instead of keeping records and statistics, the culture at WP:ERRORS is to shut down and clear discussion and reports as quickly as possible. And also, as we see in this case, to shoot the messenger too.
I keep a personal archive for my own interest and reference but this is quite haphazard as I don't patrol the main page systematically. From this, it seems that I've discussed about 80 DYKs at WP:ERRORS over about 8 years. This doesn't seem especially high -- it's certainly less than 1% of the total.
Now DYK does put quite a lot of effort into statistics -- see WP:DYKSTATS. It systematically records the number of nominations made by editors (for the QPQ requirement) and it records the readership for hooks, which is the main metric and goal. We might do more but DYK is so high volume that some script and template work would be needed.
No, Andrew, this is not shooting the messenger. If you started with, "I see a problem, how can I help fix it?", you would have been welcomed with open arms. Instead, you started with "If DYK published regular corrections then the shame might be a useful check and balance, helping to deter sloppy work." You should take this as a life lesson: if you see a group of people who are volunteering their time to do a job, insulting them and holding them up for public shaming because they're not doing as good a job as you want, isn't the way to get them to do a better job. RoySmith(talk) 11:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
If I may butt in as someone who was very active at DYK and then stepped away for some of the reasons that have arisen above: the issue we circle back to in these discussions, the common thread across all the threads about sub-optimal behavior and structure, is the number of hooks DYK attempts to run. Fixing that means increasing the human resources we put into the problem, or reducing the number of hooks we run. Both these approaches have proved difficult; because we quickly run out of editors willing to do the review work, and because we are very reluctant as a community to approve fewer hooks. Until we change that, we're going to end up having these conversations (that give me a strong sense of deja vu); every so often. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Like Vanamonde I've been very active at DYK and have more or less stepped away. IMO DYK is a problem that can't be solved because the people doing the work are vastly outnumbered by the people making the nominations, and almost all solutions require either (or both)
More work from nominators
Fewer approved nominations
Both of these are unpopular with nominators. Which means we can't get consensus for any of them. Valereee (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
If Andrew's waiting until items are already on MP, or about to appear, there may be a good reason: if you're really good a spotting errors (or potential errors requiring some research to check), every step you move upstream (in DYK's fairly porous checking process) to apply that talent rapidly increases the number of errors/potential errors you find yourself uncovering and calling out. It can be overwhelming. DYK has always had one or two people who fulfilled the role of last-moment checker, and thank goodness for them. But it's a very dispiriting role, and people fulfilling it can become sour, because you come to feel like too many people upstream are asleep at the switch. EEng 18:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps come up with metrics to require the DYK factoid to be central to the article. What you may lose in quirky can be made up for with more natural focus on a supportable central article factoid (by writer and editor), better streamlined articles, and also prevent having the reader be less likely to go, 'what a way to misrepresent a subject' or 'I can barely find that factoid' in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. That the facts presented are odd or intriguing, so that the reader is drawn in, is DYK's great strength. The single thing that would most improve DYK quality would be to drop the ridiculous "newness" criterion: articles have tobe nominated within 14 (?) days of creation. That pretty much guarantees that inchoate, half-baked articles are will be shoveled onto the main page. EEng 13:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, to the extent it is some kind of "strength", that clickbait aspect has always been discordant and caused discord. Also, at least in the past there was no real way to judge interesting as a group, nor enforce it. At any rate, "central" is not a synonym for "uninteresting". (And a bit contrary to your assumption, it is more likely that most DYK articles are planned practically in full by their writer for the front page spot before it was written.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The clickbait criterion does cause issues, but "central" seems open to similar vagueness. What is central to Johann Joseph Dömling? (It would also create more entries overall, as we do get at least some articles rejected for lack of good hooks.) CMD (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
That's why you come up with metrics, like naturally mentioned in the lead, or a paragraph, or type of fact. For example with Dömling, it might be something about their path breaking. Nor is my proposal about getting rid of 'interesting', its rather channeling it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
An important principle here is that being right isn't enough. Andrew Davidson and others aren't wrong that errors happen; errors do, and they should happen less. However, this doesn't justify being uncivil and disruptive about it. Some comments claim that this is just about 'manners' and that disrespect isn't actionable. But respect is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. If Andrew Davidson's treatment of other editors is disruptive, that is actionable under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which govern behavior as well as conduct. OP is right that Andrew Davidson could contribute without throwing in caustic digs at editors.OP also rightly notes that Andrew Davidson's complaints are of inconsistent legitimacy. Two of the more dubious "errors" he reported include arguing that a hook about a woman should've focused on her physical appearance instead of her actions and claiming that following the WP:EN naming convention guideline was a "gross error". While wanting things to be done his own way, to quote OP, is an understandably human desire, opinions like these aren't errors, and reporting them as if they are is unhelpful because doing so adds noise to pages and discussions, making it harder to see and talk about actual errors.I hope that Andrew Davidson will be willing to contribute this help with spotting errors while dispensing with disrespecting community members and claiming that non-errors are errors. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I side with AD here as the net benefit to the community. There's a LOT of sloppy work on the main page. Levivich' suggestion should be given serious consideration. Buffs (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Im gonna start a new article with this name shortly. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Just overwrite the redirect, there's no need to delete it in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I want it to be connected to my account. Cant you just delete it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Assuming that's an invalid redirect, does overwriting it to a Draft in your space work? Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
It certainly appears to be a valid redirect, though having some rcats would help to figure out the issue. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
If the current target is the only or primary topic the redirect and article should be swapped and at first glance it looks that way, however from creation in 2020 until about an hour and half after this section was started it redirected to Zoora, which notes that "Za'ura" is an alternate romanization. I'm going to take it to RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Your edit will still be in the history. People's obsession with having the "N" next to their stats still surprises me. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Primefac: Being the author of the first undeleted revision is, as far as I know, still the only way to get notifications when an article you created is backlinked. In this case SD could have avoided that by creating in draftspace/userspace and then requesting a move-over-redirect at WP:RM/TR. But the desire to get those notifications is reasonable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was requested to seek consensus at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Leaderbot#Discussion. Basically, I'm working on a (global) bot that informs users when their temp permission (which would normally be the non-admin rights on Wikipedia) would expire in a week (giving these users enough time to re-apply), and wanted to ask if the English Wikipedia community would be fine with it. This will be opt-out (opt-in is possible if the community would rather have that), with the mechanism for that not yet decided. If there is something else I need to do, please let me know. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Support in principle. I don't see an issue with it. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Support in principle. This seems useful and unproblematic, as long as opting out is simple and the ability to do so is clear (e.g. it should respect {{nobots}} templates). Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
As someone who grants mostly temporary IPBE, I'd definitely want to see an opt-in/out option, based on the log entry and not the talk page. A reminder for IPBE is in many cases likely to be uninformative or confusing (some people don't even know they have it). To give another example of a potential issue, telling someone that their confirmed status is about to expire when they're autoconfirmed is going to be misleading. Not objecting at this stage, just suggesting things to think about. -- zzuuzz(talk) 19:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Similarly, any temporary permissions that form part of the admin toolkit granted to a non-admin who has become an admin in the meantime. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that would be a problem, because my understanding is that the temp rights are removed when the user becomes an admin so there would be no "reminder" since the flag has been removed. Leaderboard (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Not automatically, a 'crat has to actually un-check the boxes. Doesn't always happen. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The IPBE message could be customised for the flag that is to be removed (or excluded), and the confirmed flag can be excluded for reminding purposes. Leaderboard (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: and others, does this message make sense for you? Also: users can opt-out via a central page on Meta (example) - is that OK? (Note that the confirmed flag has been excluded) Leaderboard (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I would point out that trying to edit when logged-out is not a good method for determining if you need IPBE (unless you are competent at parsing block parameters). It would also be my preference not to have to list users on a page somewhere. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: can you give an example on when you would give someone IPBE and not want them to be notified of expiry? As far as I'm aware, you do get an email when the right is granted, so I don't get the "some people don't even know they have it" part. Leaderboard (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I think you have to remember that most users are just occasionally writing about their favourite sports team, or breed of dog, or their local geography, etc, and don't really care about administrivia and how it's possible they can edit. I also suspect many users don't have email, and blue notifications, especially ones which appear trivial or incomprehensible, are easily ignored by many users. So it's sometimes the case that checkusers will hardblock whole ranges (or also just notice a hardblock) and then they'll grant a bunch of IPBE to users on the range so that no one notices any difference. The users didn't ask for it, and I do believe many don't notice or care about it. I'd rather not name specific recipients, but examples of people likely to get IPBE in this way are anyone on a Wikinger range, historically anyone in Ghana, and some people on some proxy ranges. It's also been granted in this way to people on individual IPs or common ranges such as T-Mobile, when the need arises. Notifying them about what has been performed behind the scenes is IMO just going to be confusing. It's not everyone; some I'm sure would appreciate the notification. -- zzuuzz(talk) 07:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: That's the tricky bit for me (as you say, "some I'm sure would appreciate the notification"). My opinion is that it's better if someone could help reword the message so that it captures the concerns you have. Having to check the logs is something I very much would rather not do since it would introduce additional complexity I doubt would be justified, and the reasoning for putting the opt-out on a central meta page is for scalability - the plan is for the bot to be global and I don't think it's reasonable for me to have to capture all wiki's local opt-out preferences (for example, there is no concept of exclusion-compliant bots on my homewiki). Does this make sense to you? OR I could just add ipbe to the list of flags the bot will ignore entirely if the community would rather prefer that. Leaderboard (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
zzuuzz Ghana: did you throw out a random African country, or have we historically had issues with unintentional autoblocks for Ghanaian editors? I know this used to be a problem for Qatar, with all traffic running through a single IP address, but I don't remember any other countries with a comparable problem. Nyttend (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
No, yes, Ghana. Things have eased recently with the retirement of proxy-bots, but for several years it was almost impossible to edit from Ghana without IPBE. Most of Ghana seems to go through about 2 IP ranges which are full of proxies and frequently blocked for this reason or another. Some other countries have approached the same level of proxy-blockage (eg Nigeria and Nepal) but none anywhere near as bad. Lots of people in Ghana have IPBE without any request or likely idea what it is. -- zzuuzz(talk) 08:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
If you're seeing strange things looking at deleted contributions today, the answer is that it's WP:THURSDAY. RoySmith(talk) 00:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I'm still seeing "strange things" when I look at a user's deleted contributions. For example, I delete a page, I look at the deleted contributions of the author of the deleted page, and it doesn't show up. OTOH, I look at deleted contributions of other users and I see deleted contributions - whether they are all of them, no clue. I have great difficulty looking at Phabs. Can you summarize (1) what the status is, particularly whether anyone has gotten closer to diagnosing the problem; and (2) whether there is an ETA for fixing this? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I only know as much as I can get from reading the phab ticket. If I understand the gerrit notes correctly, they've already got a fix, it's been tested, and merged back into the mainline code, so my guess is the fix will be deployed this Thursday. I expect @Pppery or @mszabo would be able to give you a better answer. RoySmith(talk) 15:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you understand correctly. If there's a really important need someone could backport the fix as early as Monday morning. * Pppery *it has begun... 15:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
The fix has been backported now. WBrown (WMF) (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Subject Called for Edits to Remove Critical Material on 13 Keys/Allan Lichtman pages
Apparently the subject of two pages The Keys to the White House and Allan Lichtman directly called for edits to the pages concerning them to remove critical material (material which had been there for a couple months as a result of our own research and independent reporting) on his YouTube stream tonight, which has resulted in a swarm of edits to both pages to remove all of this material. This has made it untenable to permanently restore the previous material and reverting is difficult due to the deluge of edits; it also seems like a bad faith act to encourage edits personally in this way. I have done my best to restore the pages but anticipate more edits. Caraturane (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC) (updated to explain attempted reversion)
I've not examined this situation. But if there is an ongoing problem with IPs/new accounts editing this page because they were incited to by an influencer, the solution is WP:RFPP. —Compassionate727(T·C) 11:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I've bumped protection up to full for both pages. Folks can hash things out on the talk page. Will keep an eye. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I was going through the new page feed and came across this article, is this article for real? Why must every battle be a massacre? I am not sure if anyone wants to go through the article or not. Do we have to have this sickness on wikipedia? Govvy (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Calling almost every Israeli attack a massacre appears to be POV pushing. This is particularly the case because some are against consensus, and others are believed to not be the responsibility of Israel but of Palestinian militants. For example, consensus at Engineer's Building airstrike#Requested move 7 April 2024 was against massacre, while at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion reliable sources consider Israel unlikely to be responsible.
Unfortunately, it's a common issue in the topic area - both "sides" seek to label the actions of the other side as a massacre. In particular, it seems all but impossible to get editors to adhere to WP:POVCAT. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The main problem, as I already said at the talk page (which is where this discussion should be, not here) is WP:LISTCRITERIA, specifically define what can be in the list. Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I did some spot checks on four or five of the entries, and every single one of them failed verification on whether it's a "massacre". But I see (Redacted)Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
That's helpful. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I was wondering if an article of this nature should be semi-protected. Govvy (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
For clarity, an article like this where there should be no content in it that isn't part of the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict topic area, so the A-I CTOP restrictions and therefore WP:ARBECR applies to the entire article, the correct solution should be to extended-confirmed protect it it as User:ScottishFinnishRadish did. ARBECR encourages but doesn't require such protection. But in any case especially in this case where it's "entirely" rather than just "mostly", the only reason to leave it unprotected would be for WP:BANEX which I'm not sure even applies to ARBECR, or to reduce work for admins who'd have to protect the article. I mean I guess you could also say leaving it open allows technical violations which are so obviously beneficial that no one is going to revert them or even weirder scenarios. Still compared to the risk of genuinely unaware non-EC editors, and intentional violators editing the article due to the lack of protection, IMO the choice is obvious. Especially at this time and given how contentious that list is article to be. I think even with the ARBECR element, if ECP is all you want you could just use WP:RFPP in future. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the personal attacks/aspersions you made against other editors. Focus on the content, please. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't often go to AE these days, but Administrators aren't immune from WP:NPA or from Arbitration Enforcement sanctions. I haven't read that long discussion so I can't say if anyone has crossed a line there. Regardless, that doesn't negate the fact that WP:NPA applies here. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I have little stake in this field specifically but as an editor of crime articles, IMO, the problem is the word massacre. Usage of it is almost always WP:OR unless it is the common name because its definition is inherently negative and carries a xintent aspect other terms don't have, which is fine when it's attributed by other sources but not when it's just applied by editors on the basis of their own judgment which is constantly. I have been irritated by this for literal years. Unless it is clearly the common name no article title should contain the word massacre. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
And then we have all these lists of massacres which are always a hybrid of mass murder incidents, group violence and state killings which are both nlist passing but are usually not conflated in sourcing, but the sources use similar words. Truly a mess. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Govvy, you realize that's not every battle, right? That's not every attack, or even every attack in which civilians are killed.
This article needs editing, not AN. As others mentioned, it needs a WP:LISTCRITERIA (post it on the talk page with {{list criteria}}). Listing the victims' names probably violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL; that is an old debate on Wikipedia, I'm not sure which side is currently in the lead.
@Stephan rostie: what you wrote on the talk page about using the definition of "massacre" given at "massacre" is a major problem. Each one of those entries needs WP:RS that explicitly call it a "massacre". Please remove the ones you added that don't have an RS that calls it a massacre. It doesn't matter if Wikipedia calls it a massacre, it needs RS that call it a massacre. Levivich (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a content issue or, if you like, a titling issue. Hash it out on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Read the definition of a massacre. And what do you propose calling the whipping out of entire families of 18 and 60 members in a single strike ? Stephan rostie (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
^ that's the conduct issue: violation of WP:V and WP:NOR. Levivich (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Cited sources also call them massacres too, at least in the vast majority of the listed massacres Stephan rostie (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
"At least in the vast majority" isn't good enough. Every single one has to be sourced to an RS. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay i can provide sources for them too, no problem at all, but i still wonder even if hypothetically a source couldn’t be found, what do you propose to label the whipping out of an entire families of 20-60 individuals of three generations in a single airstrike other than massacre ? Should the definition of the word “massacre” like any other english word be considered here ? Stephan rostie (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
If a source can't be found, I don't propose labeling it at all. Seriously, read WP:NOR. We don't decide what's a "massacre" and what's not; we just follow the sources. I think what you're doing is valuable, but it must be done the right way: use the labels sources use, don't come up with your own (even if you're right). Levivich (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
also can you elaborate how exactly do you consider something like Al-Tabaeen school attack a “battle” ? Because “battle” implies bilateral engagement Stephan rostie (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich: You did post my name above, but I am not sure I wanted to reply earlier, I felt like I wanted to stay away from the article because it disgusts me. I feel that is a fragrant breach of WP:OR and others have said it's a memorial, which shouldn't be allowed apparently (a policy I've never heard of). But I wasn't sure the article was getting the right oversight and could easily be abused. War is horrible by any means, but lists like that are macabre and I feel they should have no place on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
People seem to like them. They are quite popular. Just like war. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately or fortunately for Wikipedia, it likely traces back to "Boston Massacre" and I think it is or was enshrined in title policy, although that is not list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Could anyone please un-revdel Special:Redirect/logid/163858111? It was likely a mistake to revdel the block log entry itself when revdel-ing the edits was meant instead. GTrang (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
The main editor objecting to the close, Bon courage, has dropped their objections to this RFC's close. It seems to me we are probably done here. If someone wants to pursue a boomerang or wants a super-endorsement of this close, I suppose we could keep it open, but it seems to me that it might be better to just close this and move on. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My main concern is the willingness of Bon courage to ignore the process outlined in CLOSECHALLENGE. They knew the next step after the discussion on my talk page, was to bring a CLOSECHALLENGE here to AN. Instead, they had already edited the article to their preferred version, and then said "the solution appears to be to ignore the close and follow the WP:PAGs". And the question asked in the RfC is not the question as Bon courage describes it, and when the content was re-added to the article after the RfC closed, it was reliably sourced, and then two minutes later, it was immediately reverted by Bon courage. Do we allow editors to ignore CLOSECHALLENGE, ignore a RfC close, make a self-determination on how they think the RfC should have been closed and edit the article to their preferred version? If this is the community consensus, please let me know, and I won't close anymore RfCs. Thanks.Isaidnoway(talk) 20:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the position of the closer appears to be that WP:PAGs should not be considered by a closer unless they have been raised in the argument. However, since WP:CON is by definition "a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" relevant WP:PAGs need to be considered in determining consensus in a close, otherwise we'd have untenable situations like where (say) a small group of editors could agree to insert libel into Wikipedia, and a closer then saying that must be done "since nobody mentioned BLP". This is really a key difference between WP:CON and WP:LOCALCON. In this particular case the question was about some text in an article summary and whether it should/could be sourced and how it WP:SYNC'd with the detail article referenced. The issue in now moot since by doing a WP:SYNC anyway some equivalent text in included, apparently without objection.As a general rule, I think this trend of using RfCs to mandate text (and then finding sources) is not a desirable substitute for the normal editing process. Bon courage (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Is that what happened though? While the RFC didn't directly mention sources, in discussion the RfC on the circumcision page (Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC) was mentioned as well as the Genital modification and mutilation page history [21]. Both locations seem to have several sources. Are any of the sources that supporters of the RfC wanted to use before your involvement, actually new or were they part of the circumcision RfC or already in the Genital modification and mutilation article or were used until removed? If it's the latter, then I don't see how you can claim RfC mandated text and sources were found later. Instead the RfC mandated text based on existing sources. I mean the RfC itself was structured poorly since people needed to go through either the edit history (which wasn't even directly linked) or check out the circumcision RfC etc to work out what sources were being used for the text. This might have reduced participant from uninvolved or less involved editors since those editors would see the text being proposed but need to hunt around to work out what sources allegedly support the text and so might not bother. So I'm by no means saying the RfC was perfect. But I'm unconvinced that the RfC was mandating text and then only finding sources, instead the sources were already there just not properly presented in the RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
To put it a different way, the main difference between this RfC and a good one IMO were that RfC only had the proposed text but not the sources. The sources were elsewhere but not in the RfC itself. If it had the proposed text and the sources, this would IMO be much more likely a more normal completely fine RfC. In some cases there might be two (or more) different suggestions possibly with different wordings. That is something that should have been dealt with via BEFORE which I admit I'm not sure how well was done here. OTOH, in some cases it might simply be that one "side" feels this this text belongs with these sources and the other "side" feels the article is fine without that and so it is simple a dispute between include this text and its sources or don't. It does seem to me that at least before your involvement, the most were focused on either including that text and sources or not. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The text is reasonable enough, as it turns out, but my concern about sources was that it seemed the tail was wagging the dog and they might not exist. The plan was apparently to use one particular source for this (doi:10.1353/ken.0.0279), but how one was meant to know that, beats me! You for example seem to think multiple-sources were in play. I've been operating a slimmed-down watchlist over much of summer so maybe missed some of the background to this which would help provide context? Agree a 'normal' RfC (proposing sourced text) would have raised no eyebrows. Bon courage (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You're right that only one source was used initially but it seem Prcc27 felt this was enough. I'm not going to comment on whether it was but my main objection to your initial comment is you made it sound like what Prcc27 was doing was saying "we should have this text, I don't know what sources support it, but I'm sure we'll find some". Instead, it seems clear that what Prcc27 was doing was saying "we should have this text" which was earlier in the article with this one source supporting it. The latter part was unfortunately only implied in follow up discussion rather than directly presented in the RfC. So yes they failed to present the one source in the RfC which isn't a good thing. But they clearly had a source in mind since the text and source was in the article not long before the RfC started. I just don't see how there can be any dispute especially given the followup discussion within the RfC, that Prcc27's main desire was to return to the earlier version with the text and source (which was only a few days or so before the RfC started). So a poor RfC yeah, sure, but not one where the editor started out with a wording they wanted and felt they'd worry about sources later. I may have misunderstood, but my impression was Prcc27 was also saying if that one source isn't enough, there are additional sources in the circumcision RfC we could consider using. Again not ideal, even if you feel that one source is enough, it's IMO better to present the other sources which might be used in the RfC itself. OTOH since Prcc27 apparently felt that one source was enough, technically they could have just presented the RfC with the wording and that one source if they were fairly confident the community would agree. If others in the RfC suggested that one source wasn't enough, then it might be necessary to hunt for more sources hence why it's better to either present these additional sources from the getgo or at least try and have more discussion before the RfC to work out if that one source is enough. But it can be hard to work out if there will be objection to your single source or the problem might be you need more or better sourcing before you start an RfC depending on the circumstance. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Reading the RfC more carefully, it does seem the latter two editors were probably unaware of the existing sources which is unfortunate. However it seems unlikely the editor who started the RfC was unaware of the source they wanted to use, and I suspect the next one to comment was also aware. Ultimately all this seems to re-affirm my point. No question that the RfC was poorly structured since it didn't present the source to be used. But the point seems to have been to try restore recently removed text which did have one source which the editor felt was enough although they did link to another recent RfC on the related page where more sources were available if needed. The RfC should have been better structured so editors could easily see which source was suggest, and offer objections e.g. this one source isn't enough or is too old etc. I think more before might have helped especially in establishing whether there might be objection to that one source. OTOH, I'm also cognisant that it's hardly uncommon that editor can ask for comments and receive nothing useful until an RfC happens. But ultimately it doesn't seem to me that the RfC was trying to mandate text and then work out which source/s support it; instead it was just a poorly structured RfC where the one source to be used wasn't properly presented in the RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree, now, that in effect a reversion to a prior state was being asked for. But it didn't look like that at the time, with just text and no source presented. Hence I got the wrong end of the stick. Bon courage (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
An RfC with four participants, three of whom said "yes", is being challenged, and I cannot tell on what basis. Bon courage has brought up a ton of paggies (WP:LOCALCON, WP:SYNC, WP:SS, WP:ARBGG etc)... but not given an explanation of what any of this stuff has to do with the RfC. It seems pretty simple to me. Here is a quick recap of the RfC: it's so short I can just put the entire thing here for reference.
Entire four-comment RfC
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus to include the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents in the article with the proposed wording. An editor also noted that reliable sources should be used to support the wording which is consistent with our policies and guidelines.Isaidnoway(talk) 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?
Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.
Yes: per WP:DUE, “neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.” Whether or not to circumcise (especially a child) is a significant debate; and ethics of circumcision specifically is a significant consideration given by major medical organizations (see previous RfC on the matter). Prcc27 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes per prcc27 Snokalok (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary RfC per WP:RFCBEFORE. Was there any discussion on the proposed edit, and if so could you please link to it? RFCs aren't meant for merely "anticipated" disagreements. If you think this should be in the article, put it in; if someone reverts it, start a discussion on the talk page to try to reach consensus. Only if you reach an impasse is an RfC the right way to go. Tserton (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, so WP:RFCBEFORE has been met. [22] A user recently removed the sentence in question from the article; if I re-added it, that would be edit warring. Prcc27 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes assuming sources will be added as well. Senorangel (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's really straightforward -- the RfC asked if the thing should be included, four people responded, three said that the thing should be included, the closer said that there was consensus for the thing to be included. Now one (1) editor has decided that this is all a big misunderstanding and the consensus is actually to have the article say the opposite? It's true that a four-participant RfC is not some kind of invincible ironclad consensus, but for Pete's sake, what possible objection could there be to this closure? This just feels like an editor not liking the RfC close and deciding to throw random WP:UPPERCASE at the wall to see what sticks. jp×g🗯️ 02:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the page in question, it looks like Bon courage just keeps on editing the article to say his own version, and then going to the talk page to demand that other people provide sources proving it wrong or else he will just keep adding it -- surely we have all been around long enough to know this is not how WP:BURDEN works. This feels somewhat tendentious to me. jp×g🗯️ 02:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The issue is that that is a summary section, meant to be summarizing the thing it points to. It shouldn't say "the opposite" of what the RfC proposed, it should just mirror the thing it's summarizing (which is not "the opposite" as it happens). The "random uppercase" things are WP:PAGs, and kind of matter. You can't have an RfC decide that, no matter what article A says, its summary must be fixed without regard to that; the WP:PAGs tell us that such material should be in WP:SYNC. My final edit is not really "my own version" but just excerpts from the articles-being-summarized, which as far as I know I did not write. Bon courage (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Withdraw
It seems evident from subsequent editing that my intervention here is hindering rather than helping evolution of this article, so with apologies to all I shall put my tail between my legs and withdraw my objection to this RfC/close assuming that sources are used in such a way that WP:V is respected, and hoping the WP:SYNCing shall be improved as the article evolves. Bon courage (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I originally supported a re-open of the RfC, because I felt BonCourage’s edits went against the RfC and their concerns were not brought up there either. And because it was still under 30 days since it started. However, I think the sync is sufficient, as long as the viewpoints of proponents and opponents are articulated in a neutral manner. Re-opening an RfC may no longer be needed. For the record, I think the closer closed the RfC correctly, based on the discussion made at the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I also am concerned with Bon Courage’s actions. The wording I proposed at the RfC was actually a longstanding paragraph in the article. It had been there for several years (albeit the wording had been tweaked a little bit over the years). And it was reliably sourced as Isaidnoway noted. Bon Courage’s behavior does seem to be an example of a user taking ownership of an article, and unilaterally overturning an RfC. While I am not necessarily against the sync, I would like for an admin to determine how the RfC should be enforced. And maybe even give Bon Courage a formal warning for their disruptive behavior. Prcc27 (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The source was not part of the RfC, and a 2009 primary source is not great. You seemed to agree with this by then using a 'more recent' 2015 source.[23]. The only trouble then is that WP:V was not respected, and in fact the source you selected said pretty much the opposite of the text cited to it. Wikipedia simply cannot allow a WP:LOCALCON RfC to wave away the need to respect core policies like WP:V. This exemplifies the problem with having a RfC designed to 'enforce' text with the hope that sourcing can be found to support it, Bon courage (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
This is just more obfuscation. The RfC was not designed to 'enforce' text with the hope that sourcing can be found to support it. The RfC was about re-adding the sourced text which had been in the article for at least the last ten years, and had been recently removed. This reply in the RfC, makes that abundantly clear; the RfC was about re-adding the sourced text which had a long standing consensus. In fact, the sourced text was in the article, when you edited the article in December 2019. So for ten years, five years, the sourced text had been in the article and you didn't complain. It was only when the sourced text was re-added after the RfC ended, and there was consensus to re-add it, you swooped in two minutes later and unilaterally decided the consensus from the RfC didn't matter.Isaidnoway(talk) 04:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
This is just wrong. As anybody can see the RfC has no "sourced text" and said nothing about "re-adding" text but was presented with no context and no source. How are editors meant to know about an old discussion on a Talk page archive? And how am I expected to recall some text in an article I edited 5 years ago? And 10 years ago a 2009 source would be a lot less dated than it is today. As to "enforcement" the OP of this section is talking about "how the RfC should be enforced" just above. PMID:25674955 does not support the RfC text and WP:V cannot just be ignored. Bon courage (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This has been open for more than 48 hours and no editor has expressed any objection to lifting the tban, all comments indicate at least some level of support for lifting the ban. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 22:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
7 months back, admin Firefangledfeathers
replaced my existing Rajput topic ban with a broader ban (that includes editing in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan related topics) after a discussion here. The primary reason cited for sanctions was the violation of existing Rajput Tban.
For last seven months, I edited pages which are unrelated to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I made 325+ edits including creation of 6 articles. My editing in the duration was quite peaceful and I didn't receive further sanctions. The more I edited, more I learnt further about Wikipedia guidelines. Today, I find myself much more competent in editing Wikipedia than before. I feel that I can constructively contribute in the areas to which I don't have access presently. Yesterday, I appealed to the banning admin's talk page but he advised me to appeal at WP:AN. So, I wish to appeal my TBAN here. I assure our community of following :
I will keep adhering to my one-account restriction as I have been doing for last 7 months.
Before adding any content, I will give more care to WP:DUE.
I will try my level best to avoid edit warring. In accordance with the WP:BRD, I will discuss the matter first with fellow editors and take them into trust before making edits which can invite contentions.
Regards, Dympies (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:CTOP, this appeal will succeed if "a clear consensus of uninvolved editors" supports it.
Comment I'd be willing to grant another chance, but I'm hoping to hear more from editors who have worked with this user first. Also @Dympies: You've mentioned that you've made a number of good content contributions as well as created several articles. Are there any that you're especially proud of and would like us to take a look at? Being able to show off specific work that you've done is something that can give other editors confidence that you've put past mistakes behind you. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Support per WP:ROPE as I don't see any issues with their recent contributions. They appear to be editing constructively in other areas. Ratnahastin(talk) 05:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Support There's a lot of signs that the editor is building productively. No issues outside the designated areas. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Support. Dympies has been editing constructively. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
A quick procedural note: though I was the enforcing admin, the present TBAN was enacted via a consensus of admins at AE which included @Black Kite, The Wordsmith, and Firefly, with Abecedare expressing acceptance of the option. On the merits: I am neutral on this appeal, leaning toward accepting it based on a cursory review of the contributions since the TBAN was broadened. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:2A00:8A60:C010:1:0:0:1:1016 has variously described me as a "mathematical crank" (in Talk:Axiomatic system (logic)) and "intellectually blind" (in their own talk page) for what they vaguely describe as "adding a bunch of false and misleading claims" to an article, but which I describe rather as replacing the article's tons of unsourced, unverifiable statements with content supported by, and sourced to, WP:RS. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
/64 blocked by Isabelle Belato. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The user @Bgsu98 keeps reverting edits on The Amazing Race Canada 10 stating that the episode name is not true when it says that on the show's website. They also put a talk page message on my page about me making harrasments to them abut living people (yes idk what that means either). Please block them for at least 24 hours (and hopefully more) as because they have a vendetta against me and as soon as I edit any genre article, 2 minutes later they take it down. Thank you. Jd101991 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Okay, this user is posting unsourced spoiler information about the results of a reality television show which have not yet aired. Without a reliable source, that information is inappropriate. If someone could please instill in them the concept that fan sites and related spoiler sites are in fact not reliable sources for Wikipedia, that would be awesome. Bgsu98(Talk) 15:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jd101991, you should not add speculation about the results of an unaired episode, even in hidden text. Schazjmd(talk) 15:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
so then can you let me know why @Bgsu98 decided not to remove the province new brunswick in the first paragraph of the article? Of course i didn't write it, so they didn't remove it. If i put it there, they would've taken it down. Jd101991 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
This is, I just noticed, the wrong noticeboard. Bgsu98(Talk) 15:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
This isn't the right place to report edit warring. Please visit WP:ANEW for instructions/more info. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I've blocked the OP for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Bgsu98(Talk) 16:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Request to Remove Private Information (BLP Violation)
Several admins who are capable of taking this action have declined to do so and do not feel it is qualified for revision deletion. The inclusion in the article is a separate issue. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 22:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
I am requesting the removal or redaction of a comment containing Asmongold's full name, posted in violation of the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. The individual has taken steps to keep their full name private, and it has not been widely published by reliable sources.
Additionally, I would like to request that the page be protected to prevent further BLP violations, as this is a recurring issue with people posting private information.
This looks like a rather ordinary content dispute to me. It might help your argument there if you substantiated your good faith basis for the subject's intentions with more than your assertion of such. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. There are a significant number of RS giving his real name and I don't see any evidence that the subject has "taken steps" to keep their name private. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response! My good faith basis stems from the fact that Asmongold does not use his full name publicly in any of his businesses, social media profiles, streams, or other platforms. His pseudonym is what he is known by, and his full name is not widely published or utilized by him in any official capacity. SturmFernmelder (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
This does strike me as a content decision. The people suggesting the inclusion of the full name are doing so supported by sources which strike me as reliable sources for video game content. Wikipedia follows the lead of reliable sources. Including the full name isn't necessarily the right decision just because some include it, and here the BLP would help inform what that decision should be, but it also does not strike me as a violation of policies to discuss it. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Agree that if the name is not widely used, it doesn't need to be in the article, but it's not a BLP violation to merely discuss it, especially if it is out there anywhere publicly. SturmFernmelder do you represent this individual? 331dot (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
The reason I am asking is because it has been redacted in the past as well. And no, I do not represent this individual. SturmFernmelder (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not saying it can't be there, but this really seems like a tawdry and unnecessary hook and I think it would be much wiser NOT to have this on the main page:
Thoughts? Buffs (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not advocating for the article's removal. Buffs (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
No changes. Just keep it retained. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:ERRORS is that way. And as hooks referencing human sexuality go, this is as far from "tawdry" as possible—an academically-worded description of the article's central topic. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 04:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd support a more children-friendly main page, but it's probably a matter for the pump. Levivich (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
You linking to WP:NOTCENSORED while complaining about this hook being on the front page is very contradictory. We feature wars, murders, etc. on the front page frequently but this is where you draw the line? Also as Tamzin points out, this is far from "tawdry". ♠JCW555(talk)♠ 05:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
User:Wikid77(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – Although I have been asked to submit a wp:RfA for years, this is a self-nomination to reduce work for current admins.
Previously I had thought of admins as full-time managers, but now I see admins can take wikibreaks and share the workload. What finally
prompted me, to submit an RfA, was a user asking why their article was deleted, at the wp:Help_desk, and I noticed an admin could
read the deleted page and answer the user, whereas I could not. Also, the growing complexity of wp:templates and Lua script modules has left
a shortage of technical admins who are prepared to update a complex template used in a million pages.
However, I also intend to help with wp:AfD work, or to block users who are causing severe wp:Disruption,
in unprotected templates or in major articles or images. —Wikid77 (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mostly updates to protected wp:templates, Lua modules or other protected pages (see: CAT:EP), especially between 1:00-6:00 am, when many other admins are typically unlikely to respond. Several users have complained that this is "no longer a wiki" because so many pages have been protected, and they need help with timely updates to pages. Some full-protected templates have waited almost 3 years for updates, for issues noted and explained years ago. However, I am also willing to help with any emergency needs which involve numerous admin actions. -Wikid77 05:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel a timely response to a frustrated user could be the best contribution (why: to improve the spirit of cooperation among users, to build positive synergy): someone had noted how a songwriter of a Tim McGraw song had been misspelled, and I was able to find a wp:RS source and correct the songwriter's name, as requested. Many templates have complex problems, and I have often debugged template glitches for other users within a few hours. However, among pages I wrote, the original Template:Convert/spell (April 2011), to convert a measurement and show the numbers in words, was a success. Perhaps the biggest impact was rewriting the wp:CS1 cites to use Lua script as 13x faster, transforming Uncle_G's Lua prototype in February 2013 (70 edits) to closely match {cite_web/old} format. After I explained how the wp:Scribunto interface was slow, a MediaWiki developer rewrote it to allow double-speed Lua. Among 100 recent articles, I created "Recovery of Aristotle" to help correct myths about Aristotle and focus attention on ancient Greek texts as well as recovery from old Arabic translations. With calendars, I wrote "Old Style 1752" (omitting 3–13 September) and 14 pages of "Old Style common year starting on Monday" (etc.) to remind people how calendar years had begun on 25 March, for many centuries longer than new-fangled "1 January" as New Year's Day, and those calendars were extremely complex to write, as if the whole world had forgotten how calendars looked after the Middle Ages. Meanwhile, I have written numerous essays: "wp:Wikimedia Foundation error" explains the 60-second timeout of formatting large pages, while "wp:Advanced text formatting" shows detailed typesetting, and "wp:Wikifinagling" allows talking about skirting the rules, without any demeaning comments about the profession of a lawyer. I have begun creating wp:Helpbox pages, such as {{wikitext}} for a short reference card to remind users about markup format or template parameters (see: {{convert/help}}). Feel free to ask questions about the thousands of templates or articles or essays I have edited. -Wikid77 05:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, many conflicts have reminded me to drop the wp:STICK and "back slowly away" from disputes, and in fact, some editors have even complained at me for leaving a debate too soon. I have kept my indef topic-ban of "Murder of Meredith Kercher" (in wp:RESTRICT) as a reminder not to go against a group of editors or else face censure. Instead, treat each person as an individual with their own viewpoint and "go with the flow" of other editors. In a sense, Wikipedia has "traffic-jams" of conflicts, and many users are stuck on the same road, to find a mutual solution, not abandon the efforts and quit. One former vandal wrote to me about being reformed to now correct vandalized text, so give people time to change their viewpoints. Hopefully, as a admin I can remind people not to tower above others in demanding a lofty "fairness" in mid-traffic, but instead, we try to work with others to clear problems at a reasonable pace. There are numerous conflicts, and progress requires diplomacy. -Wikid77 05:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
This RFA is just the latest example of a well qualified and deserving editor not being allowed to have the tools. The community has preconceived notions that an Admin must be a saint prior to getting the tools so this will fail. I find it rather hypocritical that there are several administrators on a topic ban but editors are opposing this one because of one. If a topic ban does not cause admins to lose access to the toolset, it should not prevent editors from getting the tools. Also, if something happened 4 years ago its time to let it go. We all made mistakes in our early editing careers and that's usually more do to the maze and volume of unnecessary policies than about the editors intent to do harm. All you opposers need to grow up and WP:DROPTHESTICK. I would support this candidate but of course IP's aren't allowed to vote. So much for allowing IP's to have a voice in how this community operates. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
So register, already. Carrite (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Just a note: the IP has been blocked for editing logged out to evade WP:SCRUTINY. It appears the user's real account has been blocked as well. [25]~Adjwilley (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Moral support I know this is not going to pass, and maybe there's reason enough for that, but I've known Wikid77 for around 2 years, and I do find what's written below (the first seven opposes) to be grotesquely unbalanced in emphasising the negatives and ignoring the positives (other than to acknowledge a "Long-time user" -- faint praise indeed!). I see no mention of his massive contribution in templates, his patient explanations at WP:VPT for editors with less technical savvy than he (which is almost all of us, let's face it), and his frequent copy editing in mainspace (while declining the GOCE barnstars). What I do see is an admin endorsing a virulent personal attack as grounds for an oppose, another editor attaching significance to the fact that a request to lift a topic ban failed 23 months ago, and lots more ugliness. Shame on the bunch of you! If this fails and the proposed Template Editor right is approved, I hope at least that some admin will have the gumption to offer it to him before he has to ask for it. And Wikid77, I hope all this won't stop you wanting to contribute here. You'd have been better at it than a number of admins I can think of. Sorry for the rant, but it needed saying. --Stfg (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, he sure knows his way around templates and most of the stuff he does in that area goes way over my head. So kudos for that I guess, but what does it have to do with his qualifications as a possible administrator and why do opposers have to acknowledge this for the sake of balance? It's the oppose section and you are surprised that it emphasizes negative aspects? What did you expect?--Atlan (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
@Atlan: What I expect and what I think we need may differ a tad. What I think we need to see in oppose sections is reasons, not personal attacks. For example, one could call the answer to Q3 unconvincing without having to allege dishonesty. I have oppposed several RfAs, and have never found it difficult to do it respectfully. --Stfg (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I want to add that an RfA is an offer to serve the community and deserves to be treated as such. It doesn't stand for Request for Apotheosis. --Stfg (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, other editors have warned how the block-log entries seem to "scar" a Wikipedian for life, but I was still surprised that the wp:3RR (from August 2006) was raised as an issue after 7 years, without another 3RR and not considering how article "Hurricane Katrina" had understated the impacts to the U.S. state of Mississippi, so I updated "Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Mississippi" (dif71) to explain the storm surge was so deep (9.1 m or 30 feet), east of New Orleans, that it pushed casino barges into the upper floor of hotels, and the police/rescue command centers in all 3 coastal counties of the state were flooded by waves at 10-meter (33 ft) elevation. Anyway, that is what the 3RR was about, and I learned other ways of working. -Wikid77 12:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I fully support Wikid77's qualifications for adminship. I think some of my respected colleagues who oppose this candidate, though meaning well, are proffering a misnomer by suggesting Wikid77 is anything but trustworthy. I do trust Wikid77, finding him or her dependable; actually.—John Cline (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Probably moral support more than anything at this point given the red flags on the block log and how this discussion is starting. I've crossed swords with this editor over at least one recent contentious topic, probably more, that's in the rearview mirror. I consider this one of the most intelligent observers of Wikipedia at the macro level. A very interesting, sometimes controversial, frequent, and intelligent commentator at JimboTalk. If he wants advanced permissions for template work, good enough for me. Would be a valuable addition to the cast of characters at The Site That Can Not Be Named, incidentally. Carrite (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Support as a long time editor. You'll have have to try again in a few months. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose To put it plainly, I do not think Wikid77 should have access to the admin tools. I think Matma Rex said it best here. Legoktm (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, that comment by Matma was over-the-top, but thank you for noting the edit which admitted I was right about the MediaWiki software update Thursday, when the user reported a browser lockup. Other developers have been surprised about lockups in MSIE, this time for IE10, and there is an issue when a MediaWiki upgrade invalidates browser cache, because the high-security browsers can hang on the image icons, which are not from website "en.wiki.x.io" but rather from "bits.wikimedia.org" such as the MediaWiki logo file: poweredby_mediawiki_88x31.png". Other browsers, such as Firefox do not have such restrictions between different websites. -Wikid77 07:10/07:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per the reasoning here (Sven's). I don't believe the candidate has the judgment or temperament required for adminship.--Jasper Deng(talk) 05:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Candidate is also badgering opposes, which I do not really approve of.--Jasper Deng(talk) 07:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually I am clarifying some misunderstandings, because I think people deserve a response to their concerns. They have taken time to ask questions here. -Wikid77 07:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Considering that this candidate is under an active topic ban, [26], [27], I do not think that he has a sufficient level of community trust to be an admin. Yes, the ban was put in place in 2011, so the argument can be made that as it happened so long ago, it should not be held against him. However by that same token he has had two years to get his act together enough that he could convince the community that sanctions were no longer necessary, and the continued existence of the topic ban shows that that has not yet happened. Simply put, I don't find his answer to question 3 convincing; he claims to have kept it as a reminder, but I suspect he knows that any attempt to have it removed would be unsuccessful. Sven ManguardWha? 05:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think lifting the topic ban, today, would be unsuccessful, because it was based on claims of personal attacks and not any form of POV-pushing, and the topic is not as controversial after the acquittal freed them from prison. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think lifting the topic ban, today, would be unsuccessful, because you have continued to exhibit behavior similar to what got you in the sanctions in the first place. If you got hit with sanctions and said to yourself "Oh, shit, I'm being sent a message that my behavior is out of line and I'm going to make sure that the mistakes that led me here aren't repeated", and then followed up with 12 months of not exhibiting battleground behavior, no one would have batted an eye at removing your restrictions. But you got hit with the topic ban after an earlier, unsuccessful request for a topic ban, and since being sanctioned, almost got hit with a second topic ban. This is a pattern of disruptive behavior that you seem not to have learned from. If you don't internalize warnings and change your behavior in the face of blocks and sanctions, what hope should anyone have that you'll suddenly stop doing the things that led to the blocks and sanctions? Sven ManguardWha? 07:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the "hope" comes from no further blocks now, going on 3 years. -Wikid77 07:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Back in January 2010, the "block for sockpuppetry" was when people kept posting outrageous insults and slurs about my username (and other people), and we changed usernames in the same talk-page thread, as a technical violation rather than a pretense to be acting as 2 different people at the same time. Now I know about wp:SOCK#Legit to avoid mixing usernames. That was almost 4 years ago. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose leaning neutral per current topic ban and Minimac. You have too many problems. Though you have pros, as an autopatroller and has created many good articles, but you are under a topic ban currently. Your reviewer rights were revoked in the past due to your block for disruptive editing. Please see here for more information. Sorry, I changed my vote from neutral to oppose because your cons is more than your pros. Jianhui67Talk 06:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The first part of the answer to question 3 is rather dishonest inaccurate, as Wikid77 has attempted to get the ban lifted and this effort was unsuccesful. That discussion is here. Wikid77 has just changed tactics over the years to complaining about admins and topic bans without explicitly mentioning his own topic ban, but rather alluding to it. I think [28], [29] and [30] demonstrates quite well what he actually thinks about the consensus that lead to his topic ban and how he has not dropped the stick at all. Apparently, the people who served him an indef topic ban are not "normal people" and "ruthlessly fascist". I'd rather not hand the tools to someone with such a bone to pick. The second part of answer 3 is about dispute resolution I guess, but it makes so little sense that I'm not sure. I have to wonder who all those people are that have asked you to run for RFA and where they are now, because this RFA was ill-advised IMHO. --Atlan (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The topic ban problems are enough to oppose over, but I had a look at Wikid77's contributions anyway. With only five AfD !votes this year, he does not have enough experience to close AfD discussions. I do not trust him to make fair editor blocks either. Axl¤[Talk] 10:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - the topic ban shows you - currently - do not have the correct behavior for an admin. GiantSnowman 10:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, topic ban, condescending tone during discussions, assumption that all who disagree are abnormal; long-term user with long-term history of problems. Not a good candidate for the mop -- it would simply increase Wikid77's battle arena. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I'm sorry but your temperament and attitude are uncompatible with the role of sysop. — ΛΧΣ21 15:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose my experience of his contributions, in particular to TfD discussions, as well as looking at his recent contributions, suggest he is too headstrong and sure of himself, unwilling to accept that the views of others are as valid as his own and accept consensus when it's against him. Giving him the tools would be a big mistake.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
So by that definition he already has the "attitude" to be an administrator. So, what your really saying here is that editors need to be humble until they get the tools but then they can become headstrong. Because I can't tell you how many admins meet the exact same language you use for your oppose (but its a high percentage).71.126.152.253 (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is one of the building blocks of WP, and being able to understand, interpret and act on consensus is a key admin skill, whether it's the local consensus of e.g. an AfD discussion or the community consensus that lies behind many policies of WP (or often both). As for 'how many admins' you seem very well informed (though entirely wrong) on our admin corps and extremely opinionated on them for an editor who has only a handful of edits and no interactions with admins.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
True on the first statement, consensus is a core value here however I do not believe Wikid (or most other established editors for that matter ) would violate that. If they did, and that's the great thing about being a wiki, it can be simply reverted. I also agree that some admin functions require a consensus, many however do not. For example, does it require a consensus to edit a protected template (new right RFC not withstanding) or block a vandal? I would argue not. As for AFD and others were it is an issue, I have seldom seen an admin (even the poor or abusive ones) fail to follow consensus even if they do not agree with it. So that argument is really just AGF. I also don't agree that my assessment of the admin corps is wrong. There are some good ones but there are an awful lot of bad ones and there is no mechanism for getting rid of them. Its a billet for life because in order to change it, the admins need to agree and that will never happen. As for my knowledge of things here. I watch, I read and I listen, but I rarely edit and likely won't until the culture actually follows the policies that are in place. The reason I am opinionated is because I have a brain and think for myself and look at the details. I don't just blindly oppose or support because I see a bunch of others do it. Also for the sake of full disclosure I have edited before but as with many networks my IP changes when I disconnect. Its not socking its just a byproduct of having good network security mechanisms in place. If someone wants to block this IP then feel free. All I have to do is disconnect and reconnect and get another one. No muss, no fuss. It really doesn't affect me and although Wikipedia currently blocks about 2-3% of the worlds IP's, I doubt they would be willing to block the entire Verizon Fios network and the checkuser tools isn't worth a shit anyway. Its wrong more than its right but its used to block helpless and innocent IP's all the time. If I wanted to dodge it, I could, but I don't care enough about avoiding scrutiny to put forth the extra effort. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose per JohnBlackburne, Drmies and SuperMarioMan. I'd forgotten just how badly this user behaved on the Knox article, and I see no sign they have learned anything from the experience.--John (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC) (amended --John (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC))
Oppose, in part due to the answer to question 3, which comes across as very disingenuous. The 2011 topic ban was not the result of being "ganged up on" or "silenced", as Wikid77 seems to be implying ("a reminder not to go against a group of editors or else face censure"), but the outcome of his uncompromising, obfuscatory and sometimes very divisive approach to talk page editing. Further to this, the user indirectly encouraged disruptive behaviour from several SPAs through carefully-worded but provocative user talk page comments. Yes, the diffs do date from two years ago, but since then I have seen little to no understanding on Wikid77's part of how this past behaviour was seen to be unacceptable. SuperMarioMan 19:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow, the Amanda Knox debate was almost 4 years ago, and you are still upset how some new users wished to make comments on the talk-page, even if they did not want to edit the articles. Well, several of those users were finally unblocked, and I do not think it hurt Wikipedia to allow a few more new users to edit pages, among over 5,000 new confirmed editors each month. -Wikid77 20:16/20:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I should have been clearer: in that diff, are there any statements that, in your opinion, could have been worded just a little bit more responsibly? I'm thinking primarily of the speculation on another user's personal life, as well as the attempt to downplay and excuse sockpuppetry. That is certainly not the kind of behaviour that I expect to see from any administrator on this project. Some time later, you were still casting these kinds of negative aspersions (and at the same time soapboxing in a manner that brought you extremely close to violating your cross-namespace topic ban). The rest of your above reply completely misses the point – it's a good example of the obfuscation that I previously mentioned. SuperMarioMan 22:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per topic ban!, Not a wise choice - RfA whilst being topic banned!. Davey2010T 22:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me clarify about the topic-ban: I had been accused in 2010 of being a "ring leader" of some nefarious plot to advocate for the innocence of U.S. university student Amanda Knox, who was in fact found not guilty in October 2011, for the Murder of Meredith Kercher, her British roommate who also went to college classes and concerts with her and helped her get a job in Italy, although a higher court in Italy has since demanded yet another retrial to examine further evidence in the case, but I kept the topic-ban, during the past 2.3 years, as clear evidence that I was not here in Wikipedia to run a pro-Knox campaign. Many other users were also blocked or banned during the same time period, and I suppose I should have my topic-ban lifted now, so I can better discuss how new users were blocked when they explained the lack of evidence against Knox, such as a traffic camera running "5 minutes" fast to give a false impression of the sequence of events when the postal police arrived at the scene. Other editors (not topic-banned) have quit Wikipedia, in frustration, but all the blocking of many users has soured their experience, and they lost interest in writing other articles. -Wikid77 07:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Well I commend you for sticking it out but I feel If you waited till It was up- You would've had a better chance, -
Good luck on whatever next step you take. - Davey2010T 15:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. This editor is too much a dramah seeker, with over 1000 edits to User talk:Jimbo Wales (they got Tarc beat by almost twice as many, for instance), which I think they think of as a kind of in-wiki Wikipediocracy to denounce other editors. I have no faith in their temperamental suitability as an admin. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I could pretend to be "tempermental" but the protected templates do not seem to care when edited! Anyway, many interesting subjects have been discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales, and he has posted much advice there to help improve Wikipedia; however, there have also been many cases of bickering, but I tend to avoid those, and in fact deliberately start new threads to re-focus on practical subjects (which readers have noted as a welcome change). Please understand that Jimbo gives advice as a long-term user and admin, and encourages "philosophical" debates which might be considered off-topic elsewhere. So, yes, I have posted over 1,070 messages to JimboTalk, and many of the discussions have been fascinating, plus Jimbo has said he plans to remain involved with Wikipedia for years, so feel free to post there with questions or comments. -Wikid77 07:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, well-meaning, but does not have the temperament or social skills to be an admin. See his contribution to this conversation on Jimbo's talk page. Graham87 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. What we like to see in admins is that they take advice, and that they reflect on where they have gone wrong, and learn from it. Wikid77 appears to feel he is right and that the opinions of others are to be challenged rather than listened to. I am particularly concerned that he continues to justify his attempts to gather one-sided support for the Amanda Knox article. He seems to feel that the end justifies the means, and that following due process is not for him - indeed he feels that "The event revealed a "loophole" in wp:CANVAS". Looking at the incident - he was was advised by two users that he was violating WP:CANVAS. Four hours later he continues - this time adding the comment "I am not suggesting that you need to edit the article. You know, restrictions in notifying other users". Now, I understand that at the time he was heated, and when heated people do say and do inappropriate things. So while that incident is a concern, it was a while ago, and he has been topic banned for it. But I do expect users - particularly prospective admins - to learn from their experiences. That he continues to feel he was in the right, and indeed that CANVAS should be adjusted to allow users who are heated and angry and unable to make sound judgements, to ignore CANVAS because they feel justified in doing so, gives me serious cause for concern. Opening this RfA with a topic ban in place was questionable judgement. That he keeps it open and argues with people is a firm demonstration of poor judgement. The longer Wikid77 keeps it open, and the more he argues, the worse it will look for a future RfA. SilkTork✔Tea time 09:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, that is quite a lot of false assumptions to build a straw man argument. Briefly, I was not "angry" at the time, because my intention was to let other users read the article "Amanda Knox" and expand with wp:NPOV text, and it was not inappropriate "one-sided support" because other editors were neutral or against a separate article. When I notified another user (4 hours later), I was contacting a known opposing editor unaware (to balance support-vs-oppose for proper wp:CANVAS), with disclaimer "I am not suggesting that you need to edit the article." Now, insisting that I dismiss the topic-ban, against advice from another admin, I will again note that the topic-ban has kept me away from investigations of many suspected wp:SPA accounts (no talk-page discussions with them) where I might otherwise receive further sanctions in a broad-sweeping attempt to control numerous new editors trying to update the related pages, but it has been 2.3 years since then. Also, wp:CANVAS was in fact adjusted, along the way, to foster better collaboration. I can appreciate how you want me to do exactly what you think, but I am here to also listen to concerns noted by other users, and I feel they should be allowed time to make an informed judgment. I am NOT here planning "my next RfA" (no), but rather to address people's concerns. -Wikid77 11:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - the topic ban, overall answer to #3, and slight badgering of other oppose voters leaves me to believe the tools should wait at least a while. Also suggest closing immediately per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 19:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Opposeper Matma Rex. On top of everything else mentioned above, Wikid77 has something of a history of blatantly misinforming other editors on VPT and other technical pages with long and confusing explanations of things that he quite simply does not appear to understand. That he thinks he does and responds to corrections (because when someone asks for help, they should actually get that help, not a bogus explanation that may not even be entirely related), as well requests to change his behaviour in general, not by acquiescing but by explaining himself further with similarly confusing and long-winded explanations and generally disagreeing, is not something I would want to see in any productive user, let alone an admin. -— Isarra༆ 19:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Please observe wp:NPA for no personal attacks. Claims of "blatantly misinforming other editors" requires a lot of evidence to prove such an outrageous conclusion. Also, understand that I have 2 degrees in computer science, so perhaps reconsider who "does not appear to understand" the technical issues, which can be quite complex at times. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - As many user's on the top had stated about the topic ban, also user has been blocked many times a long time ago, just don't see that this user will be an good admin. User should try again in few months after getting positive feedback from other users. ///EuroCarGT 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
As I explained, above, there were many editors (see: User_talk:Charlie_wilkes) who were blocked or banned in conjunction with article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" as I was also blocked or topic-banned repeatedly, and it became so troublesome that User:Jimbo Wales finally came to moderate the discussions and recommend unblocking users who had been blocked without proper justification. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral. You have too many problems. Though you have pros, as an autopatroller and has created many good articles, but you are under a topic ban currently. Perhaps come back and request for adminship 12 months later when you have no problems. I wanted to support you at first, but considering for a while, I decided to place my vote at neutral. Jianhui67Talk 06:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral leaning toward supporting. I need time to research the issues concerning topic bans and other sanctions that have been raised in the oppose, but so far what I see is an editor with a demonstrated track record of helping out fellow editors, a well thought out rationale for offering to help with administrative tasks, good technical skills (which a lot of us agree we need more of in the admin corps), and good writing skills, so I want to recognise those pluses and encourage the candidate to hang in there while I and others do the necessary research. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
About those block-log entries: They were mainly about college student "Amanda Knox" as an article I re-created on 9 June 2010 (dif2952) when many sources and editors said she should be acquitted of the Murder of Meredith Kercher (which she was on 3 October 2011), but the article was immediately re-sent to AfD while I was notifying people how I had re-created the article, and I was accused of improper wp:CANVASing for notifying more people who requested the article (well, they asked), rather than those who opposed the article but had already been notified by other editors. The event revealed a "loophole" in wp:CANVAS when supporters of an article do not frequent a discussion where opponents have been notified, putting a person at risk for double-notifying opponents when notifying everyone about the re-creation of an article (another reason to use wp:IAR to overcome loopholes). Meanwhile, the re-created article was subject to massive edit-wars, such as removing -11,817 bytes (~1,700 words) without prior consensus by other users, including by User:Hipocrite (dif803), who left Wikipedia in July 2012. Such gutting of related articles, without consensus, led to numerous complaints. After topic ban, I was advised to stay away because the whole subject was a hornets nest for many editors, and I left the indef topic ban in place. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:43/13:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral for now, per Yngvadottir. I'll be back. -- Trevj (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral no need to pile-on, but I'd recommend that you withdraw at this point. The RfA will clearly not succeed and leaving it open could bring unwanted drama. Just my two cents. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 23:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment (but RfAs have succeeded with almost 40 Opposes), and I want to hear the concerns of other users as well, plus people have raised issues which needed to be clarified. -Wikid77 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I was actually just about to say the exact same thing as AusomaticStrikeout. Wikid77, you have made many great contributions to this site, but history has shown that you too readily engage in situations without thinking things through beforehand. Perhaps in a year or two with a proven track record of aversion to drama, I will consider supporting you for adminship. For now, just keep up the good work and hopefully you'll outgrow the issues you've had in the past. You're a valuable editor — everyone sees that. :-) Kurtis(talk) 00:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
That's why I came here after 2 years of no further blocks, but an admin cautioned me to keep the topic-ban lest I be targeted for further sanctions, along with dozens of users blocked or banned for discussing the Amanda Knox trials (6 court cases). -Wikid77 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Wait until all of the problems mentioned above disappear, and then maybe I'll support you. buffbills7701 02:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I have explained most of the issues already, such as the topic-ban to protect me from other admins who might want to block more editors who they imagine are cohorts of wp:SPA accounts (see: User talk:Charlie_wilkes and find "are all largely SPAs"). I guess many people do not realize how a topic-ban can be a shield from getting lumped into a group of suspected users; and in fact, it took me a while to realize the danger of talking with users who are under investigation for advocacy, because I did not think of them as impending targets for blocking, but rather as new editors to update other articles such as page "Linda Carty" (which some of them attempted until followed to other pages). It is important to also think "like an admin" in reviewing these issues. -Wikid77 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Neutral - I was asked 14 days ago if I would review this possible candidacy. Due to heavy commitments in RL I didn't get round to it but my advice would have been to wait a while longer until the issues mentioned in the oppose section had been addressed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is clear consensus to create a new template editor user right. KrakatoaKatie 00:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Filed as bugzilla:55432. Legoktm (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposed: Create a new user right that would give trusted template coders the ability to edit templates, modules, and edit notices that have been fully protected for precautionary reasons. This RFC is scheduled to close on 11 October 2013. equazcion(talk) 10:07, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
The most pervasive templates on Wikipedia are generally fully protected: They are considered high-risk, because they make it possible for malicious or unknowing people to adversely affect many thousands of pages at once by editing a single page. High-use templates are therefore systematically full-protected as a precautionary measure. When any page is fully protected, administrators are the only editors who have the ability to edit them.
While full protection is an ideal temporary solution for articles that have demonstrated a state of overwhelming controversy, it is less ideal as a permanent precautionary measure for templates. Many editors who have shown an aptitude for coding templates, and have earned the trust of the community in doing their work, may not necessarily be administrators, nor even be interested in becoming administrators.
Non-administrators do have the ability to request edits at fully-protected templates for administrators to enact on their behalf, but there is a significant shortage of administrators who have the time and necessary skills to do this reliably. Coders also tend to find this extra step more than a mere annoyance: Technical work is largely rewarding to technically-minded people in that they value the hands-on experience. Many end up choosing to avoid having to verbalize uncontroversial edit requests made to convince someone else to enact an edit on their behalf, by simply avoiding work on fully-protected templates altogether.
As there is currently no measure that would allow access only for trusted editors with template know-how, some editors have resorted to applying for adminship, as is the case for Trappist the monk's RfA. Note the many comments from all sides saying that the optimal solution would be to grant a user right specifically to allow this editor access to high-use templates.
Create a new user right that will allow editors who have earned the trust of the community as knowledgeable and responsible template coders to modify templates, modules, and edit notices that have been fully protected for precautionary reasons.
This permission will be limited, via technical means, only to pages in the Template and Module namespaces, as well as edit notices.
The protection levels of pages, only within the Template and Module namespaces, that are currently fully-protected for precautionary reasons, will be switched to a newly-created protection level. Pages with this new protection level will be editable by the new Template editor user rights group, as well as by sysops and above. This way, the new rights group will have its namespace restrictions enforced on a technical level; it will be impossible for them to edit full-protected pages in the article or project ("Wikipedia:") namespaces, for example. Actual full "sysop" protection will then be available as an extraordinary measure in the Template and Module namespaces, to temporarily disallow editing by anyone but administrators, should the need arise.
It should be understood that the standards for what constitutes a high-risk template should remain unchanged and not be expanded, despite this newly created protection level and rights group. Vigilance should be maintained in making sure this development does not grant a de facto license to protect more of Wikipedia's less risky templates on the grounds that many editors will still have access to edit them now that this rights group exists. The Template editor user right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editor population.
Editors will be permitted to exercise this permission to perform maintenance, answer reasonable edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. They will also be permitted to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.
The new template editor user right will be granted by administrators. Administrators will use their own discretionary assessment of an editor's template contribution value, as well as the following general guidelines:
1. The editor should be a registered Wikipedia user for at least 1 year.
2. The editor should have made at least 1,000 overall edits.
3. The editor should have made at least 150 edits to the Template namespace.
4. The editor should have no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months prior to applying.
Additionally, an editor should have demonstrated a need for the right, as well as a familiarity with the care and responsibility required when dealing with high-risk template modification:
5. The editor should have worked on the sandbox version of at least three fully protected templates.
6. The editor should have requested and successfully enacted at least five significant edits at fully protected templates.
Items in this section are merely guidelines. An administrator may choose to substitute other proofs of an editor's competence in handling high-risk template responsibilities.
The user right can be revoked at any time by an administrator without any process or prior notice in any of the following circumstances:
The editor demonstrated a pattern of performing obviously controversial edits to protected templates without first determining consensus.
The editor demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when editing protected templates, resulting in serious errors appearing on pages.
The editor used the permission to gain the upper hand in disputes.
The editor used the permission to perform blatant vandalism.
The editor has been inactive for 12 months.
Additionally, the right may be removed immediately at the request of the editor.
Betty Logan (talk). Seems a reasonable suggestion to me. No reason why a trusted member of the community should have to go running to an admin every time. Betty Logan (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
TheDJ Yes please, can we enact this already ? I see no reason why a talented coder needs to be an admin on this site. Trust is enough. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Fram. The reasons for removing it perhaps need to be expanded a bit, and the requirements for granting it perhaps loosened a bit, but this is basically a sound approach. Fram (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The ever-increasing minimal standards required for a user to have a remote chance of succeeding at WP:RFA coupled with the complete lack of a requirement to possess knowledge of the wiki parser functions or Lua coding makes this user right a long overdue tool to bestow upon technically proficient editors who have shown competence and proper understanding of our rules/policies/guidelines, but whom either doesn't desire the responsibilities associated with full adminship, doesn't edit frequently enough to require the full toolset, or doesn't have the squeaky-clean demeanor expected of potential administrators. If there is a fear that certain templates are too delicate or high-visibility for even our trusted, experienced, and skilled editors, a new level of protection could be created. It could also be applied when edit wars erupt. - Floydianτ¢ 11:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Floydian: Just to note, under this proposal, access will be granted to this group via a new protection level below full, so the usual full protection will still be available if any templates should ever be deemed too sensitive for this new user group. equazcion(talk) 11:20, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I frequently patrol Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, and I see plenty of editors who I would trust to edit high-risk templates, but who either don't want to take an RfA or who don't have the broad range of experience necessary to pass one. At the moment, there are only two or maybe three admins actively patrolling edit requests, and if we all disappear for a time (or, more likely, get caught up with writing templates and modules of our own), it can be days or even weeks before requests get answered. The proposed user right would make this situation much more efficient. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 11:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Pointillist. If this is technically viable, I can't see any downside to this proposal. It is obviously a much better approach than granting full admin powers without performing a conventional RfA: it's simpler, less demanding for the candidate and less risky for the community. - Pointillist (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just read Acalamari's oppose. I understand that position but see this as a one-off rather than being "a stepping stone to having multiple and confusing protection userrights for non-admins". However, if this proposal isn't a one-off, then I agree that would be a downside to some extent. - Pointillist (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me - subject to ironing out the details. I'd suggest getting the technical people to say if this is indeed viable before that, though. Peridon (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably every experienced editor has basic knowledge of wiki markup—but Lua and Parser Functions are a different story (I can barely read Lua, let alone code it!) Experienced coders don't need to be admins. ~HueSatLum 11:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
From my experience as an admin on another wiki ([31]) I know full well that template changes can cause untold performance problems, without any obvious and immediate side effect to the user making changes, even when those changes have been completely in good faith and seemingly compliant with policy. Moreover, the technical skills required only have a small overlap with the diplomacy and policy understanding skills that are generally tested at RfA. One word of caution - the bulk of my template edits are related to WP:DYK, which generally have nothing to do with the problem this RFC is supposed to solve, and I suspect I'm not the only one in that position. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why not, in fact, I'd love to see it expanded to allowing them to work with Edit-protected requests (there's always a backlog) that are uncontroversial (typos, etc). ~Charmlet-talk- 13:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Definately a step in the right direction. I am disappointed though that we have to create a whole new user right primarily because there is a major lack of good faith in the community to not trust our users and fierce protectionism over the Admin tools...which are no big deal. Kumioko (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any harm that can come from this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Changed to Oppose, see below. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I came here on the premise of opposing due to this proposal makeing it even harder for people to take the admin hurdle. We do want more admins not less. But: The proposed extra protection layer coupled with the argument of speedy corrections swayed me to support. Agathoclea (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The skill set for admins and technical tasks are very different. Some folks I would trust to do one and not the other. The alternative to this are dropping protection to some high use templates to semi-protect or keeping status quo with sandbox main template model. Semi-protection is just too low for some templates as editors with no template experience could make uninformed edits to crucial templates. The sandbox model is good and I would expect any editor worthy of this status to test all major changes in a sandbox first. Minor edits with change some of wording don't need the review process. Further the TemplateData system does introduce a new use for this status - to update the TemplateData documentation for a template requires a null edit and many of those adding template data don't have the admin bit so can't complete their job. There has been a good number template just waiting for a null edit.--User:Salix alba (talk): 16:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Qualified support I support the concept but the qualifications, etc. and won't block consensus to implement this as-is, but the criteria and other items in the proposal aren't exactly what I would prefer. For example, I would add a big bold statement reminding editors that edit over protection that they will be held to a higher standard, just as administrators are held to a higher standard when they use the mop. We can discuss tweaking the criteria after it is implemented. Also, see my discussion item below about an alternative way of doing the technical aspects of this proposal to allow other Wikipedias to have more options in delegating user-rights. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I support the creation of the user right as outlined. We have a number of editors with the technical skills to know how to edit a template (more so than many admins), who can be trusted to make the edit and not delete the main page. I would have preferred a little more discussion of the granting process, which looks a little loose, but we can tighten that up as we go along. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is a namespace that doesn't have very much attention from current administrators (not that I am blaming them or anything) and it is very, very disappointing and frustrating to have to see skilled editors in these areas go through the RfA process when all that is required is basic conflict resolution skills in addition to the technical knowledge and foresight required to know how to improve templates. I like the idea of encouraging editors who enjoy their work in this space to be able to do their work more effectively without taxing an already burdened and busy admin pool. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 18:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support A good compromise between needlessly clogging the edit-request list and single-purpose RfAs, with which the community (including myself) seems uncomfortable. Miniapolis 19:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support essentially per User:Floydian. In the Criteria for Revocation, I would prefer "demonstrated a pattern of performing" to become "has performed" and "demonstrated a pattern of failing" to become "has failed". But notwithstanding such details, I think this will benefit the project. --Stfg (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Stfg If I remember the drafting, the reason why "a pattern" was chosen over the explit "has" was to prevent one (potentially minor) mistake be grounds for a pitchfork mob (or a dedicated opposition) call to arms for removal of the user right. Hasteur (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I see, thanks. I don't think pitchfork mobs are going to be that common or effective at getting this rather esoteric right removed; it isn't like the block/unblock buttons. Also, on the other side there's scope for wikilawyering about how far one can go before it constitutes a pattern ;) Still, one way or the other, this won't affect my support. --Stfg (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm find with giving trusted users access to the admin toolset even if all they want to use it for is template editing. However, such RFAs create needless controversy, and so creating a seperate system for it makes a lot of sense. I can say personally, I don't feel comfortable fulfilling an edit protected request unless I feel I fully understand what the changes will do, and for more complex templates, that can be very hard. Monty845 21:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason to hand out the full kit (with all the issues surrounding it) to someone who only wants to work in a specific area such as this. That, coupled with the ease of revocation should the tool's use prove problematic (something that currently isn't possible with the full set), makes this a good solution. Intothatdarkness 21:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't even care about the specific granting/removing criteria or details; they can be worked out/modified later, and I'm certainly not going to risk killing this idea by suggesting tweaks to the criteria now. I only supported the RFA in question because this doesn't currently exist, so my support there shouldn't be taken as evidence that we don't need this option. This is better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Clearly needed given recent issues at RfA and elsewhere. Nicely written proposal btw. Hobit (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per Floydian, there are many editors capable of editing templates that for various reasons will not become administrators. This can only be a net benefit to the project. AIRcorn(talk) 22:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I support this proposal with very high enthusiasm. It's very clear that there are users who could do a lot of good here, but who should not have the other administrative tools. I've read the opposes so far, and on balance I'm not seeing any downside. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Agree with most of the above supports. This approach deals with the real problems of allowing skilled coders from working on templates as well as encourages good practices by highlighting the importance of sandboxes and testing. The proposal allows for reasonable safeguards, including the ability to treat protection over content disagreements separately then protection over high visibility or high usage. It addresses many of the real problems of the current situation such as the ones most familiar with some of the protected templates. Even with testing there is always the possibility that bugs related to say unusual usages of the template might still get missed. With the current situation the admin that approves the edit request might not be familiar enough with the template to quickly fix the issue that it introduces which means that broken versions make exist longer. This is true even if the admin that applied the requested edit was skilled in template or lua coding, as someone unfamiliar with the details and usage of a particular template might not understand the reasoning behind all the pieces of the implementation. By allowing trusted editors involved in the design and creation of the particular templates to make the changes themselves it means that they can also fix such bugs much quicker. Finally as others mentioned while protecting heavily used templates is an unfortunate necessity these days it can alienate editors that worked or created those templates. One of the reasons that I personally slowed my own editing was getting discouraged after some templates that I heavily worked on ( and was about to do a redesign to ) got fully protected after they got hit with some minor vandalism. PaleAqua (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - this simply makes WP:COMMONSENSE. Unfortunatly there are some things - such as heavily transcluded templates - that must be protected, even fully, both for being easy vandalism targets and because of the technical load on the already-overstressed job queue, and there are plenty of editors who are more than able, as well as willing, to tweak those templates as and when needed but who have no interest, or no time, for adminship. This lets them improve their ability to help the encyclopedia, without the baggage that comes with the mop. - The BushrangerOne ping only 02:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - The increasing complexity and specialization of high-risk templates makes it basically sensible that this should exist. Trying to filter highly-technical edits through willing but non-technical admins is a recipe for problems. Choess (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Seems like some long-overdue common sense. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Useful for good coders who don't want to or cannot become admins. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per many others - Bushranger, KoH, etc. I won't nitpick the proposed criteria; I mostly agree with them, but that can be dealt with later. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Sure, does no harm. Adminship criteria is too tough these days. jni (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. This would reduce bureaucracy for those such as Trappist who want to undertake this activity. It would also reduce unnecessary time wastage at RfA. Axl¤[Talk] 11:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Fully protected templates due to visibility is just that -- means to avoid issues propagating over thousands of pages. This is not mistrust in editors, this is a precaution against that one vandal that can cause damage and ridiculous loads that 1000 vandals couldn't in individual articles. Otherwise the templates are no different from any other area of WP, except that inexperience can cause issues. So I think this proposal is a good middle ground. Consensus and testing are still paramount when making changes. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per most of the above – experienced coders should be able to do their stuff without needing a mop. - Evad37 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an elegant solution to a longstanding problem. This will allow us to maintain high standards for the most sensitive permissions without inconveniencing experienced editors who don't have the variety of credentials and/or the desire to pass RFA. Small note that I think "template editor" probably isn't the best name, as it could give people the mistaken impression that others can't edit templates—maybe "protected template editor"? — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 15:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
A sensible suggestion. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - No reason not too. The reason for protecting templates was to protect against vandalism, not to stop good editors from editing templates. This proposal would solve that problem. Garion96(talk) 20:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support- Based on Trappist the Monk's RfA. Single purpose RfA's shouldn't be here. buffbills7701 22:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - This new user right would help cut down on the backlog of fully protected template edit requests. This would allow trusted and experienced users to continue work without having to go through the RfA process when they would just be requesting the mop to edit templates. All in all I feel it is a good thing for the community. — -dainomite 23:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Looks like a well thought-out proposal that solves a long-standing problem. This would solve some of the single purpose RfAs. It could also be a step toward proving the trust required for an admin. - tucoxn\talk 23:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Allowing edit-access per namespace seems workable in the MediaWiki software, and might need to restrict editing of the protected Lua script modules, as separate from template namespace pages, due to extreme complexity of Lua script as generally very difficult for many users to understand without extensive discussions with other editors, who might already have module-edit access. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support although it will only releave a small amount of admin work, it is likely to disproportionately fall on those admins that are competent with template editing. So if we have more competent template and clueful editors to help out that would be good. Adding the modules part sounds good. Edit notices not so good, but we should be able to trust these people not to embarrass themselves with edit notices either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - I see a great potential of this right in the future. -- tnumbermaniacc 12:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I acknowledge the point that Acalamari raises, I just think that the benefits of this outweigh any downsides. NW(Talk) 15:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, per Mr. Stradivarius. If proliferation of user rights is a problem, I would gladly solve that by trading this right for File mover. File movers sleep a lot here ; Wbm1058 (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. But, comment: you can't describe a user "right" as a "privilege"! That part needs to be rewritten. Or maybe the issue is that "user right" is the wrong name for this kind of thing in the first place. — Scott•talk 00:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Point taken. I've changed it to "permission", which I hope will suffice. equazcion(talk) 01:10, 14 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Support Editing a protected template and editing a protected article need different skill sets and different kinds of trust. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support --Rschen7754 09:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support – I'm an expert template coder (day job). On WP I'm not allowed near them and I have to ask a teenager to do it for me. This has long been a crazy way of working. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: I don't think any of the admins who patrol CAT:EP are teenagers. I'm quite a bit older than that, at any rate... — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 15:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support As an admin (though not a teenager) I realize that there are a lot of non-admins who know a hell of a lot more about templates than I do, and we should definitely give them a chance to help out more. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Yes, please, and where do I sign up? –Fredddie™ 23:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - You shouldn't need to pass an RfA to be able to code templates. Simple. TCN7JM 00:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Indeed. This might help some users around with their work. — ΛΧΣ21 02:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Pointless support - This will just be shot down (largely by admins) like so many other attempts to create the "protected page editor" usergroup. Perhaps admins should be restricted from voting in unbundling discussions.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Huh? This is at 61-8 support, and even higher among admins only, at 23-2 by my count. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support A good idea, protecting templates will only help to protect against vandalism, not stopping proven editors from modifying templates.Hughesdarren (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support – sounds sensible to me. Graham87 04:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Sounds okay with me. Jianhui67Talk 07:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support the benefit of increasing access outweighs the instruction creep for me. VQuakr (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support as making the tasks here easier. (aka Ched) — ChedZILLA 07:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Protecting templates is fundamentally different from protecting articles in several respects, so it makes sense to grant access separately. GregorB (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per my road template editing colleague Fredddie. As someone who will apply for this immediately, it's about time! -happy5214 09:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes! I have needed this many times, and have mentioned the idea several times myself. Ideal solution. Debresser (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, definitely needed. I certainly hope there aren't any opposers below that are also opposing the RFA of the editor who is only running because this currently isn't in place (and if there is, well, You can't have your cake and eat it too). StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 13:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, assuming technical implementation is feasible. Ironholds (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, It is going to encourage many users to stay with Wikipedia. I don't see why not. SHIVAM SETU(U-T-C-E) 17:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Seems quite reasonable (and needed) to me. Trusted editors should be trusted. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Templates and articles are protected for two entirely different reasons, so I am prepared to support this, even though I would not support a similar unbundling related to article protection. RyanVesey 21:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, mostly based on Trappist's RfA.Tazerdadog (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. How come this doesn't already exist? Azylber (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Emphatically support the creation of the Template bit. I see a number of arguments opposing the "general guidelines", but I feel that there is no point of quibbling over those until after the motion is approved (if it is at all). In other words, what's the point of discussing the finer details of something that may or may not succeed. – AJLtalk 23:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope this doesn't turn into a slippery slope of the unbundling of the admin toolset, but I have seen many instances where this sort of user right would be helpful. Killiondude (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Qualified support, though I would much rather see granting and revocation done only by the 'crats than by any admin. Something like the way the "translationadmin" right is granted on Meta would strike me as far superior; lightweight, but allows community comments on candidates. Courcelles 00:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, RFA is broken, and people shouldn't need to do everything just to contribute into one specific area. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Suppprt Seems fairly sensible and safe. wctaiwan (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, Seems good. Will be a good and useful feature for trusted editors. ///EuroCarGT 01:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support seems efficient and useful. Don't quite agree with the exact criteria, but as others have said above, these can be worked out later. --LukeSurltc 08:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, let trusted editors perform directly, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support full protection of templates, while necessary to prevent abuse, also has the effect of making it difficult to work with many templates if you're not an administrator. Adminship may not be an option for these people, as RfA not unreasonably expects expertise in areas that have nothing to do with template editing. Many administrators who can edit protected templates don't have the required technical skills. The template namespace is also fundamentally different from other areas in that it is the only place where protection is used pre-emptively. Hut 8.5 10:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - per comments, and with strong Administrator support. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support this proposal, since it leaves full-protection open as an option to be used on Templates just as it is currently used on articles – i.e. in the event of edit-warring/what have you. It Is Me Heret / c 12:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
SupportJamesmcmahon0 - This seems like a good compromise that means coders do not have to apply for adminship or pester admins to make changes and admins don't have to understand the code or review requests. Provided the admin is diligent in granting the privilege I'm sure the editors that are granted this right will follow the usual rules on potentially controversial editand community consensus. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Though it probably won't have much of an impact on me personally, I can see how it would be very frustrating to be unable to make necessary changes quickly to high-use protected templates. If one know what they is doing, I see no reason to stop them from doing it. RfA should not be a required milestone for this, IMHO. The guidelines listed seem reasonable, though I would probably add something to the effect of "if you don't meet the listed guidelines, you can still apply, but must give a reason", as we have for the other user rights you can request for. Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I've long thought we need a level of certified trusted editor below admin, with more limited rights, but a less political vetting process. This is more narrow than what I would prefer, but a step in the right direction.--agr (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, let trusted editors perform work on protected templates, and let Admins do other work. There should be a very limited number of such permissions, starting with User talk:Trappist the monk.DThomsen8 (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - The reason we protect templates is different from the reason we protect articles. A template is protected because we do need to ensure that certain high-risk templates are only edited by certain trusted people. However, not all of our admins are good coders, and not all of our good coders are admins. Thus it makes sense to allow the people we ought to trust with high-risk templates (competent coders) to edit those templates. ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 15:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Disappointed Support I support this because it will allow serious coders the ability to edit templates. I am disappointed that it is needed, that template coders are not trusted enough to be admins. I am disappointed that we are going to add another level of trust to wikipedia.Martin451 (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I am going to add wrt. edit requests mentioned elsewhere. An edit request to an article is often clear cut, and if a spelling mistake happens or text is put into the wrong place (etc.) it does not really matter. If I were to request an edit to a template, and there was a bug in that edit, or the sysop implemented it incorrectly, then it could affect a large part of wikipedia, and also take hours before someone in the know corrected it. Giving this right will allow those in the know to get it right the first time, or very quickly correct their mistake. It will also allow those in the know to monitor edit requests for templates, and make a better decision than most admins, and debug/revert if needed.Martin451 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support -- This user right makes sense. Template editing is obscure, and, from reading a couple of Requests for Adminship, it appears that no ability in this area is required. I also read a few heated discussions about templates, where administrators edited fully protected templates without discussing the edits on the template talk page; having a category of trusted and competent users might help remove some of this heat, also. I also hate editing templates; it is frustrating to attempt it, and I think I have only edited one. I would also like this category of users so I could identify and ask specific users to do this for me when necessary. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC))
Support - This is a reasonable use of trust which shall remove some unnecessary administrative overhead. kencf0618 (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Removes admin overhead and allows for a gradual unbundling or admin rights, which will help with some of the RfA silliness. Shadowjams (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, but we shouldn't need it. Trusted editors should be admins! Since we've got absurdly high standards for adminship, let's at least give the trusted non-admins some of what they need. By the way, we really need a fourth criterion for removal: template vandalism. If I catch you using your template editor userright to perform blatant vandalism, I'm going to remove your rights in addition to blocking you, and I'd prefer that the relevant policy explictly permit removal, rather than having to rely on WP:IAR. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this is covered by WP:COMMONSENSE, but it doesn't hurt to say so explicitly :) I made the addition above. equazcion(talk) 00:24, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Agree with your comment, and of course your change. I'm willing to IAR when necessary, but it's better when we can do what's needed without ignoring rules — if nothing else, it removes a possible wikilawyering strategy. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Some of the oppose votes raise important issues, but this seems like a helpful and useful addition to the project. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Perhaps only a few tens of coders will be granted this responsibility but it seems helpful to the wiki to have these people engaged. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. I see no reason why this shouldn't be enacted. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 15:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Since a lot of talented editors don't want to subject themselves to the hoop-jumping circus that RfA has become, turning individual admin tools into user rights is a good solution. An RfA overhaul would be nice, too. Yintan 15:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, as increasing the number of users who can edit these will dramatically reduce the workload of some. Zach Vega (talk to me) 16:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support per Mark Arsten. 28bytes (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
yes per yintan Dlohcierekim 20:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Sounds reasonable and appropriate given the current circumstances. Templates can be a pain and users who know how to edit them (well) are in short supply. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - On the Dutch Wiki I have seen cases where this could be usefull. Some people are not right for admin functions due to human skills, but are great with wiki skills, hyperactive, and mean well. Taketa (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Any attempt that leads to unbundling of admin rights is welcome. This one too, is an excellent idea, do go ahead. --Ekabhishektalk 09:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support Support efforts to facilitate template/module development by experienced editors, and separation of this authority versus full admin rights. Rjwilmsi 13:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, this is a good idea, and will help lessen the admins' workloads. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support; this is a good idea. -sche (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Qualified support I support the concept, qualified at least: [a] some long-term positive indication of neutrality, [b] a definition of "demonstrated a useful purpose". [c] (possibly) a longer time on Wikipedia. –DjScrawl (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. - We only need trusted users to do this task; they need not also be an admin. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support The current situation is a bit odd. For example, I've created a number of templates, including one that was recently vandalized and I had to fix. If I ask for it to be protected to limit vandalism, I won't then be able to edit it. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. The oppose rationales that I read seem misguided at best. A good many templates are permanently full-protected, and that's not going to change. The alternative to this proposal is the status quo, wherein even fewer people can edit templates. Let's not allow standing on principle to get in the way of improving Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. The details of eligibility etc may need some fine-tuning, but the general concept is good. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 10:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Support the general principle, and the specific proposal with some suggestions:
I don't think that hard-and-fast numbers are a good idea. We don't ask for specific length of editorship or numbers of edits in RfAs, and this should be easier to get than the mop. since it's strictly less powerful.
I would like to see an additional requirement that prospective template-editors should have not only made the changes, but that their code is of good quality, that they aren't cowboys and do proper testing before going live and that they document their stuff.
One feature of the current 'system' is that editors without a template-editor bit (right now equal to adminship) need to get their changes to important templates past a second pair of eyes. I realise that, with a lack of able and willing reviewers, this doesn't currently amount to much, but it could be built upon to try and make sure that applied changes are good quality, but it should be easier to build a cadre of able-and-willing committers if they don't need to ask for and receive the full monty. I think we should try and set up a norm that admins and template-editors should thoroughly review requests to change templates and bring them up to scratch if they aren't. KleptomaniacViolet (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely. No reason not to. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 17:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Total support - I am an admin and I sometimes complete edit requests, but Template ones are something way beyond my own expertise and I'd rather let someone who knows more about them fix them up, admin or not. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. Would fill an irritating hole in the privilege system. A step in the right direction. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Support this and all other thoughtful efforts at debundling the admin toolbox. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Support; the reasons those templates are protected is one of safety, not "normal" protection and it makes sense that being able to edit them only requires a demonstration of skill. — Coren(talk) 19:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I am a very skilled template coder, but all of my work is located on Wikis protected by NDA's using MediaWiki software. That said, having administrated multiple sites with protected templates, I can see the need for non-admins that are proficient with template coding to edit templates. For high-traffic protected ones, though, I would still suggest some kind of procedure where notice and a sandbox version worked out in advance be given for some time before the edit is made. I would like to inquire as to the role of trusted template editors and template edit requests by people that have an improvement and can code the template with improvements well, but don't have the role assigned. I feel like it'd increase accessibility for improvement, but could also be a gateway for other users to piggyback on a user that doesn't have to face any sort of consequences external to Wikipedia should they cause mass vandalism. Having implemented a workflow system on MediaWiki software in php, I find Wikis to still be lacking for accessibility even with this change. Penitence (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - With Lua now available the growing number of templates and modules justifies the need for a right like this. It's born of necessity and arrived at the right time. -- Ϫ 04:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Eligibility might need some tweaking (points 5 and 6 are probably too restrictive) -- Nbound (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Seems reasonable to me. --Kevjonesin (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Support I've supported this a million times in the past, so I'll support it again now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Seems reasonable to me.--UnionhawkTalkE-mail 21:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - This seems entirely reasonable to me. Aneah|talk to me 00:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - Seems like a no brainer to me. It'll make it easier to fix up protected templates, without exposing them to the risk of vandalism across thousands of pages simultaneously and/or wikipedia exploding that you'd get if you let just anyone march in and edit whatever templates they pleased, like some of the people down in the "Oppose" section think we ought to do. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Support A logical move. SpencerT♦C 17:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Support as someone who would request having that right. Having to propose a simple change in which I have high confidence doesn't seem like a good use of everyone's time. Particularly when it's something nit-picky (like a clear MOS issue), I feel guilty having to "waste" someone's time to read, understand, and make the change, when I would have happily done it quickly myself. Some things, I don't even report, though I would gladly do them myself if I could. I know when to ask for help or input if it's something that could cause disruption or controversy. I'm sure there are others like me. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Support, largely per Someone not using his real name and Betty Logan. It's been said many a time above that not all of our admins are skilled enough to feel comfortable editing templates, and I am going to assert that not all of our template coders are skilled enough to feel comfortable running for adminship. GoPhightins! 20:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Support: This is really needed to speed up template editing. I do suggest one minor modifications though. The editor should have worked on the sandbox version of at least three fully protected templates. should be changed to The editor should have worked on a sandbox version of at least three fully protected templates. Some technical people like copy-pasting templates into their userspace to work on them over time without having someone else overwriting their changes (which may happen on the standard sandbox).--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - seems to be a good idea. APerson (talk!) 21:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Support - After doing a thorough review of this proposal, it seems legitimate to have a separate user right for editors who are experienced in editing/modifying templates, modules and edit-notices. This will definitely help in reducing a bit of workload for many Administrators and other users, since the editors who are proficient in this area can do this work by themselves as they would already have the required skills and knowledge to do it by their own. Overall, the proposal and the reasons provided look valid to create this new user right. TheGeneralUser(talk) 15:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
support - sounds great to me. we need to have technically skilled users who can edit such sensitive templates without much issue. adminship is overkill if all they are going to do with the bit anyways is edit restricted templates. WP:buro tends to be grossly misinterpreted anyways. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 07:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support as one of the drafters/proposers. Technical 13 (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Support as proposer -- not that there was any doubt, but just for the sake of an accurate count :) equazcion� | 15:47, 9 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Support and I hope that the process for granting (and revoking) this right is kept light-weight. In fact, along the lines of Acalamari, my first preference would have been if editors granted the new right were technically able to edit any template (ie, no added complexity of new protection level was created). In rare instances when, for some reason, it was desirable that only admins edit a particular template, that could be indicated by an edit-notice on the page and the new right holders would be trusted to follow that (cf, how page protection due to WP:OFFICE-action is not undone by admins even though they are technically equipped to so so). In general we should be cultivating a culture of trust and norms, not relying on technical barriers. Abecedare (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
For that solution to be technically possible, either a new extension would have to be installed, or users with this right would have to be able to edit any protected page (except user .js and .css, pages in the MediaWiki: namespace, and cascading-protecting pages). Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the tradeoffs. I fear that targeting a new software extension (and re-running this RFC to test support for the approach I prefer) will just delay, and possibly derail, the whole process. And I am not comfortable with editors granted with template-editor rights being able to edit (almost) any fully-protected page, because if that were possible, eventually 1) template-editor right would come to be regarded as admin-lite and earning it would become as onerous a process as RFAs and 2) many RFA candidates would be told to apply and prove themselves as admin-lites before gaining additional rights...increasing wikipedia bureaucracy. Long story short: I do support the proposal on the table, although in an ideal world I would have it different. Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. About half a year ago, I had proposed that a similiar right exist in this discussion. However, it seemed that my proposed discussion did not go anywhere, probably due to it being proposed at "closing time" for the Wikipedia talk:Protected Page Editor discussion, where I had posted the proposal. Glad to see that this proposal is getting a lot more attention than the one I tried to start did. Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Moved vote to Neutral. (see below.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I Support this proposal, primarily as a way of "unbundling" some tasks that are currently restricted to admins. We need a control against preventing template vandalism &c but the current approach - full protection of much-transcluded templates - isn't a perfect control, because admins aren't required to have any template expertise - it's not one of the RfA exam-questions, and it shouldn't be. Let admins focus on core admin tasks, let template specialists work on templates - sounds good to me. bobrayner (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
There needs to be a better rationale before I could support this. Saying that coders don't want to have to verbalize their reasons for wanting the changes and therefore shouldn't have to isn't a suitable reason. If these fully protected templates are that important, shouldn't changes to them be made only by consensus? Wouldn't the reasons have to be explained anyway to get that consensus? I understand, though, that coders enjoy their work and want to do it themselves, so I would support a temporary right that was given by an admin, after the rationale for the change was explained, allowing the coder to make the changes him/herself rather than by proxy on a particular template or set of templates. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your question Anne Delong! Many of the requested changes are trivial and non-controversial; fixing a punctuation error, fixing a misspelled word, adding a new optional parameter, or expanding a template to allow more input based on an established pattern. Technical 13 (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Typos should be easy to explain and have an admin fix. The other items you mention I feel should have consensus. Coders sometimes make changes that they consider trivial that may not be considered so by others. For example, in the Afc script the word "hoax" keeps being deleted from the decline reason "joke or hoax", with no discussion among the reviewer community. Someone perhaps thought (more than once) that this was a trivial change. Last week the decline template for a while neglected to list the name of the decliner. Before that, one day the link to the help page mysteriously disappeared from one of the templates. Since the protected templates must be considered more important than these ones, I would feel more comfortable if the coders had to explain what they were going to do, get permission from an admin, so that said admin could check afterwards to see that the result was correct and within policy. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The situations you're describing are just as likely to occur when an admin makes the edit. Minor mistakes will occur from time to time no matter who is involved (incidentally, admins are not required to check with someone else before making their own minor edits, and we do have some admin coders). Adminship doesn't guarantee or even indicate any level of coding knowledge that would prevent mistakes. The best assurance that mistakes will be kept to a minimum is to get more competent coders involved, and currently, most of those are not admins, nor do they want to contribute their expertise at fully-protected templates, for the aformentioned reasons. equazcion(talk) 13:42, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Actually most of the admins admit they wouldn't know if the code was right, they just make the change in blind faith. So its better for the one who knows what the code is going to do makes the change so if there is a problem it can be fixed quickly without having to submit an edit request and wait anywhere from several hours to a week for it to get fixed. Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
...which also touches on the problem of there being relatively few admins around who take it upon themselves to handle the queue of protected edit requests (I make no judgments there, it's just a fact). Forgetting about improvements, mere maintenance and required fixes can therefore take a while. equazcion(talk) 15:14, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The issues that you are describing Anne are with the Yet Another Articles for Creation Helper Script of which there has been a lot of rapid changes going on lately with many new features to adapt to using the latest code (the team has been converting much of the script to jQuery and adapting to use CSS3 / HTML5 lately) to improve load times and prevent mass failures when the old code is no longer supported by browsers and to offer an in-house option for reviewing drafts which fall under the fairly new CSD:G13 criteria. It was determined by the lead developer of the script that the decline template was not showing the the decliner and timestamp of decline on your report because the edit was made manually and not using the script (ticket on GitHub). Also, for the record, the decline template is fully protected (verify) which means that when things go wrong, none of the AFCH developers (mabdul — Nathan2055 — Technical 13 — Theopolisme — Hasteur: — APerson241) can quickly fix it and it needs to sit there until a request is answered by an admin, which usually takes days to fix. Technical 13 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I said that I opposed because I thought the rationale was weak. Some of the items being brought up here are legitimate points and should be added to the rationale. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
(opposition weakening..) Although I still don't think that this new privilege is really necessary, some good arguments have been made about why it would be convenient and maybe desirable. The template editing qualifications seem well thought out. The edit count seems a bit low; that's about two weeks of editing for me, and it takes experience to work within Wikipedia's policies. I'm also little concerned about the weakness of the "trust" qualifications. Just not being blocked or edit warring lately isn't much of an endorsement. How about adding having demonstrated an understanding of the consensus process? And I wouldn't like to see admins wait until there is a "pattern" of controversial editing without consensus before suspending the privilege. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I had the same concern on reading the proposal. If "verbalize justifiable edit requests" is changed to "verbalize uncontroversial edit requests", my concern would disappear.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, so I made that change as suggested. equazcion(talk) 23:44, 14 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Qualified oppose For the same reason as the last time something like this came up several months ago. I remain unconvinced this is a serious problem, to such an extant that such drastic measures are rerquired to resolve it. I also still support the much simpler idea of re-purposing pending changes level 2, which is currently more or less unused, to accomplish the exact same thing 'without creating new user rights and protection levels, which by the way we cannot simply will into existence. Do we even know if the WMF is aware of this idea? Will the devs even work on it? Do those proposing this realize that even if this is approved and the WMF agreees to implement it it will probably take six months to a year to become a reality? Despite all the previous discussion this still strikes me as a poorly thought out proposal that ignores a much simpler option using tools we already have. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
See this discussion in the drafting talk page of this proposal, where the possibility of using PC2 this way was discussed. There are a few problems with using PC2 this way currently, and would require changing the way the permission works in a number of ways, ie. coding. It's actually simpler to create a new permission, as that would only require a little new text in the MediaWiki configuration file. In that same discussion, you'll see that a few developers are aware of this proposal, and one of them stated that a new permission is feasible should the community decide on it. equazcion(talk) 15:44, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
PS. There is also the fact that PC2 has been given out to many, many users already without this functionality in mind. If we're to assume the ability to edit high-risk templates should require some degree of special vetting, it doesn't seem feasible to reuse a permission that's already been given out exhaustively to those who haven't gone through any such vetting. equazcion(talk) 15:53, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Is the administrator toolset a response to a drastic situation, or do we not provide it to trusted users in order to assist them in the kinds of efforts they already carry out? This provides a... drastic... increase in productivity to experienced coders. - Floydianτ¢ 18:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Once upon a time, some visionary people set out to build an encyclopedia based on the absurd notion that the general populace could be trusted to do the right thing. Further, that any would be evil doers would be so out numbered by the good people that the end product would be exceptional. They were right. Here we sit upon the mount of 4.3 million articles created by this mass of general population who were trusted to do the absurd thing of creating an encyclopedia. And now we set forth to say "No, we do not trust you. No, what you have created must be protected from you. No, you must now seek out special privileges in our ever expanding bureaucracy". Look at yourselves in the mirror people. If the attitude expressed here existed when Wikipedia began, Wikipedia wouldn't even exist. TRUST the masses that created this damn project and unprotect the templates. Not ONCE have I ever committed vandalism, but I can't be trusted to edit a template even though there's been numerous times when I've needed to. No, instead I need to ask someone who is "trusted" to do it for me, because I'm not trusted. What asininity. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You may have a point, but in the absence of your ideal situation, wouldn't it be good to get things a step closer to it by providing access to more of the people who need it, rather than taking an all-or-nothing stance? equazcion(talk) 21:42, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
No. Either you trust people or you don't. You don't expand bureaucracy to solve the problems of the expanding bureaucracy. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This seems like letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, Hammersoft. I think I understand your perspective here (although I tend to disagree), but I think that argument has already been lost. I don't imagine there's going to be a consensus to unprotect highly used templates back to semiprotection or no protection. If that's true, then what's the best way to enable you, and experienced users like you, to edit these templates? I think this is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hammersoft, this proposal would not take away any abilities that the editors have now; it would do the opposite, giving some users extra capabilities, giving them more trust. So this should be a move in the direction that you would like, even though not all the way. One possible side effect: Once there are lots of coders editing the protected templates, this may lead to the idea that more templates need to be protected, since one of the reasons for not protecting them will have been eliminated. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
My point is to give the right back to where it belongs. This is like taking my right away, then telling me things are improving because more people will be able to answer my requests to have work done for me by proxy. And I should be happy about this? How many years, how many edits does it take for someone to be trusted enough to edit the most visible article on the project? I'll answer for you. Zero, in both cases. Yet, I can't be trusted to edit a template? I'll tell you what will happen. This is passing with flying colors, 8:1 right now. A year from now, far more templates will be protected, and I will have even LESS privileges on the project to do the work I've done in the past. But that's ok, this is the project that ANYone can edit...so long as you're "TRUSTED". But I'm not trusted, because I'm just a lowly stupid editor who can barely ties his shoes. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
An edit on an article can cause an error on an article. An error on a template can cause an error on several hundred thousand articles and present server issues. That is the reason for that difference. I don't disagree with you about the possibility of your second point and that should be actively fought against. SFB 21:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I'm worried that having this available will lead to it being used when semi-protection would be more appropriate, which is contrary to the goal of letting more people edit more templates. I think a stronger guideline is needed for when each level of protection should be created before this becomes available. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Jackmcbarn That's a valid point that was brought up during drafting, and probably should have been addressed in the RfC text initially. I've now added something about this above, under #Privilege. equazcion(talk) 12:50, 12 Sep 2013 (UTC)
@Equazcion:I don't feel like including a paragraph saying "make sure this doesn't happen" will keep it from happening. I think a stronger solution is needed Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I strongly support tool unbundling in general and as such I would prefer the implementation of a userright that would allow non-admins to edit any fully-protected page rather than just some. I'm not convinced that over-specialization like this is warranted: as I am sure that anyone seeking this userright would be held to high standards, I think that if someone is trusted to edit one type of protected page then they can be trusted to edit (or trusted to not edit) another. Without wanting to resort to hyperbole, I'd rather this not become a stepping stone to having multiple and confusing protection userrights for non-admins when one would do. I'm not convinced by the "problem" of single-purpose candidacies at RfA, either: they are not overwhelming the process nor are they a major burden. Acalamari 13:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Many people still seem uncomfortable with single-purpose RFAs though, enough that getting them to pass is hit-or-miss; and that's disregarding the fact that most avid coders have no interest in putting themselves through RFA, nor with its other associated tools. As proposals to unbundle the way you suggest have failed repeatedly, wouldn't it make some sense to make a concession and implement a next-best option that might finally get our avid coders working where they're needed? equazcion(talk) 15:05, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I don't know whether there's anything you could add to the proposal to address the specific point about it being "a stepping stone to having multiple and confusing protection userrights for non-admins". It's a valid concern, though IMO the technical element makes this a one-off situation. - Pointillist (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not entirely clear to me what would be so bad about further area-specific rights cropping up in the future, if it means more of the people who are good at something specific are allowed to do it, while also alleviating the concerns of those who would rather not give out far-reaching tools packages. I'm rather skeptical that "confusion" will ensue, nor that even if some people did end up confused when they looked into the various rights available on Wikipedia that that isn't something that could be dealt with rather easily. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that as steps like this are taken, an actual unbundling could begin making more sense to more people down the line, and individual rights may start becoming combined. Either way, none of this can happen if we don't start actually implementing steps, choosing instead to demand that our many widely varying individual ideals are met fully. Everyone has their ideal of what Wikipedia should be, but making demands based on those ideals keeps us from progressing at all. equazcion(talk) 16:36, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Mmm, but then this RfC would have to be about unbundling in general rather than this specific case. There are special circumstances for template maintenance that are part of the reason the proposal is getting so much support. I'm not saying there would be anything necessarily "bad about further area-specific rights cropping up in the future", but of course other editors might be concerned about gradualism/thin end of the wedge etc. It's best to keep this RfC as narrow as possible, IMO. - Pointillist (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It could be that down the line unbundling may start making sense to people if several area-specific rights seem to entail similar virtues. That doesn't mean this RFC need be about unbundling. I don't know what will happen in the unforeseeable future nor is such forecasting a part of this proposal. It's just one possibility. What I do know is that those who want that to happen are not serving themselves by demanding that it happen now or else no arguably small part of it can, as the former has proven unlikely. equazcion(talk) 17:12, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Agree 100% - Pointillist (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
oppose per Hammersoft and Jackmcbarn. Also, guideline #1 for granting this "privilege" is near-absurd and would only drive new template editors away, and probably stems from Wikipedia's general paranoia and disregard for anonymity. — Lfdder (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
As proposals such as these have generated resistance in the past from those concerned with such rights falling into unproven hands, the guidelines were written conservatively in the hopes of alleviating those concerns. Coming up with guidelines that will be more or less universally acceptable is a challenge that can yet be tackled in the future should this pass; and the guidelines are far from hard-and-fast rules. The granting administrators will use their own discretion in assessing whether an editor has proven themselves capable and trustworthy. equazcion(talk) 18:06, 13 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see the need. Basically, I agree with Beeblebrox. If people want to argue like they did with the other six opposes, I rarely revisit !votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI, I didn't post arguments in those cases in order to garner responses from those who opposed; but rather to let onlookers know that there are counterpoints to the unique issues those opposers raised. You haven't done that, so I won't be posting an argument here. equazcion(talk) 00:22, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: "While full protection is an ideal temporary solution for templates that have demonstrated a state of overwhelming controversy, it is less ideal as a permanent precautionary measure for articles. Many editors who have shown an aptitude for editing articles, and have earned the trust of the community in doing their work, may not necessarily be administrators, nor even be interested in becoming administrators. "Non-administrators do have the ability to request edits at fully-protected articles for administrators to enact on their behalf, but there is a significant shortage of administrators who have the time and necessary equanimity to do this reliably. Editors also tend to find this extra step more than a mere annoyance: Editing work is largely rewarding to linguistically-minded people in that they value the creative experience. Many end up choosing to avoid having to verbalize uncontroversial edit requests made to convince someone else to enact an edit on their behalf, by simply avoiding work on fully-protected articles altogether. "As there is currently no measure that would allow access only for trusted editors with article-editing know-how, some editors have resorted to applying for adminship..." Brycehughes (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand the point you are making but the parallels are not the same. ( I do think that there should probably be a protected page editor right however, but that is not this RfC. ) Full protection is not a temporary solution for templates.... and permanent protection is not as common for articles. The page "Blue" doesn't get protected just because the color blue is used on a large number of pages; but for template space that alone would be a good reason for the page to be fully protected. There is a much larger pool of admins that will assist with protected articles—especially as such pages tend to be contested and on the watch list of active admins—while there are only three admins actively watching for edit requests to templates. A delay in making a fix to an article will leave just that article in a "imperfect" state for the time it makes for the edit request to be acted upon. A delay in making a fix to a high visibility template will leave a lot of pages broken. Also changes to templates might require changes to all the pages that use the template, which means that any overhead in the process can get magnified. PaleAqua (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not the number of protected templates vs. articles that matters; it's the frequency that they're edited—or, rather, have people wanting to edit them. Why do the technically-minded get a back door? Brycehughes (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not about whether or not people are technically minded. The point is that articles aren't protected "just as a precaution", whereas many templates are. To quote the protection policy "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia." No one is arguing that we need to be as open with high-use templates because of the potential for mess. Yaris678 (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how the reason why a page or template gets protected has any bearing on whether or not there exists a genuine problem that needs to be solved for the good of the Wikipedia project. I do see how having templates preemptively protected might annoy a group of people who like to edit templates. Brycehughes (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
If there was a load of pre-emptively protected articles, people would probably be arguing for a user right to edit those too. Yes, that argument would probably come from them being annoyed at not being able to edit the pre-emtively protected articles, but is that so bad? Surely not annoying users is a good thing. Yaris678 (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It's bad when it's the sole argument for creating yet another user right. How many are there now? 16? Everyone else has to WP:CHILL and wait for their edits to go through. I don't see why we need to make a special exception for template editors. Brycehughes (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not merely about annoyance, if you read the rationale both above and in the linked discussions; although for the sake of argument, if it's annoying enough that the people who can work on something stop working on it altogether, that could be reason enough. If articles were preemptively protected and required edit requests, and that caused all the skilled content contributors to stop contributing content, people would likely consider that reason to consider a change. In any case, to answer your "back door" comment, templates are full-protected because people without the necessary skills and responsibility can end up causing a lot of damage via a one-time mistake. All those various "oops" edits that occur in article space could cause massive problems if they occurred at high-use templates. That's why those who have been vetted as knowledgeable and responsible in this area are being proposed as receiving said permission. It's not about seeing technically-minded people as a higher class that deserves special treatment -- they're just uniquely suited to safely help out in this specific area. equazcion(talk) 14:59, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. According to the proposal, the right will allow editors to make "simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates", while more "complex or controversial edits" will be subject to testing and consensus. What is the requisite skill level for making a simple edit? This isn't about creating a new tool that only the most "skilled" and "responsible" among us can employ immediately in those dreaded template-emergency situations—indeed, those situations are preempted by precautionary protection. Rather, it's about creating a new privilege for a group of people who have the wherewithal to lobby the Wikipedia community for their own user right. Brycehughes (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There's no requisite skill level for making a simple edit. There is a requisite skill level for determining which edits are simple, however. As for creating a new privilege for those who can, I'd say if you were familiar with the history you probably wouldn't be saying that. This has been a multi-year-long headache that failed many times over, and pretty much no one has had the lobbying strength to push through thus far. Those who would be getting the permission in question wouldn't have kept this up for this long just because they can, as so far, they decidedly can't. And if it makes any difference to anyone, I, the author of this proposal, do not plan on applying for the permission should it become a reality. In fact if this RFC closes as a pass, I'll likely be re-hanging my "retired" banner. equazcion(talk) 16:28, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
If it were true that there was a requisite skill level for determining which template edits are simple, then all templates would need to be protected from editors who didn't have those skills. But they're not, because your statement is untrue. Regarding your multi-year long headache, how does that refute my point? Lobbying efforts for special privileges can't fail? They can't last for years? It has no bearing on the cost/benefit analysis before us, other than confirming that the issue has been correctly decided in the past. Brycehughes (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I bring up the history because you've assumed an ulterior motive. You say those who would get the permission are responsible for lobbying for it, and are doing so simply because they can, and because it would benefit them, so why wouldn't they. I'd contend that after the first try or two at getting something just 'cause they can, it would've seemed apparent that they can't. At this point it should be discernible that it's gone on this long because many people aside from those potential editors believe the encyclopedia needs this, and/or that it would at least be an improvement. Of course, the accusation that techies started this and should be blamed for incurring all this unwarranted support is not really something anyone would be able to prove either way. All I can do is tell you that I won't be getting the permission myself if this goes through, which I should hope at least shows my own intentions. I can also ask that you look at the potential net cost of this proposal versus its net gain, rather than attempting to assess everyone's motives. equazcion(talk) 17:28, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I haven't assumed an ulterior motive. I've assumed a motive in plain sight, as it also happens to be your premise. The proposal background clearly states that people who like to edit templates do not like to wait for their edits to be approved. By implementing this proposal, Wikipedia will make people who like to edit templates happy. Were I one of them, I would probably think this was a great idea too. But, in the bigger picture, I would also hope there'd be people outside of myself and my template-editor peers to zoom out and weigh the benefits of bestowing special privileges onto a certain group of editors against the cons of establishing yet another editor hierarchy as it affects the project at large. There are no accusations here, other than an attack on the weakness of the proposal. Brycehughes (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to answer your first point: "If it were true that there was a requisite skill level for determining which template edits are simple, then all templates would need to be protected from editors who didn't have those skills." -- Most templates aren't widespread enough that bad edits to them would cause significant issues. They're protected because they exist on many thousands of pages. It would take a requisite skill level to determine whether an edit is simple enough to be made without risk given the pervasiveness of the template. equazcion(talk) 17:45, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Then spend your template editing time editing the majority of templates that aren't widespread enough to pose this risk. For the templates that are permanently protected, make an edit request. Just like everyone else. The world won't end before you see your protected template edit go through. Brycehughes (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
"Then spend your template editing time editing the majority of templates that aren't widespread enough to pose this risk." -- That's precisely what they do currently. And so, work on the widespread templates suffers. equazcion(talk) 18:04, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
As it should, because they're high risk. Brycehughes (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Poorly thought-out proposal. The criteria for granting the user right are a horrible case of WP:CREEP and I also fail to see the point of it - from the three-template requirement this seems to be aimed at users maintaining templates across the whole site rather than specific ones relevant to their area, who will still have to use {{editprotected}}. If somebody's that interested in sitewide maintenance encourage them to run for adminship. If not, use sandboxes and {{editprotected}} like the rest of us. The main problem here isn't the lack of a userright, it's the overuse of preemptive protection. --W.D.Graham 08:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose-This could lead to a lot of abuse. The criteria to attain this status isn't stringent enough for the power to not be abused. Snood1205 (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose As an ad hoc "rule creep" -- we should then need a "ref fix flag", a "typo fix flag", a "personal attack deletion flag" etc. - I can think of a dozen or more special purpose flags which would then make sense. Absent a real reason for this addition, I oppose. Collect (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You are comparing apples to oranges here. One does not currently need administrative privileges to fix references, fix typos and delete personal attacks. However, one does need administrative privileges to edit fully protected templates. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose its a good idea but I don't think this will go as expected. and it could cause some problems. A little stricter and a little clearer. we may have something good here until then I oppose. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see why this is necessary and agree this would be too much fragmentation. If a user can be trusted to edit fully protected templates, surely that same user can be trusted with any admin task. If they don't want to perform any other admin tasks, there is no requirement that they do, so they can simply work only on templates if they so choose. We are all volunteers, after all. And if they don't want to be admins at all (or to go through the process), then they can continue working on templates in sandboxes and then submit requests for updates when done. Slightly inconvenient, perhaps, but hardly something that requires an implementation of a new right.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2013; 19:45 (UTC)
Oppose -- the ability for more technically-oriented people to edit protected templates is needed, but the solution is to let them be admins. Ëzhiki's argument just above is something I completely agree with. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 03:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
While some might believe that to be ideal, the current state of affairs precludes that as a viable solution. These editors predominately don't want to apply for adminship, and even for those editors that might, the general feelings in the community on whether or not to promote people who do apply for adminship for that single purpose alone are divided. The tools available to admins encompass a broad range of areas that many feel a potential admin should prove themselves knowledgable and capable of using for the most part, as well as, arguably, demonstrating a certain political stature. Many would like that or other ideals to win out, but a compromise may be the only practical solution available for the foreseeable future. equazcion(talk) 03:42, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I can very well understand one's unwillingness to go through an adminship application or editors' unwillingness to grant an admin bit for template work alone, but I still fail to see what's so impractical about editing the templates in a sandbox and then requesting an update when the work is done. I've done a fair share of template work myself, and whether one is an admin or not, highly visible templates which are protected should never be worked on live anyway. So in essence, the difference between an admin like me and a non-admin template worker is that I can post my work myself once I'm done while a non-admin would have to place a request and perhaps wait a couple days. I just don't see what's so problematic with this approach to require an implementation of a new right?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2013; 13:52 (UTC)
Trappist's answer to Question #8 provides a little insight there, as do many of the support comments above. The current system is inefficient and discourages techies from contributing. Edits should be able to be confirmed among peers who are actively involved or at least interested, rather than requiring the approval of some whose job it is to go around to various unrelated projects they aren't familiar with to try and evaluate whether an edit is sound. The nature of coding makes answering protected edit requests in those areas a substantially different and involved endeavor compared to protected article edits -- which is why there are practically no administrators who actually take it upon themselves to do it. I'd stay away from it myself were I an admin, even though I have the coding experience to be helpful -- It's just a headache-inducing undertaking to have to dive into projects you know nothing about, repeatedly, to try and untangle and decipher these changes and their ramifications (made more difficult by the fact that template code is more difficult to make organized and readable, without affecting functionality, than most of other programming languages; and the fact that, to my knowledge at least, there is no real development environment available to facilitate those investigations, beyond the plain old wiki edit box). In the end, though, even though it may be hard for you to see why the current system isn't working, the fact is that it isn't, as avid coders do tend to avoid work on high-use templates. This in itself is problematic, and if we can enact a change would change this, and would do so safely, then we should. equazcion(talk) 14:13, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it, but I don't see the situation like that. It is indeed a lot of work to go through someone else's coding job and try to decipher it, but is it really necessary? Bugs are an inherent by-product of template work and may surface later even with the most diligent approach. I personally would approve any template change request as long as the sandbox contains examples of how the template being changed looks currently and how it would look/behave after the change. I may or may not ask for (or try out myself) additional test cases or clarifications if something looks not quite right, but as long as there are no visible problems and any major changes have a consensus, there is no need to dive deep into the code and try to parse it on the off-chance a bug has snuck in. And if I happen to approve a modification which leads to some overlooked serious problems, I'm prepared to roll it back (or see it rolled back by another admin) at the first sign of trouble. The job of an approving admin is not to make sure the change is flawless, it is to make sure that it is not malicious, is functional, and reflects the consensus of everybody involved. Some time commitment on the part of the reviewing admin is required, of course, but no more so than with any other protected edit request.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2013; 14:36 (UTC)
Well, we could argue about how much need there is to make sure edits are sound, or what degree of confirmed soundness is required; but whichever way that discussion would go, I think we can agree that it's better if it's easier to catch more potential bugs earlier. Letting more of the more equipped people make those evaluations improves the situation. Is it necessary? I'm not sure what it means, really, when people say something isn't necessary and thus shouldn't be done. Many of the things you and I have come to rely on were the result of improvements that were not necessarily... well, not necessarily "necessary". And this would be an improvement, no matter how you look at it, even if there's some disagreement over degrees. There's also the issue of fixes needed sooner rather than later, which could be implemented more swiftly if more people in the know were both actively involved and had the required permission. The only real against argument (in relation to your comments) is the hierarchy confusion one, which I don't think actually translates into any practical issues -- though we'll probably have to agree to disagree over that. equazcion(talk) 14:55, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not trying to win you over to the dark side :), I'm simply trying to clarify my position to whoever else might be reading this, so it's perfectly OK that we disagree. What I meant by "necessary" is simply that one shouldn't hesitate to review a protected template edit request simply because they don't want to parse the code modifications. Making sure that there are no obvious problems (which can actually be done with minimal technical knowledge) should be sufficient. And if they can parse the modifications, that's just an added bonus. What you are trying to say (if I'm reading you correctly), that this is not a prevalent attitude among the reviewing admins, who prefer either to make sure everything is in order down to the most minute detail or not to bother with the review altogether (and the latter happens more often). I have no reason not to believe this (if this is what you are saying), but based on my experience, I haven't noticed it to be the case. Hence my oppose. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2013; 15:25 (UTC)
Support #5 indicates that the prevailing practice among admins is to avoid reviewing altogether; and I further wouldn't necessarily chalk that up to a desire to understand minute details. "And if they can parse the modifications, that's just an added bonus." -- This proposal would make that "bonus" more widely available, in fact perhaps standard. equazcion(talk) 15:34, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that comment out; it's an enlightening one. However, one could equally argue that even if it takes a couple of weeks for the changes to be applied, it's still no big deal (and in fact it provides a cool-down period during which the template writer can look at his or her work afresh and perhaps see some problems which escaped their eyes first time round). On the other hand, for templates where applying a change quickly is crucial, one would think that the people interested in implementing it would actively reach out to some individual admin who shares their interest and is willing to help implement the change. At any rate, from what I've seen the unwillingness to implement the changes to protected templates stems more from the controversies often surrounding such changes rather than from the lack of technical expertise—a problem which the proposed flag is more likely to exacerbate rather than alleviate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2013; 16:01 (UTC)
I'll leave most of this alone as I think we've each laid out our feelings adequately enough. However you kinda tacked on something new at the end there that I think warrants addressing. It's not a refusal to implement changes that we're addressing, nor is that a prevailing issue. I'm assuming you mention this in response to my pointing out that you haven't made a practical argument against, but I have to call foul on that particular one, as it's a catch-all argument against many things. Disagreements will of course occur anywhere from time to time, but contention hasn't been the prevailing issue at high-use templates. It's the lack of fundamental participation, both by admins and coders, due to the inefficiency of the whole process. Controversial changes will require consensus to be established first, as stated in the proposal, or else the enacting editor's permission will be in jeopardy. equazcion(talk) 16:55, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
You are right, my last bit wasn't particularly related to the proposal and describes a whole different aspect of the template coding process which is not quite relevant here (regardless of whether one agrees with it or not). I do stand with the rest of my arguments, however, since I'm hesitant to accept anecdotal evidence and conjecture in support. I do, of course, realize that my arguments may be seen as anecdotal as well, which is why a broader community input is beneficial. It looks that things are going towards supporting this proposal anyway. If my assessment turns out to be wrong and the new bit is going to bring nothing but benefits, so much the better. If my (and other opposing editors') assessment that the new bit would be problematic turns out to be right, then it can be rolled back fairly easily (I hope). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2013; 17:59 (UTC)
Thanks for all the good and thoughtful comments to my Oppose vote -- it definitely appears that the proposal will pass, so it is good to know that those who support it have thought so deeply about the subject. I will keep the oppose here because I think that opening up adminship to get more contributors involved who have worked well on any aspect of the project is one of the most important changes that WP needs to make to keep up its energy; so definitely if that's not going to happen, I support this proposal, but I wish we could devote more effort to adding to the number of admins. This proposal will probably make that process even harder. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 21:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Registered users should be the default editing circumstance for almost everything, and sadly this is one more move to show some elitism and assuming a lack of good faith on the part of those rank and file individuals (many such as myself who have been editing and participating on Wikipedia for many years) who need to be trusted. If anything, there should be evaluations about many templates as to if they really do need to be protected and why.... including on the "front page". If you want to change the criteria for a "trusted registered user", that is certainly a legitimate debate. In this context, however, I fail to see how merely semi-protecting a template is any worse than granting this "right" to hundreds or thousands of "trusted users". I also see this being a situation where many sorts of templates that at the moment wouldn't even be considered as something to be fully protected would then have that protection status added.... or that even further "levels" of protection might need to be created that still make those templates "admin edits only". This really is feature creep at its worst. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think i'd revisit this RfC after commenting a couple of times, but i believe it is incumbent upon me to Oppose. As Robert Horning says or implies immediately above, the default position ought to be that regular, registered users can edit almost anything; if it's so fragile or important that they shouldn't be allowed to, we do have a process which allows them to show they have the community's trust ~ it's called RfA, and the one which was the proximate cause of this discussion has passed, showing that sufficient members of the community are prepared to trust someone to do what he says he'll do. I also think, as a couple of other users have mentioned, that this is a possible example of rule creep; or maybe of getting something (unbundling) in by a side door because the front door is closed. That previous sentence might be read to imply poor faith on the part of the filers or supporters; i had no intention of allowing that inference, and apologise for the poor wording. Cheers, LindsayHello 17:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Edited to clarify intentions 18:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this goes directly against founding principles. Read User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles. The genie is already out of the bottle, so calling this a slippery slope would just be beating a dead horse. How's that for a mixed metaphor? Almost any level of hierarchy is bad for the project, including degrees of hierarchy that have been with us since 2003. Speaking as someone who has created and edited several templates, I understand the arguments both ways, but I'd prefer an openness in editing that immediately trashes hundreds of pages (and thus, is quickly noticed and fixed) to a closed system where the onus is on the community to determine who is trustworthy and who is not. Focus on the articles, not the article-writers.Imzogelmo (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
If the administrators really think this is a problem for them, I think the solution should be "reduce the number of protected templates" or "increase the number of administrators" (which might include reduce the requirements of administrators). We don't need another layer of rights McKay (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I think there is definitely a problem here, but I don't think this proposal is the best way to address it. I find Imzogelmo's comment fairly persuasive; we do not need an additional layer of bureaucracy here. But more than that, I see two issues that should be addressed: (1) we should focus on ways to make it easier to edit templates, perhaps using some hybrid of Drafts and FlaggedRevs; and (2) we should focus on making page protection much more flexible (we currently have two hammers for every kind of nail and this isn't serving us well at all). Creating an additional protection level somewhat moves us closer to the second goal, but not without a lot of extra baggage. For any page, it should be possible to easily specify "you need more than X edits" or "you need to have been a registered user for longer than Y" in order to make an edit. This would allow us to stop fully protecting so many pages when semi-protection isn't adequate, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Those are lofty goals that may perhaps one day become a reality. As I've said before, there are solutions that some might call more ideal, but under the current circumstance it makes little sense to demand them and block anything else, while a less-than-perfect (depending on your perspective) solution is on the table that would still improve things. There's almost no chance of your suggestions happening in the foreseeable future, while this proposal could be implemented immediately. There's no "extra baggage" here beyond that which would come with your suggestions. In fact I think this proposal carries significantly less "baggage" than combining drafts, flagged revisions, and vast page protection options that would require significant software and procedural changes; even if those could result in a more powerful system. This is a user right, it's implemented without any new software coding, and is assigned and revoked without any significant process. equazcion(talk) 22:39, 19 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Sure, we have to avoid making perfect the enemy of the done. It's a balancing act, it always is: you can accept a temporary fix and try to hope it won't become permanent or you can wait for a proper solution. One of the more painful consequences to accepting the temporary fix is that it discourages the development of a proper solution. This is one of the situations where I personally think the hack (read: quick fix) is doing more harm than good. The software should be better. I'd like it if the hundred-plus editors here would help make the software smarter. In addition to the two points raised in my comment, a third is the current inability to create arbitrary user groups through a user interface. Bureaucrats should be able to create local user groups with arbitrary user rights just as stewards can create global groups with arbitrary user rights. There are a lot of potential solutions here, but I don't think adding a protection level and a user group moves us forward in the direction I want to move. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I just finished reading all this and need some time to digest it all; however, to oppose is my first, gut feeling on it. I do deeply agree with Acalamari's 5. I strongly support tool unbundling in general and as such I would prefer the implementation of a userright that would allow non-admins to edit any fully-protected page rather than just some. When an editor has performed many thousands of good and helpful improvements, adminship should become a given. At this point, though, it appears to me that the creation of another protection level is just a loose bandaid. And yet, why dishearten good template coders by the present, not-so-subtle system of making them feel untrusted? It's an open can of worms, truly, and I feel there are better ways to find a bigger can. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 17:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
If a template is so sensitive to damage that its default state must be fully-protected, it probably is a useful delay for changes to run through edit-protected and thus under multiple sets of eyes. Christopher Parham(talk) 22:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I really want to support this but I think the guidelines for granting needs to be expanded. In my opinion, this userright ranks up there with edit filter in terms of potentially causing widespread damage to the site. In order for non-admins to become an edit filter manager, there needs to be a discussion first. I think that this userright should have a similar process to the way edit filter manager is granted. Elockid(Talk) 21:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
That seems like a fair point, but can you point me to a description of the way edit filter manager is granted? I've wasted 20 minutes trying to find a summary of their process without success—I must be looking in the wrong place. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
There's a brief description of it at the end of the lead at WP:Edit filter. Elockid(Talk) 23:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
While someone could vandalize a massive number of pages at once with this user right, the damage from that could be corrected very quickly. The edit filter could cause even more widespread problems, and there could be damage done that would be a lot harder to undo, and in some ways impossible to undo. Monty845 02:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Reverting the vandalized template is easy, yes. Finding the source of the problem, no. When a template vandal, User:Earth Exploding Live vandalized templates (they weren't protected but I'm just giving an example), it was very difficult for even the most seasoned vandal fighters to locate the source of the problem. With the edit filter, we can locate the problem pretty quickly. It's much easier to fix edit filter problems, I've dealt with both personally. Elockid(Talk) 02:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
How do you undo the damage done when an edit filter blocks everyone on wikipedia from editing, discards the edits they tried to make, and gives them a warning about their misconduct. Sure, the edit filter was fixed within minutes, but that doesn't undo the damage from when it was active. And that was just from a blunder in a good faith edit (happened twice that I know of), not even someone deliberately abusing it. Monty845 02:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I can raise a similar argument. How do you undo the damage done to template where clicking anywhere on the page where that template is transcluded in leads you to a shock site (this has happened before)? Considering that it takes longer to locate the problem, IMO there's a much greater possibility of preventing good faith edits as a result. Not only are people prevented from editing the page but the template can be made to make it impossible to read. What if a template on the main page was vandalized? What I am saying here is that template vandalism can be just as hazardous or even more hazardous than the edit filter. You can't undo the consequences that resulted from both these cases. Our best option is to fix and prevent problem. Elockid(Talk) 04:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not too concerned about vandalism with the criteria listed here (which can of course be tweaked later, btw). An applicant will have had to put in a fairly good deal of time and effort to meet them, without block-worthy behavior or 3RR violations in the past 6 months (which seems like a tall order of good behavior for a vandal), along with no suspicious behavior that would turn up during the investigation of those criteria (these criteria will require quite a bit more active investigation than those concerning most admin-assigned rights). If someone has committed that much time and effort to building a facade, chances are an added discussion requirement won't catch them either. Further, it seems like an unrealistically significant commitment for someone who'll be purposely damaging things, and I can't see it happening realistically -- vandals are generally drive-by. Finally, there won't be very many people with this right, and their contribs will be the first to get looked at if something starts breaking -- so if a problem is caused by a template editor, the culprit will be found and rolled back pretty quickly, and won't necessarily require much digging through transclusions to find.
All of that having been said, nothing precludes discussion from occurring at WP:PERM, even though it generally doesn't for the rights currently in existence. Anyone concerned can watch the applications and comment. We could even have a waiting period to wait for comments, though it should be fairly short so this doesn't inch towards being "RfA lite", and because the right is easily revoked anyway. I see such things as logistics that can be addressed later though, and don't require codifying right now. equazcion� | 06:02, 28 Sep 2013 (UTC)
The point I was making is that edit filter vandalism and template vandalism can be just as destructive or hazardous as each other. This is why I am advocating for a discussion first. Nothing similar to the easy come easy go process when applying for rights such as Rollbacker or Reviewer. There are even many cases where userrights were given too liberally as in not following the guidelines. And I'm not just talking about the ones in WP:PERM. The Reviewer right was given way too liberally without any form of discussion in almost all cases. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, there was a point where admins were giving the Autoreviewer right too liberally. Even with IP block exemption, admins have routinely not followed guidelines or protocol when granting the right and this is a right where the trust level needs to be similar to that of an admin. Like with what happened to Reviewer, the IP block exemption flag was given too liberally. I think this problem stems from the lack of discussions. If we have even a short discussion (maybe 3 days), we can have further assessment than just from one person which in many cases, it is. Elockid(Talk) 14:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
@Elockid: Actually, in most cases it's easy to find the source of template vandalism if you know how. The usual way is to just use Special:RecentChangesLinked to get a list of recent changes to linked pages in the Template namespace. Or, if you want to get a little fancier, you could use this userscript. That doesn't always help (e.g. Talk:Human/Archive 33#Infobox with broken code, where someone changed one of the automatic taxobox templates in a way that wasn't obviously vandalism but caused other bits of taxobox to exceed template limits), but such situations are rare. Anomie⚔ 13:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
But there's a problem. Most people don't know how to fix the problem as evident by the last template vandalism disaster. The community was unprepared last time and since this is not a common form of vandalism, I don't believe that the community as a whole this time. Elockid(Talk) 14:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
IMO, the way to fix that is to make it easier for people to find instructions on how to do it. I'm not familiar with this "last template vandalism disaster" you're referring to, but perhaps the thing to do is find out where the people who couldn't find it looked for help and put instructions (or links to instructions) there. Also, BTW, somewhere above you were concerned about someone vandalizing a template that's on the main page, but do note that the main page is cascade-protected so the proposal here wouldn't let non-admins edit those templates. Anomie⚔ 15:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Here's an example thread at ANI and my talk page. I've also had users sending me emails per WP:BEANS. This spanned a few months. With regards to the main page, my main reason for bringing it up is that like edit filters disallowing good faith edits, template vandalism can also disallows good faith edits. Elockid(Talk) 19:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
As per Elockid. A great step in removing already heavy administrator workload but a potentially dangerous tool in wrong hands. - Jayadevp13 15:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Neutral. About half a year ago, I had proposed that a similar right exist in this discussion. However, it seemed that my proposed discussion did not go anywhere, probably due to it being proposed at "closing time" for the Wikipedia talk:Protected Page Editor discussion, where I had posted the proposal. Glad to see that this proposal is getting a lot more attention than the one I tried to start did. However, with that being said (and after reading the proposal in its entirety), I do not agree with providing the permission to edit the Template:Editnotices/Pagepage or any of its subpages in its namespace as part of this right. I can see the edit notices getting either purposefully or accidentally vandalized as part of having this right. Putting up warnings for articles and other pages for readers to see has absolutely nothing to do with being a "template coder" and everything to do with making sure that everyone sees an important warning message. (However, one flaw in this proposal is not enough for me to "Oppose", but it is enough for me not to vote "Support.") Steel1943 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I think those last three criteria for granting are a bit overly specific, I would make it a bit looser than that, but we can work that out. Also with Lua here now, we should probably include Module space into this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the heading should be "Guidelines for granting", rather than "Criteria"? - Pointillist (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I think modules are supposed to be included - is the wording unclear anywhere? — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 11:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
TheDJ, Pointillist: Module space is already included here. As for the criteria, it's specific to alleviate concerns over the potential of this privilege to fall into unqualified hands. I felt there was a better shot at acceptance across the community if specifics were laid out. That said, the content of the section already has "guidelines" in bold, with mention that it's really at the administrator's discretion; but maybe I'll change the header as well. equazcion(talk) 11:15, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
You're doing a great job. I just thought that contrasting "Guidelines for granting" with "Criteria for revocation" might help with acceptance. - Pointillist (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :) I made the header change, FYI. equazcion(talk) 11:38, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
The last two criteria, IMO, are intended to ensure a editor is indeed learned in template editing... However, many of the editors who work with templates network together, and its possible for an editor to request coding changes on IRC, email, or user talk pages. These two should be discretionary. Perhaps the first four criteria should be closer to requirements, while the last two could be used as part of a larger list of skillsets for determining an editor's expertise. Coding in Lua is a greater indicator than use of the edit-protected template. - Floydianτ¢ 11:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm open to this and it seems people have thus far expressed a feeling that the criteria could use loosening. Stipulating that the final two criteria are more discretionary seems like a good idea, for the reasons you put forth. I'm not sure what exact textual changes to make yet -- As this is a meta issue we could discuss exact changes to employ on the talk page. equazcion(talk) 12:03, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I still think that the last two guidelines are weak, but I've compromised. I've spent 14.5 years and made hundreds of template edits (mostly on a specialized wiki for an MMO I played + on wikipedia) and I still don't know all there is to know about templates. That being said, having all of this experience, I can pretty quickly look it up in the appropriate manual on MediaWiki wiki. I think that the current wording of the guidelines allows for consideration of edit requests anywhere, including but not limited to the template talk page, IRC, email, and user talk pages. Technical 13 (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Question: Whilst this is presumaby technicaly doable, do we have any idication from the developers that they have the time and inclination to actually modify the necessary bits to create the user right? Pedro : Chat 11:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The technical ramifications were explored thoroughly in the drafting talk page, now archived but linked on this talk page. On the developer side, this change would only require config changes, rather than new coding (a new user right + a new protection level). See here for a portion of that, in which User:Anomie dropped by and indicated a new protection level is viable if the community is for it. equazcion(talk) 12:00, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Equazcion, I didn't see that link, appreciated. Pedro : Chat 12:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
(multiple ECs) Although i, in general, am not in favour of unbundling, i am not currently going to oppose. I do think, however, that the timing of this RfC is a little unfortunate, in view of the RfA running as it was started (yes, i'm aware that this particular RfA is part of the motivation for the RfC); it seems to me that if the Request is successful, as doesn't seem unlikely as i write this, that is a sign that the Community is more prepared to grant adminship for a single use than it was previously. That being the case, i'd not be in favour of the new usergroup being offered here. More generally, i'm not sure i understand why or where we would draw the lines of trust: If we trust someone to be able to edit templates through protection why wouldn't we trust him in other areas? Cheers, LindsayHello 12:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This proposal means a Template Editor candidate can be assessed using criteria that are much narrower and to some extent more objective than those in an RfA. There is also a far more credible mechanism for revocation. - Pointillist (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Pointillist ~ your last point there is probably the strongest reason i can see for supporting the proposal; i hadn't missed it, exactly, but my mind did gloss over it a bit. Cheers, LindsayHello 15:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, a general feeling was expressed even by supporters at the RfA that they were only supporting because there was no option such as the one described here. equazcion(talk) 13:11, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lindsay! I appreciate your concerns and questions. Let's see what I can answer, and maybe others can back me up or offer more insight. The current RfA process isn't as much about technical ability and trust. It's a bureaucratic process that requires a wide array of abilities and commitments from having created multiple new articles and contributed to many administrator area discussions (AfD, RPP, and AIV to name a few) to having a good ability to converse and discuss with other editors under extreme circumstances (being the subject of PA or TROLLing for example) instead of just being able to step away. Moreover, my observation of the RfAs I've contributed to has been that it is very much more about a popularity contest than it is about technical skills and trustworthiness. This new proposed right is more along the lines of creating a usergroup that will allow our more technically inclined editors to be more productive in the specific areas that they are interested in based on their skillset. Technical 13 (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Technical 13. I have to say that i completely disagree with one of your points (sorry!) ~ i think that RfA is very largely about trust, which is why i mentioned it earlier. We are giving a set of tools to a candidate based on whether or not we, as a community, trust him not to screw up or go crazy. Looking at their various abilities/experiences is just a means of evaluating their trustworthiness. That's why it seems to me that Trappist the monk and others have chosen to go along the best path in order to be more productive in the specific areas that they are interested in based on their skillset. Thus, from my perspective, this new userright is not necessary. But, we can agree to differ. Cheers, LindsayHello 15:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Alternative implementation recommended Create a mechanism in the code so individuals can be bypass edit protection for specific pages or groups of pages, then for the English Wikipedia use this new mechanism to do what is suggested above. This implementation will give other Wikipedias, including non-Foundation projects using the software, the flexibility do do things like give "edit protected page" rights to curators of arbitrary articles or groups of articles and their associated pages, or provide similar features. As the English Wikipedia specifically does not allow "ownership" this would not be used for curating content or likely any other purpose in article-space in the English Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This was discussed during the drafting stage of this proposal, but the developers indicated that it wasn't technically feasible. I'm assuming it can be done (from a software development standpoint it doesn't seem all that farfetched), but would require some substantial development and reworking of the software, so it would be far less likely to actually be implemented by the foundation should a proposal for it pass. equazcion(talk) 17:17, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Question: why are edit notices included in this? It's a completely different scope and skill set, isn't it? --Stfg (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
True, but none of the rationales for this proposal apply to editnotices. Just because they're in the Template namespace doesn't mean they should be lumped together with other templates. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Scope is arguable, but it's not a different skill set. Edit notices entail the same type of coding, as they're merely banners made of wikicode. Aside from editors' own talk page edit notices, access to edit notices is locked from most users under a similar precautionary principle rather than reasons of controversy etc. They fall under the category of things our many avid coders could contribute substantially to, but are currently barred from unnecessarily. Also, access to edit them is already granted via another non-admin rights group, account creator. It seemed appropriate to include it here. equazcion(talk) 19:28, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Question - Unlike another proposed rights change under discussion lately, which would require editors to have a certain amount of experience before reviewing articles at Afc, this proposal gives more rights to some individuals. If 100 non-admins all speak in favour of this proposal, and no one opposed them, would they have the ability to implement this? Whose support is needed to create new user rights, and who would decide who gets them? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Administrators are generally the ones who close proposals, meaning they provide the final assessment on whether or not a proposal has passed. As admins have the responsibility to disregard their personal feelings when doing so, and are elected largely based on their perceived ability to do so, it wouldn't and generally doesn't matter if everyone who supports a proposal are non-admins. New rights and protection levels are enacted by the Wikimedia Foundation's developers. When a community proposal that requires their action closes as successful, a request is put in to them. There have been instances where the Foundation chose to override the community and refused to enact a community-supported proposal, but that has been rare -- and during the drafting process there were at least two developers who commented on this one and seemed open to the idea if the community was. equazcion(talk) 23:14, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
PS. Several of the supporters on this page thus far are in fact administrators, in case that's relevant to your concern. equazcion(talk) 23:17, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I think technically it could be implemented by sysops, (The ones who run the servers) as it would I think be only a change in a config file. Once the mechanics were implemented, the right would be granted by local admins in accordance with what ever guidelines the RFC Produces. Presumably, the protection level change to the new one would also be carried out by local admins. Note, that support for the proposal is actually higher amongst admins who have !voted then non-admins, so a refusal of admins to cooperate doesn't seem like it should be a problem. Monty845 23:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
^What he said :) Sysops and developers probably each have config access, and I'm not sure which would actually enact the initial change. It doesn't really matter. Either way (to answer your questions simply), barring the Foundation vetoing this, our admins would indeed be doing most of what needs to be done, as Monty says; which, if this passes, they would do, regardless of who voted. equazcion(talk) 23:39, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who helped clarify this. This is the first time I've seen members of the community proposing to give themselves new rights, and I wanted to make sure it wasn't a pointless exercise. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That raises a question that hasn't really been addressed. If the proposal passes, should all fully protected templates be changed to the new template protection (possibly by an admin bot), should we try to review every fully protected template with an eye towards reduction (7k+ templates), or should they be reviewed and reduced on an as requested basis? Monty845 23:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
That question is better left for a subsequent discussion as it is kind of putting the cart in front of the horse in my opinion. Technical 13 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I imagine that one of those three options or some combination thereof would take place, though that's a logistic we can tackle when the time comes. Just a note though, the new protection level is intended to entirely replace full protection as the precautionary measure for high-risk templates, rather than only being applied to "reduce" the number of fully-protected templates. Full protection would be strictly reserved for extraordinary and temporary situations. equazcion(talk) 03:13, 12 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Some participants will have noticed that I have voted Support. This may appear to be a volte-face; it is not, and it is without prejudice to any current RfAs. The RfC proposal is very specific and as worded, I do not consider it to be an unbundling per se of admins' tools. The threshold requirements are very precise and I don't think that applications for it would be abused by new and/or inexperienced users, or hat-collectors. I see it very much in a similar way as, just for example, File Mover. How this new 'right' could/would be technically implemented is beyond the scope of this RfC - Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really sure this changes much. If a template is already used on so many pages, I find it unlikely that there's going to be some error about it that has to be fixed, or anything the community collectively decides must be changed about it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. LazyBastardGuy 04:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
An interesting point of this un-bundling discussion is what the end result will mean to admins. Certainly our rollbackers are more able to fight vandalism by assuming that right from the previously-exclusive admin domain. Will the administrators eventually be the only Wikipedians to hold the ban hammer, once all other powers are eventually devolved? Will admins primarily be responsible for negotiating solutions between warring editors? I think this is a step in the right direction, as Wikipedia has grown to large and diverse for our admins to manage. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There aren't many admin powers that can be unbundled without the need for an RfA-like scrutiny of the candidate's content contributions, experience, behavior and knowledge of policy. If "Wikipedia has grown to large and diverse for our admins to manage" then community-based solutions would be better than having new types of super user. I do agree that there are some interesting decisions ahead if we continue to see falling numbers of experienced editors and active administrators. For years we've assumed there would be an unlimited supply of admins to interpret our sometimes vague/contradictory precedents. A shortage of admins might force a re-examination of how Wikipedia works. That's not necessarily a bad thing. - Pointillist (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the main admin powers that "must" (i.e. because the Foundation says so or they probably would say so if it became an issue) go through an RfA-like referrendum are those that give access to deleted material, those that affect user-rights, and those that affect which editors can change a page. Some admin powers go hand in hand with these and it wouldn't make sense to unbundle them except in extraordinary cases (e.g. the ability to delete pages or revisions might be granted to editors with access to subscription-only journal articles, but only for copyright reasons, and only with some level of accountability in place). Most other admin rights could, in theory, be unbundled by community consensus without the Foundation vetoing it. I don't think the Foundation will have any official comment about unbundling the right to edit protected pages, although individuals who happen to be Foundation employees, officers, or volunteers might give their opinions as individual editors. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Who will be granting this right? Rather than any admin granting this right, I would suggest that only those that have experience editing templates grant it. My specific point is the criteria of 150 edits to template namespace, this does not say whether they are good or bad edits, whether they are a lot of minor edits just to up their edit count, or major edits. One editor may make 10 minor edits whilst at the same time another might make one major edit. An admin needs to be able to tell whether the applicant understands what they are doing.Martin451 (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to !vote here, as I see the need (I've made template edits on request, to templates I watch, which I didn't fully understand), but I'm not sure of the appropriate criteria. There needs to be some indication of trust, as editing a template which occurs in hundreds of thousands of articles can easily be disruptive, even if actually necessary. It would be a choice of a lesser disruption. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 23:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an important question I'd like to raise (and it seems like a good point to introduce a section break here): Will such a user right allow these people permission to edit the fully protected Main page templates? For those unaware, almost all of the text seen on the Main page is from templates. As the most visible page on Wikipedia, the Main Page has historically been one of the first targets of vandalism by a compromised admin account. And, in fact, a few compromised admins were blocked and privileges revoked on grounds of site security (this has led to the creation of editnotices like Template:Editnotices/Page/Main Page, warning admins of this). If the answer is yes, I hope there is no similar incident. I'm not opposed to them helping out editing Template:In the news, Template:Did you know, and the other Main page templates, but they better have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices like regular admins. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I think I can answer my own question: It depends on if there is also consensus to set them to the newly-created protection level, or leave them at the existing full protection. It also depends on what cascading protection does to such pages: will it cancel the newly-created protection level and automatically apply full-protection? Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't speak for everyone, and I'm not seeking to answer this with any degree of finality; this is something that should probably be discussed, so I'm just contributing to that discussion. My own take on this is that we're vetting and trusting the people who get this right to handle it responsibly, and if anything, that means knowing that templates on the main page are to be handled with extra caution; that any changes involving code are to be sandboxed first, etc. As most of the people who end up with this right will know more about what they're doing with templates than the average admin (by mere virtue of the fact that they were vetted specifically for that purpose, and that most admins are not coders), the issue of compromised accounts is all that remains.
One could look at this as increasing the risk of compromised accounts being able to inflict damage, for the simple fact that there will be more accounts that could be compromised. The same would be true, then, if we added a lot of new admins. Each would be an equal risk [correction: not equal, as compromised admins can do much more harm], though a calculated one that we would be taking in exchange for a benefit. In fact we take a calculated risk whenever we appoint a new admin or grant other rights. I don't see any logical reason to treat template editors differently from admins when it comes to the measures taken in limiting the risk that their accounts might be compromised.
Compromised template editors, if those occur, would be handled in a manner similar to compromised admins -- the only difference being that template editors can have their right revoked much more easily, should it be deemed necessary. The eventual page for requesting this right should and will contain appropriate warnings and recommendations regarding security (and thanks for bringing up that excellent point).
I'm not fully versed in cascade protection but I'm thinking it will likely elevate the protections of child templates up the level of the parent. If the current practice is to cascade protect the main page itself at sysop level, that could mean template editors couldn't feasibly gain access to its templates. Depending on what the general feeling is regarding template editors editing main page templates, we could see if there are technical solutions that would allow it. equazcion(talk) 05:14, 12 Sep 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that the cascading protection system will create a major technical hurdle to implementation. I'd say we should just leave this off the table for now, and come back to it at some point in the future, after the rest of template space is under the new system. Monty845 05:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That's my understanding as well. ( Though if you follow through the examples of the config parameter, there might be a way to work around it by making allowing the new protection level to be used for cascading. ) Agreed, that what to do with these pages are probably better decided after there is a feeling about how the new permission works in practice assuming that it passes. PaleAqua (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
We can't allow the new protection level to be used with cascading, because that would allow editors with the new userright to protect pages as well as just being able to edit them. (You can protect a page just by transcluding it on a cascade-protected page.) It's probably best to leave editing the Main page templates to admins. However, there are a lot of templates that are cascade-protected that don't really have to be. For example, {{db-meta}} is cascade-protected, but really doesn't need it - I think semi-protection would be a better fit. For templates like these we can simply remove cascading protection to allow editors with the new user right to edit them. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 10:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe all of the pages on the main page are covered under cascading protection which granting permissions to isn't on this proposal after discussing this with developers saying that it wouldn't be feasible to implement for specific namespaces. The editors that drafted up this proposal wanted to make this as slimmed down as possible as a starting point so that the editors that would qualify for this right can get started. There were a few other things on the draft that got cut in this interest and may be brought up in a future RfC if this proposal passes. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. After some thought and reading the responses here, it does appear the main page wouldn't be feasibly editable by the new user group without getting rid of its cascade protection, which should probably be left as is for the time being. If in the future it should be deemed necessary this can always be re-examined. equazcion(talk) 14:12, 12 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Cascade protection is a concern for me. The place where I want to work is cascade protected (Module:Citation/CS1). Policies and procedures defining Template editor user right need to have a mechanism that specifies how cascade protected pages are demoted to a protection level that allows template editor users to edit the pages.
Module:Citation/CS1 could just be removed from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items, and its protection level could be dropped. For anything used on "real" cascading-protection pages, like the Main Page, there's no possible way to edit those without having the ability to protect and unprotect pages. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure that you're right that these pages could just be removed from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. But who does that? How would I as a template editor user initiate the protection change? What are the policies and procedures that requesters and admins need to observe to implement a protection change. If these things aren't defined now, they need to be. They really goes hand-in-hand with the adoption of this RfC, don't they?
I never realized cascading protection was such a mess. Was there ever a broadly participated discussion supporting how its being used both at Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items, and in the various user space versions of that? The use certainly isn't reflected at WP:CASCADE. I'd say sorting it out is probably beyond the scope of this RFC. Monty845 17:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
You just ask any admin to remove it from there, and hope they're willing to. So yes, it's a mess. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
While there are several areas where cascade protection will currently prevent template editors from editing directly, the vast majority of high-risk templates don't fall under that category. With the resistance met in the past regarding a rights group such as this one, and how seemingly close we are to it gaining acceptance now, I don't think it's wise to demand that this be a perfect solution at this point in time. The issues posed by cascade protection can be addressed from a logistical standpoint later on in view of the fact that the community supports trusted template editors having access to high-risk templates -- something that will have been demonstrated already if this RFC passes. The procedures surrounding cascade protection weren't adopted with something such as this proposal in mind, and I'm fairly confident that with relatively minor procedural addendums it can be dealt with. equazcion(talk) 17:48, 12 Sep 2013 (UTC)
If their trusted they should be allowedWWE fan 4.0 (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
While the technical aspects of cascading protection make this more-or-less a moot point, I think we should still explicitly state: Actual full "sysop" protection will then be available as an extraordinary measure in the Template and Module namespaces, to temporarily disallow editing by anyone but administrators, should the need arise. All templates and modules transcluded to the Main Page will remain permanently fully protected. (proposed addition underlined). — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 16:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm wary of declaring that the main page will not be editable by the new rights group when the reasons that is currently the case are a bit muddy. It's at least due to a technical/logistical limitation, and if that changes at some point in the future, there's the question of whether it would still be be restricted on principle. I think it might be best to explain the issues surrounding the main page to anyone who might express concerns about it as they come, if they come. My humble opinion. equazcion(talk) 18:11, 12 Sep 2013 (UTC)
The trouble I have with saying permanently is that the Main page is dynamic and constantly changing, so what is transcluded on it one day is not necessarily going to be the next day. Also, I'm thinking that adding something like that distracts the current question posed of "Should there be a new template_editor group to allow editors who demonstrate competence in those areas to edit non-cascading protected templates, modules, and editnotices without opening those conceivably higher risk areas to those that may wish to do harm to the encyclopedia?" If/When, this proposal passes, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to hash out extra privileges and/or restrictions in a future RfC. Technical 13 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this discussion affects enough editors that it would benefit from a watchlist notice. Do others think this is a good idea? — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 12:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
If only we had an administrator to do it! Oh wait... Yep! Technical 13 (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I've added a suggestion to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. I don't want to implement it myself, at least not right away, as I was involved in the drafting of the RfC. Maybe if there are no objections after a few days then I can add it. I want to give editors who watchlist that page a chance to comment on it first, though. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 14:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please do it. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I DONT KNOW WHAT ANY OF THIS MEANS BUT IT CAME up on my watchlist so I thought I'd tell you here. Thank you. New England Cop (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I haven't !voted in this and don't intend to. I find the arguments of WDGraham, above quite convincing and if this RfC is unsuccessful then I think WDGraham's comments could inspire some alternative measures. Specifically:
Is there any guidance on sandboxing for templates? If people knew the most efficient way of doing it they might be more easily persuaded. Perhaps we should write some. Or if there is already a really good essay (or similar) on this, perhaps it just needs a little advertising.
What is the best way to reduce the amount of pre-emptive protection of templates? Are there currently some fully protected templates that should be semi or even not protected?
To expand upon my comment about preemptive protection, a good example is Module:Citation/CS1, which was the template at the centre of the RfA which seems to have sparked this discussion. Yes, it's widely used, but it's an obscure subpage which isn't transcluded directly into articles - on average it gets less than 30 hits per day[32]. I don't think disruptive users are likely to find it and if they do it'll be at a manageable rate - and they'll be reverted before it propagates to articles. --W.D.Graham 10:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Significant changes to critical templates are already sandboxed. The problems are, among other things, a lack of admins who know what they're doing enough to confirm and implement changes. There are quite literally almost none who actually handle the {{editprotected}} queue, and a couple who do it simply to help out since otherwise nothing would ever get done implement edits on blind faith that the coder knows what they're doing.
CS1 and other relatively lesser-known modules could actually be said to be more dangerous than the average high-use template, as since it's barely watched by anyone, and it's a low-level technical template, problems wouldn't be traced to it swiftly. In fact there was a time when deeply-transcluded and relatively unknown templates were nearly the only ones that got fully protected, for that reason.
We could debate the pervasiveness of the preemptive protection practice, but that's been done, as this isn't a new issue. This latest proposal was sparked by user Trappist and his CS1 work, but there is a long history of proposals to create trusted user groups that are allowed to edit "through protection". All have failed, primarily because they touched on the principle of "unbundling" administrative tools (so that a single administrative power can be assigned without assigning them all). This proposal to strictly limit the permission to template work where a proven need and aptitude is demonstrated comes out of the dust of those as an effort to cut through and around the everlasting controversy and drama surrounding "unbundling", and perhaps finally, after years of this, get our vast supply of good coders, who are willing and able to help, the access that would allow them to.
There are many alternatives that one could say are more ideal; the problem is getting them implemented in a divided community. Many of them have already been tried, discussed, debated, proposed. This is not a new issue. If this proposal can at least be a compromise, that many might not be enthralled with but could perhaps at least tolerate, maybe we can finally take an actual progressive step this time. equazcion(talk) 11:15, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I may have said this somewhere else, but I do look at the edit-protected queue; text only changes are easy, if it looks uncontroversial, no problem. Likewise, if there is actually a discussion followed by consensus, I'm pretty willing to make the change (though I did get bit by that once, it was very widely discussed, clear consensus, and no one noticed the problem until after the edit), because at worst there was consensus in favor of trying what ever caused the problem. The problem is that most of the edits in the queue involve changes to relatively complex template code, most templates aren't coded to make it easy to follow the code structure, and when it comes to multiple nested templates, it can get very hard and/or take a lot of time to basically deconstruct the template to understand what the code is doing. Sandboxing is great for relatively simply templates, but the complex or nested ones can have so many usecases that even with sandboxing, it can be hard to evaluate whether anything will break. Now I don't fault those admins who take it on blind faith the requestor got it right, but I'm not comfortable doing that, and I think that is probably a major factor in the lack of active admins there. Monty845 05:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I pass no judgment there. I've said before, it's merely a fact that needs stating (the fact that there are barely any admins who take on the protected edit queue -- but thanks for being one of the ones who does!). Coding edits aren't easy to evaluate even if one knows what they're doing, and if I were an admin, I'd probably stay away from the protected edit requests myself. Taking on a couple of scripts that you devote your efforts to is one thing. But this... It's not easy, nor fun, nor quick -- even if one knows what they're doing in general -- to evaluate several odd unrelated edits across all manner of different coding projects, one after the other. It's not efficient and shouldn't be necessary. equazcion(talk) 11:17, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Replace the criteria for removal above with these general criteria:
The editor has been inactive for 12 months.
The editor was granted access to the tool in error.
The editor demonstrates a pattern of abusing the tool after repeated warnings.
The editor blatantly abuses the tool.
Number 2 is new, it's meant to cover cases where an administrator was deceived into granting access under false pretenses (e.g. editor had multiple accounts not disclosed to the granting admin, this was his "clean" one) as well as clerical errors that result in someone getting access when they shouldn't (e.g. a username-typo by the granting-admin).
Number 3 covers repeated, non-blatant vandalism, disruptive editing, using the tool to gain the upper hand in controversial situations, not using sufficient care, and just about any other mis-use of the tool that results in a warning followed by repeated mis-use.
Number 4 covers blatant mis-use, usually the kind that COULD get a block at any administrator's discretion. One strike and you are out.
#2 seems a little creepy, ie. excessively specific. On the extremely rare occasion that's bound to happen and is subsequently proved to be the case, I don't think there will be any doubt as to what action must be taken.
3 and 4, on the other hand, are a little too open to interpretation. "Abuse" does cover everything, but it does so by being anemic and ambiguous. It's like saying, "The permission can be revoked if used for a purpose that everyone agrees should warrant revocation". Given the history of these proposals, the criteria for removal need to reassure. Presenting more specifically what exactly will constitute abuse, I think, is paramount. equazcion(talk) 01:09, 17 Sep 2013 (UTC)
As an observation, the appointment process might be better modelled after the process for becoming a clerk. The clerk appointment system works extremely well, and very similar criteria seem to apply here, in that you want people who have been vetted by their peers.
I suggest the following procedure, based on the SPI Clerk process:
Any user in good standing can ask to be considered as a template editor. Template editors are initially accepted upon consensus of the current template editor membership, following a request to any template editor. If they do not have a proven track record of technical competence editing templates and/or modules, prospective template editors may be asked to serve a probationary period, typically lasting X months, during which time any edits must be approved by a full template editor. The template editors may then recommend full template editor status to the bureaucrats who will decide the matter.
I think that this addresses many of the concerns given by those who oppose the proposal as given. In particular, any talented coder can jump right in to the technical team, just like on any open source project.
Incidentally, at the risk of bikeshedding, can we think up a snappier name than "template editor"? How about "technician"? -- De Guerre (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd be wary of creating a system where the current members decide on who to accept for membership. Both SPI and Arb clerks are supervised by those they clerk for, whereas the Template Editor cabal would be pretty much independent. The only place I can think of where such a system exists on wiki is with promotion to Crat, which is judged by other Crats, but its such a heavily participated discussion, and such a high support level required, that it largely eliminates the issue. Now something softer, like having a Template Editor noticeboard, (I know, too many noticeboards already) and holding a short discussion on requests for the right there, which would be open to anyone, but would be noticed and participated in primarily by template editors would be a more acceptable idea. As for the name, better it be self explanatory, no one is going to intuit that technician means editor of protected templates. Monty845 17:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The thing I don't like about the current proposal is that any admin can make anyone a template editor, whether they have the skills or not. This is the rationale behind davidwr's suggestion #2. I only suggested a concrete procedure because it felt wrong to complain without proposing a fix. I'm not sold on it as a solution, but I think that the problem that both it and davidwr's proposal are trying to solve is a real problem. -- De Guerre (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Handling specific permissions without a process is generally seen as safe since they can be revoked as easily as they're granted. Regarding Monty's musing of a "noticeboard" type of implementation, I was looking over WP:PERM, where requests for this permission are planned to go, and I don't see anything explicitly prohibiting outside comments there. I'd be hesitant to inadvertently encourage a voting environment, lest it become RfA-esque, but encouraging editors to assist purely in confirming that an applicant's prerequisite claims are accurate might be something to consider. equazcion(talk) 08:26, 19 Sep 2013 (UTC)
De Guerre, consider the edit filter manager right. While its assignable by admins, there are very few with the right, it is handed out very cautiously. Requests go the the edit filter talk page, sit for a period of time to allow for objections, and if I understand practice, often get cross posted to AN for a day before final granting. While the Template Editor right would not need to be as stringent, the practice there does provide an example of an alternative. Monty845 14:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
My similar fear is that the admins will simply deny all or most of the requests as untrustworthy or for some other reason so in the end it will just be a useless Role. This is about as good as we can get but its still not ideal. Ideally it would be for experienced editors to be given access to the Admin tools without all the gauntlet and drama. If they abused them then the tools can just be taken away again. But since the admin club will never allow that, the only thing we can do is to go through the extra trouble of creating a new user right because the vast majority of the admins who do have access to the protected templates don't know how they work. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
@138.162.8.57: I just saw your comments on the RfA talk page saying similar things. I don't know how much experience you have here (a CIDR range search counted ten thousand contributions from your 138.162.0.0/16) but in the RfA's I've attended it's often non-admins who are more cautious about promoting new admins, and that is partly because in the past it has taken months – and a lot of drama – to remove the tools when necessary. The good thing about the Template editor proposal is that it is suitable for people who don't want to be admins, and who might not have the necessary background and policy knowledge required. So if you haven't already supported the proposal, please do! thanks - Pointillist (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
What you describe, De Guerre, would likely encourage an exclusive club mentality. The suggestion to assign a "snappy" title alone is risky, as even an arguably humble-sounding one encourages an ironic sense of vanity. Combine that with a policy of only letting people in when they meet with the approval of the current members, and you have a recipe for accusations of agendas and elitism. Specific rights are traditionally assigned by administrators, with titles that are generally bland literal descriptions, and in practice I think that is the safest route. equazcion(talk) 02:35, 19 Sep 2013 (UTC)
For the name bit, I have wondered if "template committer" might be a better name. This permission is similar to the commit bit in many open source projects, and by using the term committer it invokes the process model that is desired by this new process of changes being done in a branch ( sandboxes ) and then committed ( applied through page protection ) after ensuring ( consensus etc. ) that the changes are okay. It also avoids the connotation of the name "template editor" that other editors can't create or work on templates without this. PaleAqua (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of starting to sound like a negative nancy... Template commiter might be more technically accurate, but it's also more esoteric -- ie. less intuitive to the community at large. I also personally feel "Template editor" has a particular "no big deal" connotation, as in, "I'm just an editor who happens to specialize in templates", rather than "I have a superpower" :) Just my opinion. If everyone else feels differently then of course the name could be changed. equazcion(talk) 19:13, 19 Sep 2013 (UTC)
How about Template Coders or simply Coders? That's along the lines of what the watchlist notification for this page read.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel very strongly about the name, but "clerk" has some implications. Here at enwiki, clerks seem to be people who follow a process neutrally. Likewise, admins shouldn't use their powers to support their own point of view—lest they lost the confidence of the community. But I don't think we're expecting this sort of passive stance from potential template editors, are we? On the contrary, they'll be our usual type of contributor with the usual motivation to fix things. The only difference is that they have proved they have the [technical skills, experience, cautious temperament, etc] to handle templates that are extensively transcluded into articles. What we mean is "protected template editor". What's the best way to say that? - Pointillist (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I think PaleAqua's "Template committer" suggestion is the most accurate while still being concise, if that's what we're going for. I'm still of the opinion that "Template editor" is accurate enough while also avoiding elitism nicely; but if there is to be a different name, Template committer has my vote among those mentioned thus far. equazcion� | 21:45, 24 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I found the proposal and all the reasons provided to be valid to create this new user right for experienced editors. But the one thing which I don't find much useful is the point number 5 under the Criteria for revocation which states that The editor has been inactive for 12 months. We also have other user rights like Rollback, Autopatrolled, Reviewer, File mover and many more except for Account creator, Administrators and Bureaucrats where these rights are not removed even if the said user has been inactive for 12 months or longer than that. Account creator is usually removed if the user is no longer involved in the ACC process or with the education program and stops their activity in these places. But that's a different thing. As this user right is related to editing Wikipedia, and if we can trust the editor not to misuse the template editor user right and they have used it constructively; I don't see the point of removing it after 1 year just because the respective user/editor is inactive. So why is it necessary to have it here ? TheGeneralUser(talk) 16:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I entirely agree with you, I think it was added as a general provision for similar reasons as why it is applied to administrators. I support the provision's removal at this time, but I think that adjustments such as these should be done in about six months at a follow up RfC to make this right work better for those with it. I think that waiting until we have about six months of data of how the right is used will go a long way in tweaking these things in a way that most everyone will feel comfortable. Technical 13 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree on general principles: All user rights that actually give you the ability to do something that you can't do manually should automatically be removed after a long period of inactivity, without prejudice for re-enabling upon request. Why? A long period of inactivity increases the chance that an account will be unknowingly compromised. Heck, I would even go so far as to have accounts that are inactive for over a year lose autoconfirmed status, just so if an account is compromised it can't immediately be used for abuse that requires autoconfirmed/confirmed status. I do agree with Technical 13 that the best time to discuss this will be a few months after it is implemented. I'm good with a 6-month wait and of course I'm fine if the community agrees to drop this requirement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I've read through this, and I think the definition of "template" is vague. (If I've missed a key sentence, please enlighten me : )
From a technical standpoint, am I correct to presume that template equals anything in template: space. And that it doesn't include anything else.
The reason I'm asking for specifics is, first, as I think we all know, most any page may be transcluded like a page in template space can be, and second: whether this involves mediawiki space in any way. - jc37 05:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
A "template" would be anything in the template namespace or the module namespace. The proposal is to make a new kind of protection that can only be applied in the template and module namespaces, and then to switch the protection on all existing protected templates and modules to the new type of protection. Then we would create a new user right that allows editors to edit pages protected with the new kind of protection. We are also proposing that this user right allows editors to bypass the title blacklist (in all namespaces), to give these editors the ability to create edit notices. User rights aren't limited by namespace, which is why we need the new type of protection and why we can't limit blacklist-bypassing to the template namespace. The proposal doesn't include the rights that would be necessary to edit the MediaWiki namespace. (Note that this is just my understanding - if I have any of the details wrong, feel free to correct me.) — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 07:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Essentially what Mr. Stradivarius said. The systematic change in protection would only occur for templates in the Template: namespace. If you're asking whether transcluded pages outside Template: space might be included, then I'd say they probably could be -- if they've been full-protected for the same reason, ie. due to a high transclusion rate that makes them high-risk. I'm not aware of any such pages currently, but if there are any -- and I think that would be pretty rare -- they could be similarly switched to the new protection level on a case-by-case basis. If you have any specific examples in mind it might be easier to answer this if we had a look at them. As for MediaWiki space, this proposal doesn't involve that at all. equazcion� | 10:56, 3 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Really, anything with enough transclusions to qualify for protection on that ground should probably be in template space already (with the possible exception of userboxes, but I don't know if any of them are protected anyway). Monty845 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
@Equazcion: I thought the idea was to include the Module: namespace as well. Or is there something I'm missing here? — Mr. Stradivarius on tour♪ talk ♪ 06:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Module namespace is indeed included, as are edit notices; I was just keeping it simple to answer Jc37's specific question about page transclusions :) equazcion� | 09:14, 9 Oct 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
