Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

i want to create new page for minecolonies but it say you cant Denizprof (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Denizprof. Brand new users are limited in their ability to directly create articles. But you can work on a WP:DRAFT and submit it for review. Please see the template I left on your talk page. If you have any additional questions, I suggest dropping a note at the WP:HELPDESK. It's extremely late where I live, and I am about to go to bed. But you you can also drop me a line on my talk page. Just be aware I may not get to it right away. Happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Denizprof, you'll want to check out Wikipedia's general notability guideline and guideline for video game notability and make sure Minecolonies warrants an article before putting effort into creating one. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A minecraft mod is unlikely to meet our notability guidelines, sorry. Secretlondon (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My daughter's age is listed wrong on the following list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Teen_USA_2024 (says 19) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_New_Jersey_Teen_USA (on this one it's just listed as TBA) Julia Livolsi Miss New Jersey Teen USA 2024 It should be 18, not 19. Her birthday is February 21, 2006. Thank you. Glnrcker (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a reliable source that states her birthday. If it doesn't exist then her birthday and age shouldn't be included in the article. Nemov (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, at the time of your comment, the source in the article was a profile of last year's Miss Teen New Jersey, who is a different person. I have removed that source and added a CN tag, but the article needs further attention from editors who are familiar with the subject matter. I've been trying not to be my usual ornery self, but it's not great that this report sat here for 16 hours before anyone actually looked into it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Glnrcker: What that means is that you need to provide a citation from a reliable published source which mentions her date of birth. Read WP:RS for the Wikipedia definition of what kind of sources are considered reliable. Once a reliable source confirms the information, the articles can be corrected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what constitutes an RS in this space, but through a few quick searches I found 2 instances reporting 19[1][2] and haven't found one saying otherwise (or any with a specific birthday). CMD (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Her birthday is February 21, 2006, according to her birth announcement in the Glen Rock Gazette, April 7, 2006 Page A7, and apparently she is from Glen Rock. Including her birth announcement, there were five mentions/photos of her in that newspaper. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion with an IP on the talk page of the page Du Quesnoy which would need some clarifications by an administrator, as I'm personnaly not sure I'm fully aware of how to interpret certain rules on the english wikipedia, although it seems clear to me that there are several problems on that talk page.
Mostly, it's suggested that I'm libeling living people.
Kontributor 2K (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu to Taumata Hill to be more concise. I didn't believe a reasonable person would oppose the shortening of such a lengthy title to a common name, but it is clear from the talk page (which I should looked at first) that this is controversial.

I cannot move it on my own due to a title blacklist, apologies. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried but failed thanks to weirdness involving long names. Thanks Gadfium for the help. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well now I think I screwed it up. I had reverted my own move because of the soft hyphens in the title, so now it's at Taumata Hill again. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like AN is archiving awfully fast so I looked at this page and found instructions for two different bots to archive this noticeboard. One states that discussions are archived after three days but they are obviously being archived sooner than that and they are not being archived manually. Could someone who is knowledgeable about archiving make sure that the instructions are clear and not confusing and only one bot is archiving this page? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the instructions is commented out; I changed the other to seven days. BilledMammal (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BilledMammal. I appreciate you checking on this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza Gsgdd (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the reason it hasn't been closed is that very few uninvolved editors have the time, ability and inclination to read and understand what people have said in that discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yah - its too big. I think we need another page move with only the top titles from that discussion and ask people only to vote for one of them. what do you think? Gsgdd (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway we need to close it asap Gsgdd (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looks like these are the titles suggested

1. Allegations of genocide in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

2. Genocide accusations in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

3. Gaza genocide question

4. Gaza genocide

5. Gaza genocide accusations

6. Accusations of genocide in Gaza by Israel

7. Accusations of genocide in Gaza

8. Gaza genocide accusation

9. Allegations of 2023–2024 genocide in Gaza

10. Allegations of genocide in Gaza (2023–2024)

11. Allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza

12. Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war

13. Allegations of genocide in Gaza in the Israel–Hamas war

14. Accusations of genocide by Israel in Gaza

15. Accusations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians

16. Allegations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians Gsgdd (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. It will take some time to read and close. – Joe (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for closing it Gsgdd (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page Casablanca derby is every time vandalized by one person who deletes the table information absolutely need protection Ji Soôo97 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried requesting it here? (non-administrator comment) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're both edit warring, and now it's locked. Please use the Talk page to establish consensus. Star Mississippi 01:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked Leithiani as a sock of LTA Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. They performed a bunch of page moves prior to the block, if anyone is looking for a 4th of July /election day project.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Normanhunter2, a confirmed sock who participated in a bunch of AfDs; their votes should be struck.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Won't have a use for them anymore. See ya later, space cowboys. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've removed those two permissions from your account as requested. DanCherek (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

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

Technical news

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

Miscellaneous

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

I would like to request a block on my old account M14325 (talk · contribs), which I no longer have access to. The account has already been blocked in de- and metawiki and now I would like to request a block here as well. Regards, Wüstenspringmaus _talk 07:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wüstenspringmaus, rather than do it piecemeal, you should probably request a global lock at meta:Steward_requests/Global#Requests_for_global_(un)lock_and_(un)hiding. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Primefac, they appear to have requested a lock at Meta here, though it was declined and they were re-directed to local admins. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, I did wonder if they might disallow self-locking. I don't really see much point in blocking an account that has zero edits and was created two years ago, but... meh.  Done. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a user vanishes and then returns, should pages about that user, eg RfC's that the vanished user deleted, be undeleted, or signatures that they altered after vanishing be restored? DuncanHill (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So per WP:VANISH, If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed. Though as neither deleting pages (except for user pages) or altering signatures is part of the vanishing process in the first place, they shouldn't have happened and therefore shouldn't need to be reversed. – Joe (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Among the deleted pages are Arbcom candidate statements, an MfD, their own contributions on other users' talk pages, and their own talk page. They also renamed an RfC, altered their own sigs on various pages. Then they returned and now edit under the same name, but I can't see any linking of the old account (which has a generic vanished name) and its edits and logs to the new one. This was all done some years ago, but the editor is active now. DuncanHill (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds pretty exceptional, though the policy does allow for exceptions. Maybe you should email ArbCom about it? – Joe (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like scorched earth than vanishing, but if you do have specific concerns about this issue and do not want to divulge here (which I totally understand) I agree that contacting an Arb (or even an Oversighter) is probably the best bet. I also agree, in general, that deleted pages should not be restored purely because they have returned; it's not like the U1 becomes invalid. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them wouldn't qualify for U1 in the first place. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Itzler I am a live streamer and is being harrased by multiple trolls, im looking to get this page reverted back to a previous state, and lock the page from further edits. I am the owner of this wiki.

you can see there is trolls by checking the name of the image they provided, and a brief reading Gasnobrakes10 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there are grounds for protection on BLP grounds which I plan to enact and potential blocks, please read WP:OWN. You have no specific role when the content is compliant with guidelines here. Star Mississippi 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to a version on June 22, right before the recent wave of disruptive editing began. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and I think I got all of the offending content. If I missed any, @Cullen328 or any admin please feel free to continue. I'm about to hop offline. Star Mississippi 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ETA, I have just semi'ed it. Found BLP violations going back to 2017. Have to hop offline but if someone else has time and can eyeball, that would be helpful. Star Mississippi 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please remove the perms associated with this account? I tried to come back, but have decided to scramble my passwords and leave this account for good. All the best, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 18:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed you extra permissions. Let me know if you change your mind. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight you missed autoreviewer I think. The Night Watch (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now done. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user Amayorov, despite having an eight-year-old account, made their first edit on 3 July 2024 before proceeding to pass 500 edits and receive extended confirmed permissions on 6 July 2024. All of the edits made, 100s a day, were on European politics and history. Shortly after achieving EC permissions, suddenly it's all 1948 Palestine war, specifically inserting Benny Morris as a source all over the place and doing some work on the Benny Morris biography. Apparently European content has lost its appeal. Make of this what you will. I also have to wonder if, despite having an extant account for 8 years, achieving 500 edits in three days (rather than the 30 days as envisaged in the ECR rule set) is somewhat of a violation of the spirit of the restrictions, even if not the technical function. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any issues with the edits?

Discussions recently have come to the conclusion that absent obvious abuse - unproductive or disruptive edits, or repeatedly making a dozen edits to do what could be done in one or two - it’s acceptable for editors to work towards ECP.

To an extent, this makes sense - if we tell people "this is what you need to edit this topic area" we can’t reasonably expect editors interested in the topic area to not work towards it. BilledMammal (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see my reply Amayorov (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues other than that pushing Benny Morris here there any everywhere with little regard for any other sources is a terrible form of disregard for NPOV? That alone, in a contentious topic area, is pretty disruptive. The 500/30 rule is aimed at ensuring a minimum level of understanding and competency. Yes, some are encouraged to rush the requirements, but we shouldn't encourage editors to rush the requirements. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "push Benny Morris" but rather expanded on the already existing citations to his work. Recall that Benny Morris' 2008 book had already been the most quoted reference on that page. When necessary, I've added phrases such as "some scholars allege that" etc.

When you and other users disagreed with my edits, I didn't proceed, but rather created sections on the Talk page. Unlike other users, you didn't engage.

I think the extensive sourcing I use in any of my edits illustrate that I at least possess "a minimum level of competency". Amayorov (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have engaged. As of the time of me writing this, there are at least two comments from me to you that you have not responded to. Again, this can be checked. I suggest you desist from misrepresenting very verifiable information in this forum. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote those comments less than an hour before reporting me on the Admin board. Yes –– all of this can be checked.

I suggest you desist from misrepresenting very verifiable information in this forum. Amayorov (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in regardless to the substance of this complaint - with the edits to reach 500.

If we don’t tell editors that they can’t work towards 500/30, then how should they know we don’t want them to work towards them? If the goal is to ensure a minimum level of understanding and competency, and 500 edits isn’t sufficient for that, then let’s modify the requirements - for example, require edits to be a minimum byte size to count, as I have proposed in the past. BilledMammal (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea. However, I have clearly written plenty of bytes in my 500 edits, in some cases going as far as copy-editing entire pages that had been poorly translated or unsourced. You can see all that in my edit history. Amayorov (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is patently false. I have made extensive edits to various topics, including military history and Central Asian history, paganism, and engineering. All my corrections were extensively referenced. I have also rewritten several large articles, requiring copy-edit and verification.

It is true that I have re-activated my account in the week. This is simply a reflection of the fact that I have free time, and have grown fond of Wikipedia.

Benny Morris' 1948 book has always been the most referenced book on the topic. I have used not only that book but also others by different authors, as well as sourcing UN archives.

I have added corrections and more references on the subject, including 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and Palestinian nationalism. None of the other users had an issue with my work.

By contrast, @Iskandar323 has reverted my edits without giving a justification. They also ignored my attempts at a discussion in the Talk pages. Amayorov (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a justification, and I have responded on talk. I suggest that you avoid misrepresenting things that can be checked up on (on an administrative noticeboard). And yes, other users have taken up issue with your edits. I'm not sure why you would misrepresent this. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your justification was RV gf edits - unfortunately, adding random titbits of background information from Morris, removing dates and badly rephrasing other parts is not an improvement.

This is not specific or constructive. In order to clarify your objections, I created discussion topics on the Talk page – which you have ignored. Amayorov (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to some, not all of your posts. However, I would prefer to see what administrators think of this situation before potentially unduly spending more time on explaining why expanding claims from a single source that is, in your own words, already the most [(over-)]quoted reference on the page, is not particularly in the service of NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have responded to them half an hour ago, almost immediately posting on the Admin board.

Yes, Benny Morris is the most quoted historian on the 1948 war. I barely added new references to him, usually simply extending the existing ones. Amayorov (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should be grateful that you've helped illustrate quite how over-represented Benny Morris is (more than 50 citations and mentions), but again, that begs the question of why you think this clear imbalance problem should be worsened. If you can't see that there might be an imbalance problem there, that somewhat illustrates why the 500/30 rule exists and why a month of actual editing is, in spirit, what is expected of it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because Morris has written multiple, highly regarded books on the 1948 war. He's cited by plenty of other authors, such as Shlaim, Khalidi, Ben-Ami, and others.

Besides, and as I've previously explained, I didn't add much new material. I've clarified previous references and added qualifications to partisan statements. Amayorov (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a content dispute, Iskandar323, moreso than any actual gaming. It seems like it might be better to have discussed this with the editor on a talk page, not hauled them to AN. The editor's contributions appear to be in good faith, and while I haven't gone into a full deep-dive or anything of the sort, they don't seem to be unconstructive at first glance. Favoring a specific historian isn't necessarily a behavioral issue, so long as they are willing to discuss inclusion and abide by the results of consensus. Building a culture of continually questioning those who take the time to build a constructive editing history in order to prove they can be trusted with access to contentious topics is a terrifying idea. If I was to accuse someone of gaming for rollback, for example, because they spent a lot of time reverting vandals, it would likely be considered at the very least rude, and at worst a personal attack. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a content dispute for sure, which I will continue in good faith. At the same time, there is only one type of account that I have ever seen that goes from 0 to 100 edits a day on some random topic before switching (after 3 frenetic days) to almost pure ARBPIA edits, and it isn't the constructive variety. There are plenty of dubious accounts that have just passed this threshold currently operating in the contentious topic area. This account, however, caught my eye due to the rapid edit aggregation and glaring topic switch. I have raised the issue of quite a few gaming accounts on this noticeboard, and to date, most of them have raised eyebrows for admins too. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, from my perspective there appears to be some unnecessary edit farming in this user's background. For instance, Sukhoi Shkval did not require 40 edits in a row to achieve this relatively minimal difference, while not managing to add a single in-line citation or new source. On 9К512 Uragan-1M we got some extremely minor, non-substantive copyediting that frankly didn't change the readability of the article much. An improvement? Perhaps trivially, but reasonable editors could disagree there. Worth sanctioning over? IMO probably not, but I don't think Iskandar323's concerns are without merit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 9K512 Uragan-1M, the article had been marked as “roughly translated.” I did my best to correct residual grammatical errors, before marking the issue as resolved.

Regarding Sukhoi-Shkval, I agree that 40 edits were excessive. One reason for this was that I was still learning about the editing tools, discovering new templates and features. Another justification is that I had to decipher some unclear text, such as “Each wing has a rudder that functions as a rudder and aileron.” Here, the first “rudder” is in fact not a rudder at all, but a flap. I had only figured that out once I read through the sources. Amayorov (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something going on with ARBPIA, perhaps unrelated to this, but worth thinking about. We had a recently compromised account jump into ARBPIA in the past week, threatening to report other editors if reverted, then reporting a prominent ‘opponent’ to WP:AE, volunteering to be topic banned if the ‘opponent’ is also topic banned, before being Checkuser blocked by an Arb. starship.paint (RUN) 23:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to report this user as well. Account created in 2016 but first edit made a few days ago and quickly put in 500 edits, immediately jumps into Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area, seemingly POV-pushing. Seems to be an experienced user as well. I agree with @Starship.paint that there seems to be something going on with ARBPIA, specifically a surge in sock accounts. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether these plots can provide any illumination. The dramatic change in slope and shape of the bytes added and page byte size change curves after extendedconfirmed has been granted at 500 edits is consistent with the notion of gaming to obtain the privilege in order to enter the contentious PIA topic area. These kind of signal shapes for users that enter the PIA topic area can often be seen for sockpuppets of AndresHerutJaim/יניב הורון, not that that suggests this is an AHJ sock. Wikipedia provides tools to help new users rapidly gain EC. Sometimes this kind of impressive efficiency is thanks to the Wikimedia Foundation Growth team's "Newcomer tasks" project. Also, their first edit being an WP:ARBECR violation is not great. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I was doing my edits, I was using almost exclusively Wiki’s backlog. I chose the issues that I could conceivably help with, such as Rough Translation from Russian and French (the languages I speak), and lead rewrite requests. I intend to continue on with this work in the future.

And, yes, I’m interested in the IP history, about which I’ve read a lot. Since gaining extended privileges, I’ve made improvements to those articles. Those edits have arguably been better-sources than any of my other work, due to my having more knowledge to my having more knowledge on the topic. I do not deny that I wanted to contribute to these topics from the start. Amayorov (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Amayorov but you don't need to defend yourself to me. I'm nobody. I'm just providing information. Either way, the notion of gaming in Wikipedia and its relationship to the WP:ARBECR barrier is currently rather vague. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you learn to add a colon prefix to the category name in your busy schedule by the way e.g. :Category:Wikipedia backlog|Wiki’s backlog? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The visual editor adds it automatically, when I link to the url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_backlog Amayorov (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, regardless of the specifics of this editor, it's important for the community to acknowledge that a) WP:ARBECR was introduced as an entry barrier for good reasons and b) highly motivated people have already discovered ways to essentially tunnel through that barrier. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a tech wizard, I can only judge by what I see over time. I am in the habit of adding awareness notices if I notice new editors (non EC or EC) making edits in the topic area and off the top of my head, I would say that occurs 3 or 4 times a month at least, there appears to be an increase in the number of such editors in recent times, as to what proportion of them are WP:NOTHERE I couldn't say but experience tells me that some at least are in that category. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are underestimating your contribution. This year I think you have provided the awareness notices to 202 users, or thereabouts. That is based on your revisions to user talk pages where the byte size change is in a range consistent with the awareness template size. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The top of my head is very unreliable then, lol. Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment about the gaming accusation, but the ARBPIA edits themselves seem fine. Morris is arguably the most prominent historian in this area, and one of the more neutral ones, with critics from both sides. It's debatable whether some of the added content is important enough to include, but it's reasonable enough, and Amayorov seems open to feedback and compromise. POV pushing involves aggression, which I don't see here. If we were to expect some kind of strict symmetry in editing behavior, the vast majority of us ARBPIA editors would fail that standard. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has received applications for conflict of interest VRT queue access and has reviewed them in consultation with the functionaries team. The Community is invited to evaluate the candidacies and comment here until the end of 17 July 2024 (UTC).

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Conflict of interest VRT consultations, July 2024

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

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

Notified: User talk:S Marshall#Closure review

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Closer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Non-participants

• Overturn. Firstly, the close strikes me as making an argument rather than summarizing them, which raises at least substantial concerns of a supervote. But, that aside, the close seems to be a "no consensus", which means no change to the status quo, yet it then calls for a change in the status quo. Given these concerns and the incoherent nature in general, I think the discussion needs to be reclosed in terms of first, determining if there is any consensus whatsoever (if "no", no changes are made), and, if so, what it is and why. While I have not exhaustively reviewed the discussion, I did take a look over it, and I don't think a clear consensus could be discerned from it, so I think a "no consensus, therefore no change" closure would be the most appropriate result. But certainly "No consensus, but make a change anyway" is an incoherent one, so that can't stand. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

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

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

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Participants

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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" (~80 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)[reply]
  • Addition error. 70 per your numbers. Not 80. starship.paint (RUN) 16:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Everyone should disclose how they voted Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

  • Could you address the reasons we, or at least I, brought up the close review? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Two distinct issues here:

1. Imbalance and inaccuracy in the summary. Rather than fairly sum up both sides of the discussion, the close is weighted towards the unreliability perspective to an extent that does not reflect the genuine course of discussion. Vigorously contested assertions (e.g. the notion of The Telegraph's unashamed embrace of the widely-debunked Litter boxes in schools hoax) are treated as fact. At times S Marshall appears to be carrying on the argument in his own close (e.g. Towards the end of this, the "generally reliable" camp is reduced to a bold-face statement that reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes, which I receive as a concession that the article is misleading. And if the Telegraph has published a correction, then the "generally reliable" camp hasn't unearthed it.)
2. The, um, let's call it "novel" interpretation of ONUS such that a supposedly "no consensus" close somehow ends up in effect a consensus to downgrade? I don't have much to add to what Barnards has already said: (1) ONUS is geared towards discussions about whether to include specific things like an image or a certain paragraph in an article, not broad discussions about the reliability of a source; and (2) there's an existing RfC finding consensus for general reliability, so that should be the assumed baseline we're working from.

S Marshall made an odd comment about the decision to adopt this interpretation: In doing this, I removed the first mover advantage that the "generally reliable" side expected and I think relied on. The part about editors advocating for reliability "relying on" a supposed first-mover advantage comes across to me as if he is taking the view these editors are abusing or at least leaning on procedure to get a preferred result. This does not seem to be a fair characterisation to me.

I don't see how S Marshall is INVOLVED, though. – Teratix ₵ 16:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Discussion

• @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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

• 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: [6]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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

Request for clarity

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

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

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

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. The close was not close to a reasonable reading of the discussion, so the policy questions that you rely on to implement that reading don't need to be addressed in my opinion. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Option 5, since I thought the close rationale was flawed. starship.paint (RUN) 16:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Option 5. – Teratix ₵ 16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]