User talk:Eggishorn

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Filer Blocked
Filing editor blocked for 48 hrs. after filing back-to-back bad faith reports.

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tognella99 (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tognella99:, your bad-faith attempt to weaponize AN3 to "win" a content dispute has been noted. Note also that I consider this accusation and report a personal attack and will not hesitate to report any further such disparagement for action. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tognella99. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 04:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis[edit]

I used the thanks button for your ARCA analysis but that was for the effort to be response to my request. Then I read your results and it's super illuminating. I want to let community members who've been pushing for older dates to have a chance to read and comment on it before I respond, and I'll credit your analysis when I do, but just want to thank you for the time and rigor that went into that work. The results are quite stark and should, I think, inform our response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, you're more than welcome. It is gratifying to hear that my analysis was of some use. Happy New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Strange your ping didn't come through here or at ARCA. I didn't think twice about it ARCA but not sure why it didn't come through here... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your very useful analysis at ARCA [1]. That was a great deal of effort and will be invaluable. Its folks like you who are willing to put in extraordinary amounts of work that keep Wikipedia going! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

List of fake news websites[edit]

Hello Eggishorn

19:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC) You said my sources about the fake news website "antikor.com.ua" to be not reliable. You also called my sources: "A Facebook page and two blogs are not sufficient to make this judgment." I can assure You that my source #1 is a news-website with editorial board, but not a blog: https://voxukraine.org/en/about-us-eng/ My source #2 http://vaadua.org/news/esli-feyk-zapuskayut-znachit-eto-komu-nuzhno-ieguda-kellerman-zhiv is also not a blog but "Jewish Organizations and Communities Association(Vaad of Ukraine)" official website http://vaadua.org/ My source #3 is indeed a Facebook page(as You wrote), but this Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/ntkrr/posts/10164542512315495 belongs to ukrainian Wikipedia(https://uk.wikipedia.org/) main editor Nazar Tokar. If You do not want Facebook-source than You can use this URL-address: 1. https://nmapo.edu.ua/n/m/6678-informatsiina-hihiiena-sait-antykor-u-chornomu-spysku-ukrainskoi-vikipedii 2. https://blog.wikimedia.org.ua/2020/10/06/unreliable-sources-filter/ 3. https://www.stopfake.online/p/blog-page.html --Mosha.yu (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mosha.yu:, I admit to some imprecision in my use of the term "blog". Blogs are one subset of self-published sites, which both Vox and the AJOCU are. Vox hosts content but does not actually produce it. The AJOCU is an advocacy organization and its views are acceptable as a reflection of its views but not sufficient for labeling another site as "fake news". None of the three further sources you offer are useful, either. An article that the Ukrainian Wikipedia has banned a site is not helpful because each language Wikipedia is a separate project and neither the article you provided nor the article that it uses as a source provide any reasons why the Ukraine project made their decision. The other two sources are, again, blogs. They even have "blog" in the url. The fact that source #2 is a Wikimedia Foundation blog would be different, but that blog entry is just an explanation of the filtering process and not a RS for why the antikor site should be considered fake news. You should probably start a discussion of Antikor at the reliable sources noticeboard. There are currently eighteen articles that use Antikor as a source so that is probably a better first step. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC close[edit]

Thank you for closing the RFC on the MEK talk page. I don't understand why "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland." has been allowed to be kept in the lead of the article? There is just one source talking about 1983 and it talks about Rajavi and Hussein (doesn't talk about the MEK at all). Idealigic (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Idealigic:, thank you for asking. The statement is allowed for the reason that there is no WP:CONSENSUS to remove it. As my close said, the discussion showed that there was an almost even split in opinions and neither side's arguments persuaded the other. Everything said in support of inclusion was challenged within the discussion but that is why there is no consensus. RfC's are not votes and the closer is instructed to read the entire discussion and attempt to find a basis for agreement within the statements expressed, not simply count noses. There was no such basis so there is no consensus. In particular, the statements of the editors supporting inclusion brought multiple sources to the discussion to verify inclusion of the statement. There was "just one source" that was used to cite the statement in the lede at the start of the discussion but that was not the only source cited in the body of the discussion. As the closer, I must evaluate the general thrust of the views expressed in the discussion and there were enough views expressed that the statement satisfied the WP:OR and WP:NPOV policies that I could not reject those out of hand. Unless I can find a basis for rejection that complies with the rules for closing discussions, I have to respect those views. Neither did I find that those core content policies were clearly violated by inclusion. I hope that helps further explain the closing statement and the basis for it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
can you please say which other sources supported this sentence? I cannot find the sources added afterwards support this sentence at all.Idealigic (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Idealigic:, they have not been added to the article but are listed in the discussion. If you review the discussion they are readily apparent, starting with Vice regent's first comment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: This is the disputed sentence: "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."

That is supported by this source,

By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support.
— Vanguard of the Imam

The other sources provided by VR are these,

Since 1982, the MEK had received substantial financial support from the nemesis of the Iranian people, Saddam Hussein.
— Terronomics

After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MeK to extend the reach of the NCRI’s European publicity campaign opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and to secure any intelligence that the MeK collected regarding Iran.
— RAND report

Rajavi fled Tehran for Paris in 1981...At a meeting arranged by Mr. Cheysson [French foreign minister], Rajavi and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz signed a deal in which the MEK would receive cash and backing from Baghdad in exchange for help in the war against Iran. Between 1982 and 1985 Rajavi visited Baghdad six times and formed a relationship with Saddam Hussein, who helped the MEK set up camps in Iraq to train Iranians for sabotage.
— WSJ by Amir Taheri

Besides the first source (that is already in the article), how do the other sources support the disputed sentence? The first talks about the MEK receiving financial support from Hussein since 1982, the second sentence talks about Hussein funding the MEK, and the third talks about a meeting between Rajavi and Aziz. Idealigic (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Idealigic:, to repeat myself: the position of an RfC closer, whether and admin or non-admin, is not to evaluate what should or should not be in the article. Doing as you are asking is a WP:SUPERVOTE and explicitly not allowed: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community... [emphasis added] The close is not my opinion on the merits of the discussion participants, their arguments, or their sources. It is a summary of what has been said. Whether I think that the sources actually support the disputed sentence or not is immaterial. The question I evaluated as closer is if the discussion participants felt that the sources supported the disputed sentence. There was an obviously and strongly expressed opinion by multiple editors that they did. This view did not gain consensus but neither did the view that the sources did not. I haven't expressed an opinion on whether "the other sources support the disputed sentence" and it would be inappropriate for me to do so, either in the close or here. You are free to think that the sources used violate policy and you are allowed to open a further discussion on the article talk page. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. You say that "I evaluated as closer is if the discussion participants felt that the sources supported the disputed sentence. There was an obviously and strongly expressed opinion by multiple editors that they did." Besides what participants felt (which is really irrelevant since what we need here is a substantiated arguments), can you please clarify what you think the substantiated arguments were for keeping this sentence in the lead? (it cannot be the sources added during the discussion since they do not seem to support the sentence). This clarification is needed to understand how we can continue to build on the points made in that RFC. Thank you again. Idealigic (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Idealigic, before I address your specific question, I need to make a small correction. Where you said: Besides what participants felt (which is really irrelevant since what we need here is a substantiated arguments)... I think perhaps my use of the term "felt" may have mislead you. What I maybe should have said was:

The question I evaluated as closer is if the discussion participants felt expressed the opinion...There was an obviously and strongly expressed opinion...

As I've already said, my role is not to decide if those arguments were correctly evaluating the sources presented but rather to take into account that such arguments were made. So the only thing that is relevant is what the participants "felt expressed as opinions". The only arguments I can discard in evaluating what the participants expressed are: ...those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. The key here is "flatly contradict". That is a high bar to clear and although there were some which did so, those that you appear to question did not. I understand that you disagree that the sources presented in the discussion did not, in your judgement, fulfill the sourcing requirements of the core content policies but that is not the standard that is used to close a discussion.
You seem to want to draw me on my judgment about sourcing. I thought I had made it clear that I won't express my own opinion on what or how or how well anyone's arguments were substantiated beyond what I have already said in the closing statement. I can, however, provide the "clarification...needed to understand how...to build on the...RFC": Both the pro-MEK and anti-MEK editors need to stop talking and leave the article and its talk page completely alone. This article and related ones have been treated as a battleground for far too long. Both "sides" need to go away and let neutral, unbiased editors actually try to reach some sort of stable consensus version. For years now one group mobilizes on one small point and as surely as Newton formalized this has an equal and opposite reaction and nobody actually attempts to reach a consensus. Everyone just argues past each other and drives away any possible source of actual mediation or consensus-building. This is wasteful and not what the project stands for. I hope that clarifies the next steps but, hey, my advice is worth exactly what you paid for it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Your signature[edit]

Greetings. At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hog Farm I noticed an error in the !vote tally that was attributing two more support votes than actually were present. I looked into it, and found the error. When you commented on the RfA, your signature left two line breaks between elements in a statement. Have a look: [2]. That was tripping up the !vote counting tool, thinking your !vote was three supports when it was in fact one of course. I fixed it. I'm not sure if you can fix it in your signature or not, but thought I would give you a heads up. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hammersoft:, thank you for letting me know. The extra line breaks were not intended but that was how the software was interpreting my markup. I had seen that behavior before but only on pages where it didn't affect the displayed text so I admit to mentally writing it off as an oddity. After some testing, I think I've found out what is happening. If you use the {{font color}} template and then sign using the tildes, that produces line breaks even where not intended. I can only surmise that it's because the software has to first substitute the actual sig markup for the tildes and then substitute <span style="background-color:#FF7400; color:#FFFFFF;"> for the font color template. If you run into it again, maybe that will be of some use. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Divya Khosla Kumar[edit]

Someone once again edited the page say her DOB is 1987. They put in some sources, but are they actually reliable? It completely contradicts an interview from back in 2013 with Divya herself saying she was 20 when she moved to Mumbai and worked on a movie that was released in 2004-2005. If she was born in 1987 she wouldn't have even turned 18 yet when that film was released.99.21.95.87 (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous editor. I see that this change has already been reverted by Scottywong so there isn't anything I can do. The next time you see something like this, it is more efficient and much more likely to bee seen quickly if you post your concerns on the talk page linked to the article. To find a talk page for an article, look at the top of the screen and you should see a tab labeled "Talk". Or you can type it into the search bar, like this: Talk:Divya Khosla Kumar. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I see that Scottywong reverted it, but then another user reverted to back to 1987. I have posted about it on her talk page about a month ago. But there's somebody that keeps insisting that the correct DOB of 1987 using sources I don't think are really that trustworthy. It's different IP addresses, but I think they're all the same editor.99.21.95.87 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. Have you tried posting at the article talk? Posting at individual IP user talk pages is not very likely to be effective. Posting at the article talk allows all editors interested in the article subject to weigh in on whether it is a useful change or not and that way you are much more probable to establish a consensus about this question. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I actually did post at the article talk page. Not the user IP pages. However whoever the other person is just keeps being persistent and claiming that the sources that imply her birth year to be earlier than 1987 are false with no actual legit reason as to how. At this point I think it may be best to just remove the DOB since there's so many conflicting reports.99.21.95.87 (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of AE appeal[edit]

Hi, you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_AnonQuixote. AnonQuixote (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up, AnonQuixote, but I don't think I do. That has the look of a course of action that would rapidly make your chosen moniker much more apropos. Best of luck. 04:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

NAC tip[edit]

I agree with your "no consensus" close at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Since any potential resolution (in this particular case) is necessarily going to come down to whose pile of sources is better, it would be helpful to suggest WP:RSN as a next step, for source assessment.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:, that is a very good suggestion. I've amended my close accordingly. Thanks for the feedback. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
YW. :-) I actually just made the exact same suggestion at another RfC (one I commented in, didn't close), because it's the same "my mighty source pile is better than yours" fight without anyone neutral to the topic area doing any assessment of the claims about the sources' quality or what they're saying. [pulls hair]  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Too optimistic[edit]

Hello. In two of the AfD I created, you suggested to draftify the articles. I do not ask you to change your jugements. I simply want to inform you that you seem very optimistic to think someone would improve or expand those articles any day; I know from the experience I have in working on Christian articles that no one will take care of those kind of articles, because they are very niche, hence why I AfD them. Even the most important subjects concerning Christianity do not receive much care after their creator has created and expanded them. Veverve (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve:, I honestly did not notice that you had nominated both articles. I evaluated them independently and came to those draftify conclusions as the best fit to our policies. Even if the likelihood that any other editor may pick up the ball is low, according to our policies we must allow room for that to happen. I hope that helps explain my reasoning. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

walt disney[edit]

Hi, on 6 december 2020 you leave me a question on my edit request to provide reliable sources what I did on my talk page on 16 th january. could you please have a look and comment. many thanks Kibours (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kibours, and thank you for updating your request. I do not have access to that book at present so I can't verify the requested addition nor can I cite it properly. I'm afraid I can't make the addition you request without that since verification is a core content policy. I know that's not what you want to hear but I hope it helps explain my reasons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
No problem; I thought it was of real interest as these drawings are the very first. The second reference I made is a catalogue of the world wide known auction house Bonhams and I give the link access very easy to check:"www.bonhams.com/auctions/22486/lot138". Furthemore, If you just google "early disney scrapbook" you will get the information. So it is your choice not to allow wikipedia to relay the info....
bestKibours (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Admin Report Wes Sideman[edit]

Blocked sock griping

You may want to report Wes Sideman again as he is continuing to make Vandalistic remarks on the page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Johnson_(television_personality). Mr Johnson was found innocent on all counts and Wes Sideman’s behavior as an editor is of extreme immaturity and not the attitude one would expect of an admin able to edit pages. Darrenplz (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darrenplz: I see no sources to support the statement that "Mr Johnson was found innocent on all counts" but the attempt to re-add this information was not acceptable and I have therefore reverted it. While this was an edit that was worth bringing to attention, you may find it relevant that concerns from editors with a conflict of interest (such as friends of representatives of an article subject) are best brought to the article talk page where they are much more likely to be handled expeditiously. You may also want to be aware that creating a new account to continue editing after a previous account has been blocked is liable to sanctions. I have no proof that either situation applies to this brand-new account continuing a prior dispute, but there are obvious grounds for suspicion. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
So I just saw this. It's likely that Darrenplz is yet another sockpuppet account related to this: [3]. That person has made multiple accounts and has also made threats on my talk page. See [4]. One of the sock accounts also made legal threats, as you may recall. Wes sideman (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Wes sideman:, I agree that this is likely a sock of a previously-blocked disruptive user and therefore made the comments above. Their attempt to get me to sanction you (something I can't actually do) or report you (something I won't do) was wasted pixels. As long as it stopped there, I was not motivated to make the effort to report them in turn. I see, however, that they are going through other user talk pages to repeat their attacks and I may well have to update the SPI. Thank you for making me pay further attention to this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
No, thank you. I honestly didn't realize it was going to offend so many people to restore that stuff on his article. I will tread more lightly now when editing actual articles. However, I have little patience for this guy's threats and I would like to know if there's any way to stop him from creating hundreds of accounts and continuing the harassment. Do you have any suggestions? Wes sideman (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Wes sideman:, there's no need to apologize although it's always appreciated. I'm not trying to get you in trouble but just the opposite. What I perceived was a newish user inadvertently hitting some tripwires they weren't aware of but which could have serious negative repercussions. Your post immediately above confirms that to be the case, in my opinion. I was emphatic because it was my hope that I could help you head off those consequences. I have added ""Darren" to the sockpuppet investigation now due to the spurious attempts to get other editors to report you. "Let's you and him fight" tattling like this is almost never legit and I should have looked further into it. If you think that isn't the right sockmaster, please let me know and I'll update the report. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I just learned about sockpuppets from this incident. From my understanding, sockmaster would be the first account used by this person? I don't know for sure, but I would guess that would be DaddySaurus, who was the first account blocked, for making legal threats. Also, doesn't it seem more than likely that the person operating these accounts is actually the subject of the article? Wes sideman (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Wes sideman:, I added a note to the SPI. I'll let the clerks (who have access to tool I don't) figure it out. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

YAMs[edit]

If you are going to declare an art collective past tense at least do a google search first. And remember- Black and queer artists don’t always have the same opportunities and often work in obscurity. Kindness59 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to make any claim at all anywhere on Wikipedia, please refer to the Core Content Policies. And remember - minority and queer editors don't always have the same opportunities to, oh, I don't know what the parallelism might be but don't presume those who revert you are not part of the community. It is not up to me to prove the negative that they have stopped working. The onus is on those who want to demonstrate that they are still currently working to provide a source that shows this. If a Google search is good enough to demonstrate this, you should have no difficulty finding a source to support the claim. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Interaction ban[edit]

As far as I know there is an interaction ban in place between me and <another user>. How far does that go? Does it include a ban on false accusations and personal attacks? The Banner talk 13:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Banner:, I assume you are speaking about this diff. To be honest, I wouldn't do anything about it right now. They've linked to a discussion that shows them playing out WP:ROPE for all its worth in their attempt to justify their aggrieved feelings. It isn't really interacting with you. What it is, however, is a likely start of some new campaign that will almost inevitably result in a complete ban. That link after so long and their whining at me on their own talk page shows they are incapable of letting something go or admitting that they were wrong and that they personalize debates to pick a bogeyman they can then blame for their own actions. Put all those qualities together and it's not the portrait of an editor compatible with a collaborative environment. I tried to help them and they went off the deep end against you and me. They come back after months and are starting out by uselessly going back to that dispute. It's honestly sad. I wish I had something positive and useful to do but there isn't anything. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I will keep my mouth shut. It fits nicely in with the real shitty day that I have today in real life. The Banner talk 18:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm honestly sorry to hear that. I wish that there was something better I could say. Knowing that a disruptive person will eventually flame out is not much comfort when the flames are directed at you. I can only offer the empathy that you are not along in this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Reminder[edit]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#Scriptural_texts_(WP:RSPSCRIPTURE). I'm not used to those templates, so I'll keep my hands off. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, thank you for the heads-up. I hadn't looked in at RSN in a couple of days and missed the archiving of the thread so I appreciate the reminder. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
You too! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Why was The Grayzone depreciated?[edit]

I can't figure this out. According to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources, The Grayzone is a depreciated source, based on the conclusion in RfC: Grayzone [5] which you signed.

You concluded, "there is a rough consensus for Option 4: "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated".

What was the false or fabricated information? How did the editors establish that it was false or fabricated? If I were trying to answer that question, I'd try to get an unbiased sampling of their stories, and first look at the objective, verifiable facts, then the interpretation. (For medical stories, Gary Schwitzer created a checklist.) Did these editors do that? What was their results?

What specific evidence is your conclusion based on? There was a long discussion that gave many reasons. Was this based on its political ties to Russia? Was it based on their reporting on the White Helmets, which some editors disagree with? Was it based on any specific Grayzone stories at all? Was it based on some Wikipedia editors' opinion of trustworthiness?

If I or someone else disagreed, how would we go about chanaging this conclusion? What evidence would it take? --Nbauman (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@NBauman:, thank you for your question. The simple answer to "Why was the Grayzone deprecated?" is that the WP:CONSENSUS of the volunteer editors who participated in the relevant discussion decided it should be. As you can read on the information page that explains closing discussions the person who writes the close (in this case, me) is not there to make their own decision about the subject of the discussion. Doing so is referred to around here as a WP:SUPERVOTE and widely perceived as an inappropriate way to close discussions. Instead, the closer evaluates the discussion as a whole and tries to discern whether there is a general agreement and, if so, what has been agreed to. This means that I can't directly answer many of the subsidiary questions you pose to me, such as identifying individual fabricated stories. You will have to read the discussion to see what other editors thought and see if those responses answer your questions. I'm sorry I can't be of more direct help in that regard. If, after reading the discussion through and the links given there and here, you have further questions about how closing discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard works, please do not hesitate to ask me here. If you feel that there are issues that were not addressed in the discussion then you are free to start a new discussion and reference the RfC. Overturning the discussion would require a new RfC but I would advise against that until you get some more feedback. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I read it and I didn't see any consensus. There was no initial discussion of the basis for forming conclusions. There was no citing of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and how they applied to specific stories in The Grayzone. There was some arguing about whether specific stories were factual or not, but they were unresolved. There were many discussions of the political associations of the Grayzone, but I don't think that's relevant here. There were some claims -- that it was simply Blumenthal's personal blog -- that are clearly wrong.
If I were writing a summary, I would say that (for the reasons above) there was no consensus. I can't understand how you came to the opposite conclusion.
Do you just read it and say, "I just feel there's a consensus for option 4," dismissing all the reasons editors gave for the contrary? --Nbauman (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nbauman:, if I had read it and just felt that there was a consensus for option four, I wouldn't have written the closing statement I wrote. Please re-read WP:CONSENSUS, particularly this: ...Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity... nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Disagreements with the result do not mean that there is no consensus, as I previously explained. To be more particular in explaining my evaluation of the discussion, I should first explain that I generally consider RfC's on source deprecation to involve a multiple-step process:
  1. Is there a clear indication that one of the options is preferred? If so, close with an explanation of that preference and stop. If not:
  2. Is there a greater preference for the "allowed" options (usually options 1 & 2) or the "not allowed" options (usually options 3 & 4)? If no, then close as "no consensus". If yes:
  3. Within the two preferred options (i.e., "allowed" vs. "not allowed"), is there a preference for one over the other? If no, then close as "no consensus". If yes, then close with that preferred option.
This evaluation process is shaped by the header text accepted here and first used in the Daily Caller RFC here. In the particular case of Grayzone, the arguments for "allowed" (options 1 or 2) were weak and poorly expressed, depending mostly on false equivalencies, mischaracterizations of other editors' statements, and appeals to authority. The strongest argument was that Grayzone was "valuable" for its "anti-imperialist" point of view, which is not an argument that finds support in the Core Content Policies or sourcing guideline. So (as explained in the close) there was a very clear consensus that Grayzone was not a source characterized by a wide level of acceptability. Reading further, the arguments for options 3 versus 4 were closer in terms of raw numbers but the arguments for option four were stronger both in terms of source evaluation (see, e.g., the comments from DreamLinker, Jamez42, and Zialater) and in terms of policy compliance.
With regard to "dismissing all the reasons editors gave for the contrary?", RSN is not a college debating society and every argument does not need to be rebutted to some abstract standard. RSN is part of an attempt to build an encyclopedia that complies with the Five Pillars. Put another way, it is a place where we try to get on with things, not achieve a perfect result. Wikipedia is a work in progress and decisions made can be reversed if more information becomes available. If you think youhave such information, the please bring it to RSN.
Neither is the closer in the position of a debate judge adjudicating arguments against resolutions and set standards. The arguments that the closer does discard are ones that are described in policy as "irrelevant": ...those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. The arguments for retaining Grayzone as a source were characterized by such irrelevancies, such as those that it has a perspective an editor found useful or those that the primary author of Grayzone is writing about things others won't.
I hope that further explains the close. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Why were you the editor who wrote the summary? Did someone ask you to write it? Or were you just reading the RFCs and volunteering to write the summaries? --Nbauman (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nbauman:, not to answer a question with a question, but why would that possibly matter? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand the process that you're going through to come to this conclusion -- and I don't understand it. If I'm in a recreational ball game, the umpire makes a quick decision and it doesn't matter too much whether he's right or wrong -- it's just a game. If I'm in court, both sides will give our position to the judge, and we expect him to explain why he made a thoughtful, documented decision based on the evidence. Is this supposed to be a quick decision or is it a thoughtful, documented decision based on evidence?
(And to move the conversation along quickly, I think the way the RFCs are decided is that any Wikipedia editor can come along and write a summary.) --Nbauman (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nbauman:, neither the ball game nor the court decision analogies are applicable to closes, in my opinion. The former trivializes the discussion and the latter lards far, far too much seriousness into the equation. I have closed over a hundred discussions, many of them contentious, and close discussions when I find them requested at WP:ANRFC if I think I can help bring clarity. I have explained my process at length with multiple references to both the evidence presented and the applicable policies already so I'm not sure how much more information I can provide. It is "supposed to be" a "thoughtful, documented decision" and I have documented it in considerable detail at this point. I'm not trying to be flippant but I honestly don't understand what you don't understand. In cases where mutual lack of understanding prevails, there is often acrimony which I'd obviously like to avoid. Why do you not think I have adequately provided a full explanation of the process I used? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
You say there is a consensus for "Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated". This follows from WP:RS which requires publications with "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
There are editors who argue that Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information, and cite examples. But there are also editors who argue that those same examples are not false or fabricated.
For example, the White Helmets. ZiaLater writes: "The man ... now accuses anti-Assad Syrians of belonging to al-Qaeda and has claimed that the White Helmets were affiliated with the Islamist group". Xenagoras writes in rebuttal: "Here is a small analysis by France 24 about the collaboration of the White Helmets with al-Qaeda." Did you score that as consensus? I think it demonstrates lack of consensus. (I don't think that we can or should resolve the question of whether Grayzone is right that the White Helmets are pro-al-Qaeda, but there is clearly no consensus among Wikipedia editors.)
There are other examples, some of which support the accuracy of Greyzone, some of which attack it. One editor says that he misquoted an academic. Another editor cites the accuracy of his Venezuela reporting. Once again, there are editors for and against, but no consensus.
(There are also editors who make indirect ad hominem arguments, like Blumenthal's associations with RT. Xenagoras argues that they have a professional staff which does fact-checking, following WP:RS. I don't know what criteria you're using.)
When I put it all together, I see no consensus. If you see consensus there, then we've failed the test of inter-rater consistency. --Nbauman (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
As I said above, a closer is explicitly directed to not provide their own opinion on the question of the RfC. Doing so is an invalid supervote. You seem to be determined to obtain my own opinions on whether I feel the characterizations of Grayzone reporting were accurate. This would be providing my opinion on the RfC question. I will not do this. I will say that characterization you are making of some sort of equivalence between pro- and anti- opinions is a false equivalency. It was very clear that the pro- side was both smaller in number and provided little more than personal opinion, which per WP:NHC are disregarded arguments. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think I understand that. I don't care whether or not you believe the Grayzone publishes false information.
The question of the RfC is, "does the Greyzone publishes false or fabricated information?" That's not for you to decide. The question for the closer is, "Is there a consensus that the Greyzone publishes false or fabricated information?"
Take the specific example of whether the Greyzone published false information about the White Helmets. ZiaLater thinks it did. Xenagoras thinks it didn't. Your job is to decide whether there is a consensus. If only 2 editors express an opinion, and they disagree, then your job is to return the answer "No" -- they don't agree, and there is no consensus. Correct? --Nbauman (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect. Such head-counting is specifically enjoined against. Please re-read WP:NHC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm just trying to understand how you went through this discussion step by step before you summarized it all.
When you read the discussion about the White Helmets, did you decide that ZiaLater and Xenagoras disagreed, and therefore, as far as the White Helmets was concerned, there was no consensus?
Or did you decide that ZiaLate's argument was stronger, and Xenagoras' argument was weak, or poorly expressed, or not relevant, and therefore ZiaLate's argment supports the consensus for Option 4: "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated"? --Nbauman (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have explained, step bu step, the exact way I went through the discussion and how I summarized it. At this point, it honestly feels like you are not reading any of my responses because you are asking the same questions again and again in slightly different ways. It is the responsibility of a closer to answer questions about their close, yes, but not ad infinitum. If you can formulate a question that demonstrates to me that you have read and tried to comprehend my previous answers and are not merely repeating argumentation, I will answer it. At the present time, however, I do not see anything worth repeating myself here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

diligent diplomacy

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality articles such as Campbell's Soup Cans, 1982 Bristow Helicopters Bell 212 crash and Ginzburg v. United States, for fighting vandalism and dealing with articles for deletion, for respecting different views when closing an RfC ("voluntarily walking into this hornet's nest"), - professional writer, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2544 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda:, thank you so much! I couldn't be more pleased with this. Stay safe and thanks for all you do on this project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Lovely, same to you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I created AfD discussion for Publius (publishing system)[edit]

I'm writing this because you contributed to Publius (publishing system) ariticle. I tried to improve the article, bit since I could not find any more reliable sources, I proposed article deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publius (publishing system) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Anton.bersh (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Filer Blocked
Filing editor blocked by checkuser

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. One way system (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, read WP:3RR again because text was removed does not mean it was a revert. Secondly, read the reporting instructions again because you malformed all your links and reported one edit twice. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Afd WP:N argument[edit]

Hey there @Eggishorn, Ample evidence this is a notable grouping of countries. What evidence exactly? Sources differs on the subject of grouping as stated in the discussion, they're not the same and you cant just synth different subjects on arbitrary general grouping. Moreover, those different subject already have dedicated articles: Persian Gulf Residency, Gulf Cooperation Council, and Eastern Arabia. This is the main issue raised in the Afd. ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 21:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@A Contemporary Nomad:, as already noted, "the main issue raised in the AfD" is an issue of the correct focus or name of the article. That the Arab states in the Persian Gulf are treated as a grouping by reliable source is amply demonstrated by the references present in the AfD and the article itself. The nomination itself implicitly agrees that there is such a group, just not on the focus or naming issue. That these use different terms to identify this group does not justify deletion. That makes this an invalid AfD. Please read WP:NOTCLEANUP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
"the main issue raised in the AfD" is an issue of the correct focus or name of the article. except it isn't, the main issue is the current WP:Synth and potential WP:FORK if the name of the article or it subject changes, which have been discussed in the talk page. I have focused on the article last month as my first project on wikipedia to clean it up and rewrite it but honestly found myself hitting a wall trying to come up with relevant content to rewrite the article, currently the article is for all intent and purposes is empty, as in it doesn't present a fact or a statement that merit it existence, the only thing the introduction state is that 'the ASPG are a group of countries who form the GCC with the exception of Iraq' then the article body is just a collection of country fun-facts summaries: politics, 'peace', and Economy. I have questioned the merit of the article notability and asked in the talk page and the Afd whether anyone could suggest a subject for the article to be based on. The only refutal that I have found (like the one you raised) is that it's WP:N since it's a common subject and then present different subjects that don't relate to each other (which @Goldsztajn acknowledged) and each has an independent article of its own. That's why the WP:N issue is raised not the focus of the article itself which I presume is self evident by now that it doesn't have a focus or a subject. ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 22:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
That these use different terms to identify this group does not justify deletion. I think this is a misunderstanding on your part, the issue I raised is that it's not different terms for the same group, but same the same WP:NDESC term 'for different groups: Persian Gulf Residency: Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and the trucial states. GCC: Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Eastern Arabia: GCC + Iraq (the regions that overlook the Persian Gulf). All of those don't share the same group nor a subject...... ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 22:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@A Contemporary Nomad:, I have developed a policy over the years not to debate AfD's. I believe that it is incumbent upon me to explain my reasoning as I have done above and you are perfectly free to disagree. I approach each AfD as an independent case, make my own evaluation, and move on. I do not try to persuade others to my position and I do not engage in attempts by others to change mine. I know that sounds stubborn and no-collegial but I find AfD debates almost never do more than harden positions and produce far too much acrimony. Beside, I'm reaching the age where I can legitimately claim "stubborn old coot" status. More importantly, however, it is not your opinion or my opinion that matters. Whoever closes the AfD will evaluate the arguments presented and make their own decision. It is up to them to decide whether what I have said matches the main issue. I hope that helps. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I understand. I'm not here to persuade you to change your position, I was going to comment on the main thread but then thought that it might be redundant since I have already explained twice that the issue of the article notability is that term refers to different subjects, so I have moved my comment here. In the end it's your opinion but I just felt that I have to state that your refutal is misplaced and present why. I do genuinely believe that we all want to do what's good and I truly respect your position but disagree on the best course of action to fix the issue. Take care ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 22:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ann Hathaway infobox photo[edit]

Despite very minimal participation, there is a reasonably clear consensus to use a different infobox photo, with the 2018 photo seeming to be preferred by those that had a preference. (non-admin

With all due respect, you just decided to agree to switch to an out of focus photo of a BLP making a weird face. Do you honestly believe consensus based on voting alone should determine which photo is used? Go look at the photo you decided to use. It shouldn't even be allowed as it's out of focus and doesn't show the subject in a normal, encyclopedic pose. It's difficult to determine if people are just trolling to show Hathaway in the worse light imaginable. To me, this kind of decision makes zero sense. And given that the page itself has been the subject of relentless trolling and vandalism, it really does feel like the trolls won. Please consider reopening the discussion and advertising it more widely and defaulting to not enough consensus. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've temporarily replaced the photo. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, you should read WP:CONSENSUS. Secondly, yes, I do believe that consensus should determine which photo is used. That's how things work here. Thirdly, it was not "based on voting alone", however, since closers are specifically instructed to not treat discussions as votes. Whether you think it should or should not be allowed is immaterial as there was nearly a year for you to make your case to other editors and they did not agree with you. Making changes against consensus is considered tendentious editing, a form of disruption. Editors can and do get blocked for such behavior. Since the new photo is nt one of the rejected ones, I don't think it's necessarily reportable but please do read the links. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think any "consensus" is possible when three people comment. I also don't think any consensus on Wikipedia is determined by choosing an image without a discussion about the justification for such a choice. In other words, consensus isn't a vote, and this was clearly a vote. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
You need to read the above links and take your concerns back to the talk page. Consensus doesn't have and minimum participation requirements nor does one's opinion give leave to reject consensus. I already said I did not count votes. I don't know what else you expect me to say. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, with all due respect, it's you who needs to read the discussion you closed. Go look at what the users said about the image they chose. To recap, they said their preferred image was of 1) better quality, 2) better resolution, 3) better angle (framing). Now, go actually look at the image they said that about. It's objectively false. The quality is lower, the resolution is lower, and the angle and framing is off. To close such a discussion appropriately, one would need to be aware of what is being discussed, not blindly trust what is being said. Otherwise, you will make bad decisions based on trolls and hoaxers. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of statement in kulala page[edit]

Hi,

Hope you doing good.

I got tired after a conversation in talk page of Kulala.

Now I tried reaching the administrator of that page(Kulala) and waiting for the response from him.I left a below message in admin's talk page..

I reached you regarding Kulala page.

Below are reliable source of article which is mentioned in the Kulala page.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g9MVAQAAMAAJ

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_NMUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=aqrB_Nzr5QcC&redir_esc=y

I have gone through all the articles. I couldn't see single a word called "Kulala".That article talks about only kumhar caste - North Indian potters. For your reference we have wiki page seperately for kumhar caste.

My question is how come this Kulala page has below statement without any reliable proof.

    • The traditional occupation of Kulala people is making pottery, although in the present day their occupations also include government service and wage-labour**

Article which is added as references sections that talks about only north indian potters culture.

I cannot see a single word like Kulala in that article.

Please try to understand kumhar and Kulala are different. Their culture also different.

I tried sharing all these information and proofs to talk page but that guy not answering properly aslo hesitate to remove the sentence.

Below are official india government Gazzett regarding caste lists of 4 south indian states. (Kerala, Karnataka,tamil nadu, Andhra Pradesh)

http://www.bcmbcmw.tn.gov.in/bclist.html

https://bcdd.kerala.gov.in/communities/state-obc-list/

http://www.ncbc.nic.in/user_panel/GazetteResolution.aspx?Value=mPICjsL1aLvX4YwLqUBC2NUPs1mZbhKbP42N%2bXtmvwb%2bHm6V1GqYkr6sDSgvI%2fSb

http://www.ncbc.nic.in/user_panel/GazetteResolution.aspx?Value=mPICjsL1aLvYBtdZSrP4uO%2bploAhiJHMALWmHIwbzS8Il37YLL3Fb0FHfWDHzP7

I didn't see the kumhar caste in the list ,because indian government knows both Kulala and kumhar are totally different.

Kindly delete the unreliable statement or else delete this page till someone will get the proof that Kulala people are called traditional potters.

Please dont ignore this message like my previous message.

If you think you are helpless kindly direct me to concern person who can help me to fix this issue.

Looking forward for your response. Thanks, Tamilan pugal

See if can you able to help me from your end my friend ;( Tamilan pugal (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tamilan pugal:, I have tried reading both this and the talk page edit requests multiple times and I still have no idea what you're trying to accomplish. As best as I can make out you aim to have the artisanry of this caste highlighted. This is already stated in comprehensible English in the article. Small-scale potters are, by definition, artisans. If you are not aware of this already, the English Wikipedia is not the only Wikipedia. There are Wikipedia in almost every language, including, I am nearly certain, your primary language. I urge you to try first editing the corresponding article on that version. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn: That makes sense. Atleast remove the below sentence from the article.

    • although in the present day their occupations also include government service and wage-labour**

Approx 1cr Kulala people living in south india. Do you think everyone are wage labour?

If you add "present day" in the article we have to give a current status of Kulala people right?

In india all caste/communities has reservation in education & government jobs. I believe you were aware about that?

Present day this community well educated and organised.

There are doctors , engineers, software developer and government employees from this community.

But that particular sentence potrait them as a poor people.

Why can't you remove that particular sentence? Tamilan pugal (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tamilan pugal:, I still believe you are mis-reading the sentence. The article says there are many things that Kulala do. Traditionally they were potters. Now they do other things. Two of the other things they do are working for wages as laborers and working for the government. These are not the only things that Kulala do and it does not mean they only do those things and it does not mean they are poor. It won't be removed because the only source we have on what Kulala do says that's some of the things they do. If we want to add a complete picture of all the professions of Kulala we need a source that gives those statistics. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you are misleading the sentence.

All indian are won't keep dictionary with them to check multiple meanings for a single word.

First impressions that's it.

Including you I have given more than 10 reliable article. No one accepted my points.

I lost my trust on wikipedia. My only concern is , indian doesn't know that Wikipedia pages are not 100% true. It's editable.

Seems like every one has vengeance(just for fun) on me or Kulala community.


Tamilan pugal (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC) 

Even this statement "The traditional occupation of Kulala people is making pottery" may give lots of meaning as you mentioned earlier. Even wage labour and government service comes under that statement.

I thought I can able to change sentence but now I understand I can't change single word in any page.

But, definitely I will come back with another source. Tamilan pugal (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tamilan pugal:, I have been trying very hard to explain this in simple English. It is now clear that you do not have the English skills to edit this project. That is not an insult, just an observation. I don't have the Tamil skills or Bengali skills to edit those projects. My point is, declaring that all 6.2 million articles are worthless because you don't understand how the language is used in one stub is indicative of a point of view incompatible with this project. I again suggest that the other language projects are better suited to your skills. The English Wikipedia is not the main or most important of highest or central Wikipedia, after all. They are all independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions.

I do know that my communication skills not upto the mark.

That is reason i tried getting help from senior editors like you.who can help me to develop my points in proper sentence.

My only concern is , who ever I had a conversation in talk page has idea what I trying to explain even though I had a bad English. They did not do a single edits with reliable source which I provided.

Over all 10 reliable source I had shared with the person whom I had a discussion.

No one read my article and simply rejecting stating that all statement already there in the article.

Anyway thanks for your patience. Tamilan pugal (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Help to resolve dispute at Talk:SoftSwiss[edit]

Sorry foк forum shopping. But my opponent ignoring mu points. So I've been looking for support of more skilled editors. The reason why I am removing the part of article is that it has traces of original research and unverified citations. Please help me to find the consensus with the opponent on this talk page Talk:SoftSwiss. I will use your advice with [Dispute resolutions] but need more time to look through guidelines, that time my opponent will use to continue reverting edits with accusations and without explanation Vlavluck (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong message is being spread, needs immediate correction[edit]

You have written IMA consider Ayurveda Doctor practicing medicine as quackery. It's wrong. IMA consider Ayurveda Doctor practicing mordern medicine as quackery because they are not trained for mordern Medicine. Ofcourse they can and should practice ayurveda because they are trained in it. Thanks Regards Dr P Soumya Singh MS OBGY India

Mr. Singh, I am not responsible for determining what the Indian Medical Association calls Ayurveda. It will not be removed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

ANY FURTHER MESSAGES ABOUT AYURVEDA HERE WILL BE DELETED[edit]

Because I don't care to hear whatever Ayurvedic proponents wish to say. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice Close[edit]

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
I know that can't have been easy, but you did an excellent job at summarizing that discussion. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate that! Stay safe, @Beeblebrox: Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Well played[edit]

Thanks for your thoughtful closure of the RfD at the cricket wiki project. Much appreciated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing:, thanks. I hope it is helpful and I wish the project the best in trying to slay the Hydra that this issue has become. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:TEND[edit]

Thank you for your recent closure on Talk:Ilhan Omar - I agree with it. I wanted to discuss your allusion to WP:TEND. Does it really apply since none of the previous RfCs this year were able to close due to procedural issues? Benevolent human (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Benevolent human:, that allusion was prophylactic in nature. I take no position on whether it applied to that discussion but it may apply in the future, which would be inadvisable. I hope that clarifies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you for pointing me to that article, I'll study it carefully. Benevolent human (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Your close[edit]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Replace_Main_Page_Help_Desk_link_with_Teahouse_link

Little tired atm so maybe I just can't count, but I don't see how you've reached equal numbers for each proposal.

I count 13 editors who support replacing the link as first preference: myself, Levivich, Nosebagbear, EpicPupper, Calliopejen1, Bilorv, Moxy, Guy, Aza24, Sdkb, the wub, Jackattack, HAL.

I count 7 editors who expressed a first preference for including both: ElKevbo, Naddruf, Huggums537, GMG, Ganesha811, GhostInTheMachine, Jayron.

That's appears to be a 65% majority for the first option? Noting also that many in the second group did not oppose that proposal. 65% support would usually be described as a consensus.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader:, thanks for asking about my closing rationale. Per WP:NHC, I don't consider just the !vote totals and as I said the discussion developed in such a way that there were more than two proposals. I mentioned three but the user testing proposal was really a fourth which isn't reflected in your question. Editors can, in good faith, interpret different points of view expressed in this type of discussion differently so I try not to enumerate how I feel those points of view "translate" into yeas and nays. What I find more important is the discussion itself and my summary presents what I felt was the most accurate description of the conversation. In any rational interpretation, the margin for any proposal was slim. For such a prominent location, the level of agreement should be much firmer than "barely passing". Hence my statement that a consensus for change was stymied by a lack of consensus for which change. Unfortunately, that's far too common an outcome for prominent changes within this project. The Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021) you & I participated in offers another such example. I'm probably drifting into editorializing so I'll stop there. I do hope that helps explain my reasoning. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
the level of agreement should be much firmer than "barely passing" But that's still a 2/3 majority? I think almost any proposal with that kind of support should be considered consensus. WP:ARBPOL can be amended with just 50% support. The page you linked - NHC - says The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Which arguments were dismissed that fit this criteria? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader:, Firstly, I disagree with your two-thirds figure. I said I don't like discussing individual !vote interpretations (because that makes them, well, not not-votes) but I saw the margin between the two most prominent proposals as much slimmer. A matter of some 2-4 editors or so. I saw very few opinions that are irrelevant and think that discussing individual opinions expressed is unfair to those participants. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Adding: What I am willing to do is review the discussion and take your division of participants int account to see if there were any that I think I may have mischaracterized earlier. Is that more helpful? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Sure. I did have some follow-up questions on the above thread, but if you're willing to re-review the discussion I think that could be helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: thank you for your patience. I've been holding off on a reply since I didn't want to knee-jerk respond. I've seen you around in many discussions and I respect your opinions, so I wanted to make sure I was taking your concerns into account honestly. I have re- and re-re-examined the discussion. I can say that your initial division above is defensible as a reasonable interpretation but I do not share the interpretation that the discussion read as a whole reached a consensus for any option. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm not going to say how I counted the votes because they're not supposed to be votes and i didn't count them as such. I will say that the option of replacing the Help Desk link with the Teahouse link definitely had a lead but that the division between that option, the option for both links, the option for status quo, and the option for user testing, as well as the fact that many users were less than optimally explicit, means that I think the end result is the same. I suggest that a new RfC with a much clearer RfC question and at least three options be created. That way, the separation between those that favor replacing the link, those that favor both links, and those that favor the current link, at least, can be clearly discerned. I think that will address the concerns. I would welcome the opportunity to help create such a RfC if you are willing to run it as a follow-up and I would also be willing to modify the close to specifically mention the follow-up RfC. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to re-review.
I still don't quite agree with your analysis. Firstly, I think that discussion was very vote-y in general, so I'm not sure it can be analysed by a different metric. Many editors did not provide a rationale for their opinion instead simply providing an opinion (around 1/3 of participating editors), which isn't really uncommon for a proposal like this. PAG issues and project issues (that don't apply existing policy) tend to be vote-y, IMO. Secondly, I think in general any single option with 2/3 support has consensus, even if there are half a dozen other options with a non-trivial amount of support. After all, a general agreement in favour of any given proposal must be a consensus, otherwise any proposed binary question can be torpedoed by a diversity in possible options raised in the comments. Hence I don't think the ideas put forth of user testing (proposed in a comment by one user, supported by 0 editors) detracts from that consensus. For these two reasons I feel the discussion was not closed correctly.
But I suppose we will just have to disagree on this, as there is not much more I can reasonably request of you other than re-reviewing, and closers are traditionally given wide discretion in the methodology they use for assessing consensus (such that there could be multiple possible valid closes). And of course, it could very well be that this is the usual case of an involved participant - myself - who can't see the discussion neutrally. In any case, this was a relatively minor change that has already consumed too much community time (including the prior discussion at Talk:Main Page, which turned into a discussion of a variety of options) and hence I'm not sure pursuing this to a third RfC would be responsible. I guess that means we're stuck with a status quo nobody wants ;) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader:, thank you and best of luck. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Boud (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Gotta love the wishy-washy "may have" template in a direct accusation like this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jennifers' Law (Connecticut)[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Jennifers' Law (Connecticut) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur Genocide close[edit]

Thanks for closing that RfC, that was a mess and I think you did a great job properly assessing everything in it. BSMRD (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@BSMRD:, thanks for the kind words. I'm gratified to hear you think it helped. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Jennifers' Law (Connecticut)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg

On 21 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jennifers' Law (Connecticut), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jennifers' Law expands the definition of domestic violence in Connecticut to include coercive control? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jennifers' Law (Connecticut). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jennifers' Law (Connecticut)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikileaks closure[edit]

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. I'm not sure I follow your logic here


So you are saying that the outcome is no consensus and then you say that it follows from this that status quo should be maintained, even though we literally have no consensus status. Could you clarify that - maybe I'm missing something? Alaexis¿question? 14:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis:, that particular discussion reached no consensus, which means the previously established consensus is retained. That language is taken from the edit notice and you can read through the Wikileaks entry at WP:RSP to see the discussions that lead to the entry and the warning. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
When you say "which means the previously established consensus is retained," on what policy or rule is it based? Alaexis¿question? 20:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@Alaexis:, please see WP:NOCONSENSUS: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. This is generally accepted by the community to also apply to discussions about noticeboards such as RSN. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Isn't it the case that an RfC trumps the previous discussions, as the RfC one is presumed to be the most complete and authoritative?
The closing statement of any RfC that is not clearly outdated should normally be considered authoritative and can only be overturned by a newer RfC. (taken from WP:RSP)?
Therefore, if we have a "no consensus" ruling, it should rather appear as a no consensus status, rather than a "generally unreliable" one, as that sentence mentions nothing about retaining consensus from previous discussions, which were often incomplete or contextual. As can be seen 112 Ukraine summary, the deprecation did not reach consensus and therefore the status of the source was upgraded from "blacklisted" (previously "deprecated") to "generally unreliable", which garnered more support. It would therefore be consistent to apply it here: since there was no consensus for general unreliability and "consensus for no consensus", if we can call it that way, we should actually upgrade it. The fact the community was more or less equally divided and you decided to summarise it with "no consensus" status means that portraying the opinion of the community that WikiLeaks is a generally unreliable source is a misconstrual of said opinion. (Interestingly, on CR you didn't mention retaining of generally unreliable status). Note that the discussion did not say "should we lift the status of WikiLeaks to no consensus?", and then the community basically said IDK (in which case retaining the prior status could be appropriate). The editors were given a wide choice (from full endorsement to full ban), and they have made their choice, a roughly 50/50 one.
(That assuming, of course, that you wanted to call "no consensus" because it, in your opinion, indeed had no consensus and not because you wanted to call "no consensus" because you didn't want to dismiss it for procedural reasons, as the minority urged, with which you seemed to agree and which you considered to yield the same result).
Now, considering your conclusion that the RfC (or RSN) was probably not an appropriate venue: which, if not this one? Where, if not RSN? Is there any way to determine whether WikiLeaks can be called a repository/source for what it claims to be govt documents or simply a repository of govt documents (depending on one's point of view) without being met with objections over the venue? And since the 4-option template is not the right one, how should have the question been formulated for us to determine whether WikiLeaks can be used for govt documents? It's just for my future reference.
While I certainly appreciate your effort to close a discussion that hanged on for quite some time on WP:CR and I'm OK with your lack of adminship as the experience you have compensates for it, I have these questions to answer, ping me please when you do so.
PS. Thanks for reposting the RfC from the archive. I thought bots wouldn't archive the RfC discussion, but since it's the case, at least I won't need to reprimand anyone (which I generally don't fancy doing on WP). :) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki:, I apologize for not replying here sooner but my time on Wiki had been limited of late. To answer your second question first: the problem was not that RSN was an inappropriate venue for the discussion; the problem is that the four-option template is a poor fit for Wikileaks. If you read through the RfC that lead to that being recommended as a template in the RSN header text and the associated discussions, then it becomes more clear that the template was perceived to apply to a source that could be considered a single source. That is, there's a media outlet of some sort that has a single "voice" and is under the authorial or editorial control of identified individuals or organizations. The discussion made it clear that many of the participants did not perceive Wikileaks in this manner. Wikileaks is a document collection, a political movement, a promotional device, and a distribution channel. The documents it hosts, the authors of those documents, the site itself, and/or the site's owners are all different voices. The responses showed that some participants focused on one of those voices in making their judgement of reliability while others focused on another and some felt there were too many voices to consider a single rating to apply to the whole. A future RfC that attempts to separately consider, say, a certain document collection in Wikileaks or Wikileaks editorial voice may be more useful.
The question about no consensus and RSP is a bit mistaken in its premise. If there had been a consensus on a source, and a new discussion reaches a different consensus, then the text you quoted from RSP is completely correct and the newly-formed consensus should be adopted. What happened in this case, however, is that there had been a consensus and the newer discussion did not reach a consensus. There is no "different consensus" to implement. The previous consensus stands. So no, the "new" no consensus result does not substitute the previous consensus because it is not a new result. It is a lack of a result. I hope this helps explain what I earlier wrote. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. I will try to answer as timely as I can. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
FWIW I opened a discussion about this at WP:DFD (here) and largely was going to close in a similar way before deciding I didn't want to deal with the fallout. A very tough discussion to close, and a lot of different closers took different approaches to it (as you can see at DFD), but the conclusion was really the same regardless of the path. Good close. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader:, thank you for that and for pointing out DFD to me. I hadn't noticed that it was created I guess late last year but it's on my watchlist now. Jo-Jo Eumerus's comment of ...it feels like "Wikileaks is the source" is an implicit premise of the RfC and I don't see agreement on that point... is directly relevant and addresses the same point I was raising with Szmenderowiecki in a more pithy manner. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Slight Ambiguity in Ayurveda RfC Closure[edit]

Thank you for finally closing the the long winded Ayurveda RfC. I think there's a little bit of ambiguity in the closing statement: "The IMA calls Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine 'Quacks'".

Could you please clarify in the closure whether future edits can mention that the IMA takes into account the qualifications of those practicing Ayurveda before they classify the practitioner as a quack? Thanks!

Aathish S | talk | contribs 11:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aathish S:, I would like to be able to, but I can't. In closing an RfC, the closer does not make rulings. They summarize the discussion. A small minority of participants said anything about qualifications so the discussion as a whole did not reach any conclusion about whether or not the IMA considers qualifications of Ayurvedic practicioners. I cannot clarify something the discussion itself left vague. I'm sorry since I realize that does not answer your question. Recognizing the possible need for further clarity was one reason for the note about BRD at the end of my closing statement. I hope that's of some help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I completely understand your position. After the closure, I made an edit (one that mentioned "qualifications") to the Ayurveda article following WP:BRD as your closure suggested. An experienced editor (I'm not sure if it's proper etiquette to ping them here) removed the phrase citing the absence of any mention of "qualifications" in the closing sentence as justification for not including any mention of it in the article.
If I have understood your last comment correctly, the closing statement of the RfC not mentioning qualifications is not a valid justification for the Article also not mentioning qualifications (in the context of the IMA's stance on Ayurveda), right? Thanks again! Aathish S | talk | contribs 16:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Aathish S:, I would agree with your statement prior to the break. You did partially follow BRD; you made a Bold change, it was Reverted by another editor, now it is time to start a new Discussion on the talk page. Whether the article mentions qualifications in regards to the IMA's stance on quacks is not for me to decide. It should be an outcome of the new discussion. I recommend that you start it with a neutral question like: "Which of the following statements do the sources discussed in the prior RfC support? "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) labels Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine without relevant qualifications as quacks." "The Indian Medical Association labels Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks." I do not think this needs to be a formal RfC but it does need a followup discussion. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Right, I think I understand now. I discussed this with the other editor on their talk page after their removal where they said their reasoning for not including any mention of qualifications was because the RfC's closing lines didn't mention it. I hope I don't sound crass here, but my question isn't whether the article should or shouldn't mention qualifications. My query is regarding whether the other editor's justification (that because the RfC's conclusion didn't mention qualifications, the article shouldn't mention qualifications either) was a valid one. I just want to make sure I have all my facts right before I open a discussion on the Article's talk page. Thank you, and once again, I hope I don't come off as rude. You've been very patient with me and I can't thank you enough for your detailed responses on when to do what. Aathish S | talk | contribs 18:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@Aathish S:, I hope you understand that I'm leery of labeling another editor's reasoning for an edit as "valid" per WP:AGF. I will say that the reasoning Girth Summit gave is one that the community would generally accept. Your edit's use of "without qualification" was an element that did not have enough support in the RfC for me to mention it in the close and so was one you introduced into the lede. Discussion about it can happen as if it were any other element introduced into a lede. At this point, I suggest thinking about the discussion of this element separately from the RfC close. If the RfC had happened, for example two months ago and you introduced "without qualification" after reading the talk page (including a theoretical old RfC) and the references, how do you think the edits and discussion would proceed? That's how it should proceed now. Again, I hope that this is helpful guidance. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for clarifying all this. It's all a lot clearer now, and again, I can't thank you enough for writing it out for me in a detailed manner like this. Aathish S | talk | contribs 18:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for closes[edit]

Thank you for running through the Requests for Closure page. I try to close the oldest ones that my time allows but the ones that are old are generally that way because they are long, controversial, or both so I have to mentally set aside time for inevitable questions. I admire the efficiency that you were able to show today in attacking these and appreciate the activity. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and happy to help : )
I too was trying to work on the older ones first, some of the 30-40 day ones appear to still be ongoing.
Thanks again : ) - jc37 18:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Reminder[edit]

Reminder: Your response is awaited by multiple editors at Talk:Ayurveda#Close_of_previous_RfC. -Wikihc (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wikihc:, I suppose that, technically "two" counts as "multiple" but there's hardly an outcry of objection to the close. Since you posted your objections, I've had a hard drive crash, a flooded basement, there was a flash flood yesterday and a hurricane is forecast to strike this weekend. Perhaps you'll understand, then, why Wikipedia in general isn't my highest priority right now. I will give those comments the full attention they deserve when I am able to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-Wikihc (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, that's only a, what, almost nine hour late notification? What part of that huge yellow edit notice did you initially miss? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Vision therapy Page[edit]

Looking for advice on the best way to turn the vision therapy page into a more unbiased approach. I've tried to research within Wiki but struggled to find the right stuff.

There is an anti-VT component of ophthalmology and a big political fight with optometry. There is a lot of research that shows VT to be effective for certain conditions, but the page seems only to be written from one perspective.

I think it's best to have pro and anti research cited and address the conflict that is there.

I'm looking to you for guidance on the best way to do this. Snapdginger (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

There have been a large number of brand-new accounts interested in this article. Use of multiple accounts by the same person or off-site coordination of multiple persons for the purpose of making the same edits are prohibited actions and until there is more clarity on this, I cannot help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I may have been part of that problem by accident. I wanted to change my username and wiki said to make a new account.

I do know that the wiki article came up as a topic on a Facebook page. Many docs were upset because it didn’t present a non-partisan approach to the literature. Many people may have viewed because of that.


Basically the situation is that right now it’s very partisan and actually quite inaccurate (eg. CITT study demonstrates evidence at the highest level). There is controversy, and rightly so. Some VT is quackery, but the page needs to include the studies of the areas of VT that work and have been proven to work. Snapdginger (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Heinrich Thoma[edit]

Have a look at this webpage, although not a reliable source for Wikipedia it also lists Thoma as the regimental commander of the 85th IR during the invasion of Poland. This is inline with the source by Richard Hargreaves. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update[edit]

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere
    The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny
    Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising
    It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates
    There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
    Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling
    There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
    Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.


There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Bundled options for scheduled RfAs / two-part RfAs[edit]

I started a discussion on bundling your proposal for scheduled RfAs with cohorts of candidates with the proposal for two-part RfAs. Your feedback would be helpful; thanks! isaacl (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I left a comment there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
With the second phase about to start soon, with a 7-day proposal drafting period, I was just wondering if you were planning to post your proposal for scheduled RfAs? We can of course do scheduled RfAs now with the current format, so if you were planning to make a proposal, were you thinking of either replacing the current ad hoc process, or making the scheduled RfA different in some manner (such as a two-part RfA)? isaacl (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
For reference, I've also asked Worm That Turned about his plans. If you prefer, you are welcome to respond in that conversation. isaacl (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Isaacl: I apologize for not returning to this sooner, I've been busy IRL this weekend. Thank you for letting me know. I think that Barkeep49's proposal 8B is a good first crack at incorporating this by combining it with the PROD style RfA. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
That's actually @John M Wolfson who proposed it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Actually, it was Worm who proposed it as 2B; I simply moved it to 8B as it fit better there.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, thank you to all three of you, then. Team effort. :) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun[edit]

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
Thanks for sticking up for me. Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Eggishorn/RfC_log appearing in CAT:ADMINBACKLOG[edit]

...and I have absolutely no idea why; there seems to be no backlog there to speak of, and when I unlinked what I thought was the culprit, the page is still in the category. Aervanath (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aervanath:, I apologize for taking a far too long time to answer this, but I've been watching recently and I don't see it there. I have no idea what could have caused it but thank you for asking me about it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
No apologies are necessary; I'm also prone to taking extended wikibreaks, and have only become active recently after a years-long semi-retirement phase. The fact that you took less than a year to reply is already better than anyone contacting me could expect. :) In any case, as you said, it is no longer appearing in the category. Nor, to be honest, was it doing any harm by being there except making me scratch my head. Cheers, Aervanath (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

AN/I Closure[edit]

Because I can no longer contribute to the discussion on AN/I, I am posting this same comment on multiple user's talk pages. You are one of those users, and I apologize for bringing this to your talk page instead. I am disappointed that the issue I posted on AN/I was closed so quickly, without giving me a chance to respond. Not everybody is on Wikipedia 24 hours a day. This was my very first time reporting anything to AN/I and, yes, I should have included more detail, and I apologize for not doing so, but now I do not have the opportunity to do so.

The very fact that Hammersoft assumes that I simply don't understand Wikipedia does not assume good faith (and, yes, there is the clear implication that it is my fault that I do not understand what Hammersoft doesn't actually state). The fact that I asked questions repeatedly that Hammersoft did not answer (for no specified reason) is uncivil.

I do not believe Hammersoft is trying to improve Wikipedia here. Someone who wanted to improve Wikipedia would help figure out how to get this notable information in the article, not reject it no matter what. And they would explain why they think Pantheos is not acceptable here while it is acceptable in hundreds of other articles. Whether or not this is uncivil by the Wikipedia definition of the term, it is uncivil by the definition of the word. On notability, I argue that the proposed addition is notable simply because of its direct connection to the SCOTUS case, an "unintended consequence" of it, just like Gavin Newsom's proposal to advance gun control in California based on the Texas law that it looks like SCOTUS will uphold. Every SCOTUS case is notable and unintended consequences of those cases are notable.

Hammersoft is very good at citing all sorts of policies. I don't like citing policies as they are frequently used as a fake "appeal to authority." For example, in Hammersoft's response, they cite WP:NOTSILENCE incorrectly. I did not say that their silence meant consent, nor did I chastise them for a general failure to respond. Not responding is their right. But they did respond and, given that, I said that their failure to respond to my questions and my attempts to confirm my understanding of what they were trying to say meant that I would assume they are incorrect. (Note: Hammersoft did what WP:NOTSILENCE says they shouldn't do — they repeated the same things without providing additional information.)

The discussion in AN/I is also tainted. Does Cullen328 refer to other religions as "guerilla theatre groups"? Or just The Satanic Temple? Cullen328's personal opinions on a particular religion they don't like — essentially an attack on that religion — are absolutely not NPOV and do not belong in this discussion.

I do not intend to make this minor addition to Wikipedia my life's work, but it exhibits one of the things I hate about Wikipedia. Wikipedia would be much better off if people spent more time figuring out how to add important and useful (and notable!) information to Wikipedia rather than trying so hard to remove things. It's sad. I will follow up with an RfC on the issue of whether Pantheos can be cited or not (note that I have already tried, unsuccessfully, to get Hammersoft to engage on this issue).

RoyLeban (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@RoyLeban:, you still are making this an issue about Hammersoft and not about the content. The problem is that your content is fundamentally unacceptable given widespread and longstanding community consensus on what content is suitable. The Patheos issue is a complete red herring, for reasons which Hammersoft explained at length multiple times and which were supported in the AN/I thread you started. To explain once more: Patheos is a blog hosting service. Each individual blog needs to be individually evaluated for reliability and the use of other blogs as sources has no bearing on the sources you were trying to cite. I strongly advise you to not start an RfC about it as there have already been three RSN discussions ([[6]], [[7]],[[8]]) and nothing that has been said so far in the Peace Cross discussion gives me any confidence that a formal RSN RFC would result in anything other than deprecation. The bottom line is: no other editor in five months of discussion has endorsed your view that a minor publicity stunt sourced to self-published sites is either important or useful. I know that is not what you want to hear and you will probably reject this advice, but I do hope that an uninvolved perspective on this may help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I see now that my advice was too late to prevent your creating a bad RfC. I've replied there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. The guidance on Patheos is 6 years old. Patheos has changed significantly in that time. The Wikipedia article on Patheos is relatively informative and refers to bloggers and columnists. Despite the old template with "Search this blog" on it (pointed out by Hammersoft), Hament Mehta is listed as a columnist. And your comment that this is a "minor publicity stunt" certainly seems to indicate bias on your part — it's pejorative. I see the RfC was not the correct thing to do on the Reliable sources page and it's been moved. Fine. The page is huge and I was just focusing on a section and missed how it was supposed to be done there. Given the fact that this keeps coming up and the guidance is marked as stale within the page, it should be updated. And, if Patheos isn't acceptable at all (which is the fundamental argument here), the 911 references should be marked and scrubbed over time. My principle argument that it is not ok that references to Patheos are acceptable when it is about Christianity and other more mainstream religions, and it is not acceptable when it is about The Satanic Temple. That is religious bias, intentional or not. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. Striving toward NPOV, including The Satanic Temple, is not an "other stuff exists" argument. RoyLeban (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
You continued argumentation for an all or nothing approach on Patheos is arguably not compatible with your claimed adherence to NPOV and certainly not compatible with adherence to RS. Please stop raising the same point about deleting all the other references to Patheos. Doing so undercuts any other argument you might make and shows ignorance of how RS and notability work. Also please stop accusing others of bias based on the flimsiest of statements. Doing such is considered WP:ASPERSIONS and sanctionable behavior. For an editor who claims to be concerned with bias and civility, you are treading very close to some very important lines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed[edit]

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.


This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)