A dispute over whether to include a deceased person in Oldest people, and with what details, resulted in edit-warring (see May 14 in the edit history), blocking and, in one case, an eventual indef for one user. Some of the content on the talk page has already been struck but an editor claiming to be a relative of the deceased person has requested that all comments about the person be deleted. This would (presumably?) require striking of much of the content of Talk:Oldest_people#Corrections: and some of Talk:Oldest_people#Page_protection_request. It might be necessary to pin a notice to ensure the person is not mentioned again or included in the article, though how this could be done without the person's name beats me, unless it is possible to flag the name for bot detection. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{( Talk Contribs)} 02:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This just looks like reliable sources. The person claiming to be family says we have the dob wrong. Where did we get the dob? We only use published sources. Secretlondon ( talk) 05:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The dispute was over which of 2 equally reliable sources should be used as they had conflicting information. The solution, agreed by consensus, is to omit the person until such time as the sources agree. The relative wishes all reference to the individual removed. I was under the impression that could be done under a privacy policy (not that I can find an appropriate policy). If there are no grounds under policy for the material to be removed from the talk page (and in future, from preventing their relation from being included in the article), could an admin explain that to the user? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{( Talk Contribs)} 07:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

You and I both have been going at this topic for more than a decade now, and still I sometimes find discussions that take lameness to a new level. Given that the two sources in question have vastly different details about this marginally-notable-at-best person, and that these are the only two sources for a topic that has a well-documented history of fraudulent claims, there's no reason Wikipedia should be propagating this. I also, incidentally, note a lot of threats being bandied about on the talkpage, people making them need to stop it immediately. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 17:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Maybe it would better if we tried to be an encyclopedia based on notable topics, rather than the Guinness Book of Records. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Alas, there seems to be some disagreement among users as to what "notable" means. Donald Albury 20:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I feel like I'm missing something here. The discussion appears to center around a disagreement between sources, and someone claiming to be the descendant of the person written about in those sources is asking us to delete the entire conversation because it is insulting to her ancestor? Is that right? Because if it is I don't see any grounds for being upset at Wikipedia about it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Greetings, I asked to delete all inappropriate comments about my grandpa Ilie Ciocan. Later, I deleted my comments because I listed my contact email there so I was worried because it is publicly available. Namely, on the page talking about the oldest people, various comments and arguments appeared where users argued about whether to add or delete grandfather from the list. My family is appalled after reading these comments, a friend of mine sent me a link to this site. I requested the deletion of all comments where my grandfather is mentioned, because I think he did not deserve to have this type of public discussion about his age. As for publicly available sources, there is no disagreement about the date of birth, the LongeviQuest page confirms that he was born on May 28, 1913, as well as the Gerontology Research Group page. Anyway, it doesn't matter to us if he's on the list or not, it's important to us that all comments about him are deleted, it's unacceptable and we feel upset about it, it's humiliating for my sister and I who for over a decade we take care of him, it is very difficult for us, but we will not give up on him. You can see my comment in the change history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Oldest_people&diff=prev&oldid=1229004322

Sincerely, Camelia Ciocan, Ilie Ciocan's youngest granddaughter Camelia249 ( talk) 06:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

A number of revisions have already been suppressed (if you look in the edit history, the revisions which are doubly stricken are suppressed). These cannot be seen by anyone other than a very small group of trusted editors. Are there still comments present which you regard as problematic? Simply not liking a comment is not grounds for its removal. I have admittedly only taken a cursory glance through the thread but I don't notice anything libelous or otherwise problematic. If you think any content is libelous, your best option would probably be to contact the oversight team (see Wikipedia:Oversight) with the diff links of the comments you think require suppression, or contact Wikimedia (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects) detailing your concerns. You could post what content you want removed here, but this is a high-traffic noticeboard and the content in question is likely to be seen by yet more people (for example, I would never have come across the comments in question if it hadn't been posted about here). Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 07:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Camelia249 I'm one of the small group of oversighters and also, as mentioned above, familiar with this topic area. If there's any other concerning material still visible and/or if anything that's been removed is reposted, you can send me an e-mail and I'll remove it. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 02:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Blocking admin: Orangemike ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The blocked user is clearly an elderly person who misunderstands what Wikipedia is. It was explained to him at the help desk, and he stopped editing. Ten hours later, Mike indef blocked him. I feel like this is far from the first time I have seen Mike come late to a situation and substitute his own judgement for that of others who already adressed the situation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Egregiously bad block What the hell? Not a single warning on the user's talk page, not a note from the admin prior to jumping to a block, and an indef block at that? For a newbie who seems confused and needs some direction? Have we forgotten WP:BITE and WP:BLOCKP? I daresay I hope Orangemike is able to defend their actions, because I'm not seeing any reason they should be blocked indefinitely for a few questions on the Teahouse and Help Desk (two places designed for people to ask for..wait for it...help!). Not to mention, Orangemike mentions the editor being "belligerent" in the block reason, which I see absolutely zero evidence of, and the rest of their block reason of WP:NOTHERE seems to be a very unsubstantiated position to take. EggRoll97 ^{( talk)} 22:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The belligerency was when he demanded, I asked a question; where is your answer? The guy was just not getting it, was using both the Teahouse and Help Desk as general information sources for UK banking questions, and clearly was not going to accept that this was not the place to seek help on this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike ( talk • contribs)

It wasn't just one out of place question. It was several on both the Teahouse and the Help Desk, and it didn't seem like the user was ready to give up asking. RudolfRed ( talk) 23:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Definitely not a good block. I've taken a look at a number of Orangemike's NOTHERE blocks (I didn't look at others), and there were a number of very bad blocks:

• Special:Contributions/Studio_Atinati, one-edit no warning block
• Special:Contributions/Caroline.j.ashleyy, another one-edit no warning block
• Special:Contributions/Mrpoopbenji, user who stopped editing after warning, blocked more than a day later
• Special:Contributions/Wilburthewigga, no warnings whatsoever; this is not a good deletion either

Nearly half of the blocks I looked at were like this. Orangemike really needs to stop doing these no-to-little-warning blocks. — Ingenuity ( t •  c) 23:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

If my colleagues really feel that I'm being quick on the trigger, I will accept your collective judgement and take my trouting like a mensch; but I genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project in the way that somebody like Sideways [nee Beeble] does every day. Two spamming accounts with spammy usernames, one poop joke, one racial epithet username, and our confused British gentleman who thinks we can put him in contact with a bank account dead for over half a century...... -- Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I haven't looked into any of your blocks and so have no opinion whether or not you have acted appropriately, but I would say that the fact that you genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project does not override Wikipedia policy, specifically the policy on blocking. The intention behind Wikipedia was to create an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Policies which temporarily (even indefinite blocks shouldn't be considered permanent) remove an individual's ability to contribute to the project exist only to limit damage and disruption to the project and should generally be considered a last resort, not the first tool you pull out. I am not and have never been an administrator on this or any other Wikimedia project, but I have been an administrator or bureaucrat on multiple MediaWiki installations through my work and can tell you from experience that biting the newcomers in such a way may temporarily put a stop to vandalism or disruption but long-term only harms the project. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

None of these 4 blocks make any sense, and while I think Mike's explanations are genuine, this is a base breach of the blocking policy, and at least a couple of those user's blocks are concerning. The first, for User:Studio Atinati, based on the contributions looks like they need to be redirected to a different language content project (Google tells me it's Georgian?). The second user, User:Caroline.j.ashleyy, just needs an extra dose of the introduction to Wikipedia, not a block for heaven's sake. The third user, User:Mrpoopbenji, based on their contributions just seems like they need some help getting started, something the Growth Tools like mentorship are supposed to help with. Finally, the fourth user, User:Wilburthewigga, is the only one I'll say should probably be blocked, but not for WP:NOTHERE. If anything they should have been blocked for a UPOL violation, but not for their contributions or whether they are HERE or not. To be quite honest though, their edits are just to their user page then a question to their mentor. Of those edits to their userpage, they didn't seem to have any malicious intent either. In addition, they appear to have responded to the block notice, stating they would learn from it, which isn't typically a trait associated with blocks for WP:NOTHERE. On just a closing note as well, the deletion, unless something else had been added that was horridly obscene other than the page creation with "Woo!", I would say that's a violation of WP:DELTALK and the deletion policy in general. Based on the API result here, there doesn't appear to be any other edits to the page, though. Just out of curiosity, Ingenuity, would you (or of course any other administrator) be able to confirm if there's still a deleted revision on User talk:Wilburthewigga? If there is, I wonder if it would be possible to restore that revision, as it doesn't appear to be a proper use of the deletion tool. EggRoll97 ^{( talk)} 01:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I remember encountering Mrpoopbenji ( talk · contribs) through WP:UAA, and discovered that all of their edits were created by a large language model. Ther sandbox was deleted for this reason. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Someone with a username that's slang for "white nigger" needs only a swift kick in the ass out the door. I'd have blocked on sight as well. As to the others: one is an obvious username violation, with another the text being in Georgian is the least of the problems given it was an obvious attempt to hijack an article with blatant spam about an entirely unrelated subject, and the last was as flagrant a case of noble cause syndrome as it gets. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 06:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Just wanted to point out that the blocked editor did not stop editing once it was pointed out (not only on May 14th, which they may have not seen, but also on Jun 14th at 18:34, again at 18:34, at 18:35, and at at 18:44) that wikipedia, including the Help desk and Teahouse, was not an appropriate place for their query. Rather, 20 minutes after that last response, the editor reposted the question asking for legal/financial advice on the userpage. Secondly, while the editor said that they had " contributed to Wikipedia for a number of years" at least this account seemed to be dedicated to a single purpose that was not that of building an encyclopedia. Finally, as Girth Summit eloquently explained on this page a short while back, albeit in a different context, one motivation for applying an indef block is to get assurance from the blocked editor that the problematic behavior will not be repeated.

Hence, while I understand that the Jamiesonandy block was still a judgement call, and that it is natural to feel sympathy for a senior citizen in distress, I can also see Orangemike's thinking in applying the NOTHERE block. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 01:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment I've noticed for years that Orangemike is quick to block, often without any talk page warnings but I generally have trusted their judgment. I'd ask them to ease up on the trigger finger and try communicating with an editor before laying down the ban hammer first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Generally speaking, in my view, a NOTHERE indef block is admissible (although not necessary) if none of the user's edits indicate an ability or intent to improve our articles. This seems to be the case here. It's then up to the user to convince us, in an unblock request, that they are indeed able and willing to edit constructively. Sandstein 08:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

A quick show of hands: y'all do realize that the "reason" you fill in at Special:Block isn't just for the entry in the block log, but is shown to the user every time they try to edit, yes? Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 22:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• The thing here for me is that the Teahouse and the Help Desk are exactly where we want users to go when they are lost or confused as to the purpose of Wikipedia. I don't think anyone is defending this users actual edits, but he hadn't posted anything in many hours and the situation seemed to have settled itself when Mike just indef blocked out of nowhere. Mike, like myself, has contributed for many years at WP:UAA Personally, I don't even think most of the thousands of accounts I've blocked at UAA were here in bad faith, they, like this person, just didn't get it and tried to use Wikipedia in ways it isn't intended to be used. So, they use an WP:ORGNAME and write upa draft article on said organization, and the usual response is that we delete the draft and soft block the user, explicitly allowing them to just start a new account and try to edit within the rules. Looking at some of Mike's blocks, he treats "being lost and confused on help forums" the same way most admins treat "actively disrupting article space." I just don't think being clueless in WP space is what NOTHERE hard indef blocks are for, it is for people who come here to push the content to suit their own needs, not for people who ask deeply misguided questions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'd add that if you look at the language at WP:NOTHERE there's a lot of wording like "long-term history...Extreme lack of interest in working constructively...Major conflicts of attitude, concerning Wikipedia-related activity..." and so on. It doesn't say anything aboout "asks clueless questions at help forums, because help forums are there, at least in part, to help clueless users get some clue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I get that in general, but this particular account was going well beyond that. I count 4 separate instances of being told, in various ways, that Wikipedia is not a forum for handling personal bank squabbles that date back to something from 1950s British probate court (!); to respond to said warnings with this tells me that, in a very literal sense, this user was not here to build an encyclopedia. I'm American and even I could point out that a solicitor, not an online community devoted to building an encyclopedia, would be who to ask these questions. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 06:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Anti-Defamation League has been droning on forever and is literally causing the RSN, an already high-activity page, to slow down and malfunction. The discussion has become stagnant and bloated and needs an uninvolved closer badly just because it’s making it difficult to actually use the noticeboard. Dronebogus ( talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Would you say that its droning is... bogus?

Sorry, I'll see myself out. -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} ( they|xe) 21:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

*finger pistols*

(But seriously, it's been months now. And it's not like any section of it is that complex. If you really feel it's necessary, assemble a three-person team or something, but clearly it needs to be closed.) Loki ( talk) 18:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll pay extra cabal dues this month if someone can get it done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 18:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I pity whoever has to close that cesspit of an RFC. The sheer amount alone, my gosh. EggRoll97 ^{( talk)} 21:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It'll probably be worthwhile closing it to new comments while the "lucky" volunteer reads and assesses. It's exceedingly unlikely at this point that anybody who hasn't said anything will say something that hasn't been said already. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

A request for review of the draft article for Hassan Nisar Haripur, an award-winning Pakistani entrepreneur, YouTuber, and philanthropist, is being made. Despite meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the article has been rejected multiple times by Saqib.

Hassan Nisar Haripur's achievements and coverage in reputable sources demonstrate notability:

- Award-winning entrepreneur (references: [ 1] [ 2])

- Featured in top Pakistani publications, including The Dawn and The Tribune (references: [3] [4])

Wikipedia's policy on award-winning individuals states that they are eligible for a Wikipedia page ( WP:NATIONALAWARD) .

High-quality sources have been provided to support the article's notability, but Saqib has consistently rejected the draft. A review of the article is requested to assess whether it meets the necessary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Please review the draft article and references to ensure a fair evaluation. Uohabacasu ( talk) 08:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Not sure why you are posting this here, Draft:Hassan Nisar Haripur has been declined three times and now rejected, the topic is simply not notable. Theroadislong ( talk) 08:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

And it is not correct that Saqib has consistently rejected the draft. Three different editors declined the draft, and then Saqib rejected it after looking for more sources. Meters ( talk) 09:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

While the draft's notability is still disputed, the clarification provides context to the review process. However, the core concern remains: the draft's notability is evident, yet it has been rejected. A reevaluation of the article's notability, considering the reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies, is still requested. Uohabacasu ( talk) 09:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It has already been looked at four times, by three different editors. And again, this is not something that should be on the admin board. Meters ( talk) 09:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Forgot ot include that Saqib was one of the three who rejected it. Meters ( talk) 09:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The post was made here to request a review of the draft article's rejection, as the decision seems inconsistent with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The repeated rejections despite the provision of high-quality sources, including award recognition and coverage in top Pakistani publications, raise concerns about the fairness of the review process.

The statement "the topic is simply not notable" is subjective and contradicts the evidence provided. Notability is determined by the presence of credible sources, which have been abundantly provided in this case. A reevaluation of the article's notability, considering the reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies, is requested.

A more detailed explanation of the rejection, beyond a simple statement, would be appreciated. Additionally, a review of the article by a different editor, without the assumption that the topic is not notable, is requested. Uohabacasu ( talk) 09:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

No evidence of notability has been provided. Bonadea -- a fourth editor -- went painstakingly through the sources too, found none of them to contribute to making the article subject meet GNG, and I don't see any I'd dispute. This is not a suitable article for English Wikipedia. And this is a very poor forum for this as well; administrators are editors entrusted with advanced tools by the community, not content supervotes. In any case, the explanation of the rejection was thoroughly explained, completed with the aforementioned source analysis, and the primary issue appears to be that you don't like the explanations, not that they are improper. You should drop WP:DROPTHESTICK. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 16:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I was supposed to be informed about this discussion on my tp. -- Saqib ( talk I contribs) 10:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

OP has shown us consistent COI editing, chatbot-generated communication, resistance to attempts at instilling a clue on two different boards, and this probably isn’t their only account. Even in the unlikely event that they’re not socking, they’re clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and should be blocked accordingly before they waste more editors’ time. -- Finngall ^talk 12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• I have blocked both Uohabacasu ( talk · contribs) and Thekhyberboypk ( talk · contribs), who seemed to be acting in concert along with IPs 39.41.131.130 ( talk · contribs), 39.41.180.193 ( talk · contribs) and 39.41.181.140 ( talk · contribs) to promote a YouTube personality on wikipedia, and ignoring feedback. Will leave the possible speedying of the drafts Draft:Hassan Nisar Haripur, Draft:Hazara Waterfalls Jab Valley, and Draft:Metrix Pakistan to other admins more familiar with the standards applied in draftspace. Abecedare ( talk) 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Quite recently I noticed this [1] on the Starlink website after hearing about "dynamic IP's" from this [2] discussion. Considering these IP's do not flag as proxy's, are they a issue in regards to Sockpuppets? Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Generally speaking, Starlink is not so different to any other mobile ISP, of which there are plenty, or for that matter most non-mobile ISPs. There are lots who rotate IPs very rapidly (as some editor pointed out in that discussion, switching ISPs is not actually a dynamic IP issue). As an added bonus, Starlink provides a list of their IP ranges per geolocation, for example in Atlanta, GA. Is there a sockpuppetry or PROJSOCK issue in this case? Probably. Is Starlink the issue, probably not. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, is my conduct on United States appropriate? I'm trying to purge the dysfunction from the rfc I did but I'm struggling to gauge whether it's appropriate to have another topic on redesigning it for relisting. I don't plan on engaging in a relisting Alexanderkowal ( talk) 14:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Alexanderkowal. Can you give us a summary of what conduct you've done? Maybe include some WP:DIFFs? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 21:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Talk:United States#RfC: foreign relations with developing countries, Talk:United States#RfC: How should the US' relations with developing countries be summarised in the body?, and Talk:United States#Workshopping a relisting of the rfc. I'm trying to rectify the dysfunction partly caused by me. When I made the initial edit per WP:BRD I received successive personal attacks which made me defensive and combative, affecting my conduct in the rfc. Multiple editors then derailed the rfc with some valid points and I'm trying to address those so it can be relisted for further input. Alexanderkowal ( talk) 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

There is a racist troll running amok. I have blocked them twice. They create new accounts and make rapid fire edits to random pages with vile edit summaries that require individual revdeling. Any help appreciated. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This RFC was probably not a good candidate for a NAC due to the inherent controversy of this issue. That said, the closure itself was a decent one if a little short on explanation. The question of involved-ness doesn't seem to be a compelling one. That said, the primary argument here among editors was that a non-admin closed part of the RfC. To avoid all doubt, I've re-closed it with an expanded rationale and endorsed the original result. TrangaBellam is commended for her efforts in sorting through those arguments and finding a consensus; no reasonable administrator could have done differently.

I'm also going to look through the rest of the RFC to determine if there is any consensus in the other parts, since someone needs to grab the third rail. I'm not 100% committed to closing them, so if anyone is already working on it they're free to do so. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

---

Please note that this discussion falls under WP:ARBPIA restrictions, and is thus only open to logged-in editors with extended confirmed permissions.

This RSN RfC on the Anti-Defamation League has been partly (as in, only a part of it) closed by TrangaBellam, with the summary: I see a consensus for Option 3 [generally unreliable regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict] — going by the numbers (roughly, 3:1) as well as the relative strength of arguments — and note that most of the participants were okay-ish with deprecation too.

BilledMammal went to Tranga's Talk to say that they oughtn't have closed, since their Talk Page is decorated with a quote by Nishidani (a participant in the RfC, who voted in alignment with Tranga's close), which includes: ...I sympathise with the silenced underdog in so many conflicts, be they Aboriginals or Palestinians or Tibetans. This as far as I am aware does not translate into being uncomfortable with my country of origins, or antisemitic, or hostile to Chinese. .... Tranga disagreed; Dcpoliticaljunkie and FortunateSons agreed and asked Tranga to revert; Tranga declined.

Back at RSN, My very best wishes challenged the close, writing that an RfC should not be partially closed, that this RfC is so long and big that it should be closed by an admin, and that the provided justification (just a head count) was doubtful.. A brief discussion took place before being hatted by ScottishFinnishRadish, who directed towards AN.

I hope this post is not malformed—I've never posted here before. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah, and a little discussion on FortunateSons' Talk. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Participants

• Overturn, per WP:INVOLVED. If you are partisan about the conflict to the extent that you feel you need to have quotes expressing that partisanship on your user talk page then you are too partisan to be closing RFC’s about the conflict. BilledMammal ( talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, in line with the arguments made in the discussions. This is a controversial and significant RfC in a contentious area, and the non-admin closer has a quote by one of the participants about the topic area on top of his talk page. Even if one were to excluding the issues with a partial close (acknowledging that the RfC is quite long), the style of closure (including the heavy reliance on !vote count) is not even close to appropriate in this area, and the closer being an experienced editor should have known that. Close should be reverted and closer trouted. FortunateSons ( talk) 22:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  In line with BADNAC Nr. 2, it is my belief that exclusively an admin closure would be appropriate here. FortunateSons ( talk) 22:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The spirit of WP:NOTBURO would discourage us from overturning an overdue and badly needed closure on mere technicality (and a technicality that is a stretch since TrangaBellam did not participate in the RFC) and with limited sense that the outcome could be different. As TrangaBellam observed in the user talk page discussion ( permanent link), There is no way that the discussion could have been closed differently by someone else, short of supervoting. Additionally, OP calls TrangaBellam's closure reason just a headcount but this is a misrepresentation. The full closure reads, I see a consensus for Option 3 — going by the numbers (roughly, 3:1) as well as the relative strength of arguments — and note that most of the participants were okay-ish with deprecation too (italics added). Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - why would anyone waste time asking for this to be re-closed? It's 3:1 for pete's sake. Make an argument for why this was anything other than an "option 3" close, and then maybe you have reason to challenge. Otherwise, you're literally wasting other volunteers' time by asking someone else to make the same edit that Tranga made (an Option 3 close). Levivich ( talk) 22:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Request all involved editors to take a step back and let this close review not devolve into a unreadable mess as the RFC did. Abecedare ( talk) 00:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think vote count should matter here—the policy-based substance of the votes is what needs to be taken into account. A number of option 3 and 4 votes were just criticism of the ADL as an actor, without bearing on its reliability in reporting fact. A sensitive closer would need to look carefully at the arguments made, and certainly provide a better summary than a rough ratio of votes and a simple declaration of "I weighed the arguments". ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 23:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply @ Zanahary: I'm going to put you on the spot here, apologies but I'm gonna do it. Be honest with us: before you made this close challenge, did you re-read the entire RFC from top to bottom? Levivich ( talk) 23:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply Of course not—really I was just bringing a scattered discussion that had been repeatedly pointed to AN over here. But I did look through long, detailed votes for 3/4, and I do believe a lot of them fail to make policy-based arguments, and instead just explain why the ADL is a bad organization (but not an unreliable source). In general I don't like vote count as a major consideration in determinations of consensus, since votes often come with poor or no policy-based rationale. In an RfC as big as this one, a closer who says "The ratio's big; the arguments win" is, considering my reading of the arguments made, not good enough. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 23:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply No of course not, because who has time for that? Just Part 1 is 17,300+ words; at an average reading speed of 200wpm, that's damn near an hour and a half of reading. You didn't volunteer an hour and a half of your time to read that thing, but what you want is an hour and a half of someone else's time (more than that, really, to close), after somebody already spent that 90+ min. And why are you asking for someone else to spend 90+ min on this? Because maybe, maybe, the weighing of arguments would result in a no consensus? Don't you think you should first spend the 90 min to determine if that's likely, before asking someone else to do so? And in fact, it's more than one person spending 90+ min, because editors now have to spend time on this close review. And of course, nobody who is voting here (myself included) is going to spend 90 min reading this before they vote on whether to overturn it or not. So you're really raising a purely procedural objection to this giant RFC, not a substantive one. You have no idea whatsoever if a "no consensus" outcome is even plausible because you haven't read the whole thing (at least lately). This is why I think this challenge is a waste of time. Hours of editor time will be spent on what is very, very, very, very unlikely to be anything but an "option 3" result. Can you think of a time when dozens of editors voted in an RFC, it was 3:1, and the minority prevailed? Or it was even no consensus? I can't. I count 50 votes in Part 1. If it's a 3:1 ratio, that's like 36:12. So we'd need to discount like 20 votes in order for it to be no consensus. Can you point to 20 votes that should be discounted? Can you list 10? I really feel like, before you ask other people to do this much work, you need to do the work. Read the thing. Identify 10 or 20 bad votes. Then decide whether to challenge. Levivich ( talk) 23:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply Can you point to 20 votes that should be discounted? Can you list 10? Considering Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources, yes; most votes for option 3 simply say it is biased; too pro-Israeli or too willing to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Some of these !votes did include sources to support their views - but as these sources only said that it is biased, not unreliable, that doesn't increase the weight their !vote should be given when viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply Equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, or equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, isn't bias, it's unreliability (because criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism are factually not antisemitism). Everyone who said that made an argument for unreliability (which, I think, is most). It's like: if you say the sun rises in the West, that's not bias, it's unreliability. Levivich ( talk) 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply because criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism are factually not antisemitism It is possible for criticism of Israel to be both criticism of Israel and antisemitic; it is possible for a statement to be both anti-Zionist and antisemitic. I don't think this is controversial? Whether a specific criticism of Israel or a specific anti-Zionist statement is antisemitic can be controversial, but it is largely a matter of opinion; there isn't a single objective definition of antisemitism by which we can decide if a source is right or wrong. Instead, as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources tells us, we consider all reliable sources - including those that we consider too quick to label something antisemitism and too slow, and decide if the label is WP:DUE to include in the specific case under consideration. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply Of course it's possible for something to be criticism of Israel or anti-Zionist and also antisemitic. And it's possible for something to be the former and not the latter. As many editors pointed out in the discussion, the ADL equates all criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism with antisemitism. This was backed up by sources in the discussion making this exact point, as well as sources from the ADL making this exact point. And that's what makes ADL unreliable, not just biased, in the view of a 3:1 majority. Levivich ( talk) 00:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply The ADL has certainly never said "criticism of israel and antisemitism are the same thing", and that's not something being alleged about them. Their "equating" would be better described as "evaluating anti-Zionism to be antisemitic", which is a subjective assessment—as valid (and subject to criticism) as any in the messy realm of bigotry and discourse, and not a matter of fact or definition. I wouldn't consider someone unreliable on facts relating to, say, women and sex, just because they'd evaluated marriage to be a sexist institution. They're not compromising their factual reliability by pushing the untruth that misogyny and marriage are literally equivalent (and thus misidentifying marriage as misogyny): they're only putting forth their POV that marriage is generally misogynistic. That's what, per voters favoring a GUNREL/deprecation designation, the ADL does with anti-Zionism and antisemitism. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 00:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply Evaluating anti-Zionism to be antisemitic is not a subjective assessment. Anti-Zionism is not the same thing as antisemitism, period. For example, Jewish anti-Zionists are not antisemitic. Holocaust survivor anti-Zionists are not antisemitic. Period. This is why the ADL's reputation for reliability has plummeted in recent years: because they are saying that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, and they call Jewish anti-Zionist groups antisemitic. Levivich ( talk) 00:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply I'm not convinced that 90 minutes were spent, judging by the one-sentence summary. I do have some idea of whether a no consensus result is likely, because I've read the longest votes, which are broadly cited by the people not providing original rationales, and I think the 3/4 votes are largely not policy-based. Can you think of a time when dozens of editors voted in an RFC, it was 3:1, and the minority prevailed? I'm a new editor here—I opened this account as a child, but didn't begin getting involved with editing until about a year ago. So I don't know. I hope the answer is yes! Bad arguments may sometimes overwhelm, and I hope a closing admin would put policy first and not consider the popularity of arguments not rooted in WP policy. I may look through and count bad votes, but I might not, because I think even just on procedural grounds, an RFC with over 700 comments need a sensitive admin reviewer who will provide a detailed summary of the discussion. But I thank you for your feedback (earnestly). ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 00:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply There is nothing about admins that makes them better closers than non-admins. WP:NAC is an essay, whereas the longstanding global consensus is that a NAC cannot be overturned simply because it's a NAC (read, for example, WP:CLOSE, WP:XFD, WP:RMNAC, and see how they all explicitly state that non-admins can close discussions just like admins). I haven't been around that long -- 5 years -- but I've never seen a 3:1 go the other way when there are dozens of editors participating (it's different if there are only 4 editors participating and it ends up 3:1). And I AGF that Tranga spent the time reading the whole thing before closing it, even if she only wrote a short summary. If you challenged this on the grounds that the arguments need to be summarized better in the closing statement, I'd support that. Thank you for being a good sport about me getting all huffy :-) Levivich ( talk) 00:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply Rollback of Vector 2022 wasn't 3:1 - closer to 2:1 - but given that 150 more editors supported rolling back than opposed it I would suggest the result to not rollback would be similar to the result with a higher ratio but lower !vote count. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply Touche! That is a "big" overturn. I'm still not technically wrong, though :-D But surely you'd agree it's extraordinarily rare for a majority in a well-attended discussion to be overturned, and V22 is probably the most extreme counterexample, I still can't think of another one (although admittedly my memory is not very good as you've just proven). Levivich ( talk) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply It is very rare, though I believe less so in areas where editors are more likely to !vote based on their personal opinion - whether because it is a matter of personal opinion, such as the format of the website, or because the topic area is highly contentious in the real world. I'm pretty sure I've seen other examples but I can't think of any off the top of my head, and I don't have time to look right now - if I get the chance before the appeal closes I will (and if I don't, I might look later and post on your talk page if I find anything, solely to satisfy my curiosity and because I think the discussions would make interesting reading). BilledMammal ( talk) 00:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply Meanwhile I will not embarrass myself by blindly claiming that there are no other examples Levivich ( talk) 00:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply A few bad votes for options 3 and 4 which are or contain criticisms of things other than the reliability of the ADL's reporting: Its CEO publicly comparing the pro-Palestine protestors wearing keffiyeh with Nazis wearing swastika armbands as well as mispresenting all pro-Palestine protestors as "wanting all zionists dead" demonstrates its skewed views and manipulative presentation on the IP topic and thus highly unreliable. After AIPAC, the ADL is the primary propagandist for Israel in the United States. All of its pronouncements regarding Israel are based on the advocacy role it has adopted and not based on an unbiased analysis of the facts. because as discussed earlier, it is partisan pro-Israel advocacy group which has historically been engaged in espionage and defamation campaign against pro-Palestinian activists, and its broadened definition of antisemitism. Their reliability on the topic has been put into question by the Guardian and the Nation, both RS per WP. Attribution is required for any claim; and for controversial claims, probably best not to be used at all. Option 4 The ADL has consistently misidentified critics of Israel as anti-Semitic, has proven credulous to disinformation that supports Israel and has experienced negative reputational outcomes from its engagement on the topic. It should not be used as a source as it is thoroughly unreliable. (I consider this one to not be about reliability because it just expresses a difference in opinion with the ADL's subjective evaluations of critics' sentiments—not an error of fact. Certainly the ADL would never be used to state in Wikivoice that a critic of Israel is an antisemite.) The ADL has consistently called for laws and measures that consider as possible examples of connivance with terrorism significant movements which protest in solidarity with an occupied people, i.e. Palestinians. It does this because its agenda tends to collapse core distinctions between demonstrating on behalf of human rights (in Israel/Palestine) and anti-Semitism defined as anti-Zionist disavowels of the legitimacy of Israel as a state. In its practice, advocacy for Palestinian human rights should be subject to criminalization. (Alice Speri, How the ADL's Anti-Palestinian Advoacy Helped Shape U.S. Terror laws, The Intercept 21 February 2024) For its director Jonathan Greenblatt, opposition to Israel/anti-Zionism (by which he appears to mean criticism of Israel’s human rights record) is intrinsically ‘antisemitic’. His position was so extreme that even ADL staff protested at the equation of critics of Israel with those white supremicists groups which the ADL has distinguished itself in exposing. (Jonathan Guyer, Tom Perkins, Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics The Guardian 5 January 2024). (Justin) Sadowsky (of the Council on American–Islamic Relations), who is Jewish, characterizes some of ADL’s actions as part of a pattern of deliberate intimidation to make it “very difficult for Palestinians to talk in a forthright way about what’s going on”, (Wilfred Chan ‘The Palestine exception’: why pro-Palestinian voices are suppressed in the US The Guardian 1 November 2023). And they do distort information, because their lists of antisemitic incidents do not discriminate between normal protests and serious incidents of antisemitic behaviour. Spitting on Christian priests in Jerusalem is commonplace and the ADL has protested the practice regularly, but, if that is noteworthy for them, the same cannot be said for protesting extreme human rights violations by Israel against Palestinians, which are endemic and yet, it appears, not noteworthy. Option 4 the simple fact is that ADL is an aggressively pro-Israel organization which considers even questioning the legitimacy of Israel (a very young state founded under circumstances that are extremely dubious to day the least) makes it inherently biased. I’m not trying to wade into the “let’s use Wikipedia as a proxy to argue about Israel/Palestine” fight but the rough equivalent would be an Afrikaner advocacy group saying questioning the legitimacy of European colonization in South Africa is racist. it's a pro-Israeli lobbying group, not scholarship or journalism, and equates criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism with antisemitism ... Later comment responding to the fact that the advocacy group the SPLC is a reliable source: The ADL very explicitly lobbies on behalf of Israeli (foreign) interests. The sources clearly demonstrate a severe bias in matters AI/IP, inclusive of weaponizing charges of antisemitism for political purposes in this area. The ADL has shown itself to be far too pro-Israel in their ongoing war against Hamas and have used their platform to attack people who have protested against Israel's actions. They are at the forefront of groups who try to equate even the slightest criticism of Israel's policies with anti-semitism. They also have recently been providing incidents of anti-semitism without evidence. An article they released recently conflated anti Israel protests on last weekend as being exclusively protests praising the actions of Hamas and included descriptions of signs yet did not provide photographic evidence of the more inflammatory signs they alleged to have seen. They have also called Jewish activists who do not support Zionism or Israel's policies as anti-semitic or useful idiots for anti-semites such as when they said that Jewish Voice for Peace was "[using] its Jewish identity to shield the anti-Israel movement from allegations of anti-Semitism and provide it with a greater degree of legitimacy and credibility." Additionally, they've repeatedly denied that American police officers travel to Israel to train in spite of the fact the ADL themselves have routinely paid for these very programs that they deny. Since October 7th, they've increasingly squandered their credibility as an authority on racism and hate in support of an increasingly unpopular foreign conflict that the international community has grown to condemn, even among governments that have supported Israel such as the United States.This one explicitly states that the ADL has fucked its credibility as an authority on racism and hate—not the I/P conflict. ADL is an explicitly biased pro-Israel advocacy group and its claims are not at all reliable regarding Israel-Palestine conflict. I'd support deprecating this source if some editor can demonstrate that this group promotes zionist or republican/neo-con conspiracy theories. Option 3, very clearly a strongly pro-Israel biased organization, shouldn't be used as a source. There's a theme here of "the ADL as an organization suuuuucks", and even "the ADL is biased", in the absence of "the ADL's factual reliability as a source suuuuuucks". Many of these comments, including others which included links to supposed inaccuracies, were criticized by other participant editors as not pertaining to the I/P subject area and not supporting unreliability, only bias. One editor voted 3 and acknowledged Obviously it is a highly WP:BIASED source on that and could never be used on the topic without attribution, but that alone wouldn't make it unreliable, and then proceeded to cite three sources that are all about the ADL's handling of facts about antisemitism, and not about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Someone pointed out: Almost none of the comments above actually relate to ADL's claims about I/P but rather to its claims about antisemitism, the topic of the survey below. A lot of these rationales were then cited by later voters. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 00:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply mispresenting all pro-Palestine protestors as "wanting all zionists dead" has historically been engaged in espionage and defamation campaign against pro-Palestinian activists, and its broadened definition of antisemitism. Their reliability on the topic has been put into question by the Guardian and the Nation consistently misidentified critics of Israel as anti-Semitic, has proven credulous to disinformation that supports Israel and has experienced negative reputational outcomes from its engagement on the topic tends to collapse core distinctions between demonstrating on behalf of human rights (in Israel/Palestine) and anti-Semitism defined as anti-Zionist disavowels of the legitimacy of Israel as a state For its director Jonathan Greenblatt, opposition to Israel/anti-Zionism (by which he appears to mean criticism of Israel’s human rights record) is intrinsically ‘antisemitic’. His position was so extreme that even ADL staff protested at the equation of critics of Israel with those white supremicists groups which the ADL has distinguished itself in exposing ... And they do distort information, because their lists of antisemitic incidents do not discriminate between normal protests and serious incidents of antisemitic behaviour it's a pro-Israeli lobbying group, not scholarship or journalism, and equates criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism with antisemitism (hey, I recognize that one! :-P) They are at the forefront of groups who try to equate even the slightest criticism of Israel's policies with anti-semitism. They also have recently been providing incidents of anti-semitism without evidence. An article they released recently conflated anti Israel protests on last weekend as being exclusively protests praising the actions of Hamas and included descriptions of signs yet did not provide photographic evidence of the more inflammatory signs they alleged to have seen. They have also called Jewish activists who do not support Zionism or Israel's policies as anti-semitic or useful idiots for anti-semites ... they've repeatedly denied that American police officers travel to Israel to train in spite of the fact the ADL themselves have routinely paid for these very programs that they deny its claims are not at all reliable regarding Israel-Palestine conflict I see the above quotes as being policy-based arguments, rooted in WP:RS, addressing reliability, not bias. Levivich ( talk) 00:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply See my above comment on the factualness of assessments of antisemitism. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 00:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply And again, a lot of these comments make no argument about unreliability in the Israel/Palestine topic area. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply Literally every single bullet point has the word "Israel" or "Palestine" in it. Anti-Zionism is about Israel/Palestine because Zionism is about Israel in Palestine. Levivich ( talk) 00:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - A user page should have little to no bearing on the outcome of the RfC, and the closure was non-controversial (in the sense that the margin of support for the decision was very clear). An admin closure would almost certainly come to the same decision, as Levivich said, and this contestation doesn't provide any argument that the outcome should have been different. The consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of option 3. As an aside, I have noticed a pattern of users in this topic area relying on userpages to get others into trouble. I don't want to cast aspersions, and I am trying to avoid any generalizing or unfair statements. I know that @ BilledMammal, who makes a userpage based argument here, was involved in a similar effort to contest the content on @ JDiala's userpage, which was ultimately put forth as an argument in a later procedure which saw them topic banned. I know that this was not the first time an editor has been dragged to one noticeboard or another over pro-Palestinian sentiment on their userpage. As someone who likes having a userpage, and likes reading the userpages of others, I worry about the chilling effect these efforts have on Wikipedians' self-expression, which is a fascinating and valuable part of the editing and community experience of the website in my opinion. Unbandito ( talk) 23:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and overturn. I agree with the closure, and I agree that the closure represents consensus, but for a discussion as gigantic and heavily controversial as this one, in the interest of propriety it should be closed by somebody who is beyond question uninvolved; as much as the tripartite panel closes can be groan-inducing, this seems like a good case for one. jp× g 🗯️ 23:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  concur Buffs ( talk) 15:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  To be clear: for the sake of avoiding silly bureaucratic pissantery, it should not be overturned until such a time as the aforementioned knight(s) in shining armor are willing to make a formal close with proper bells/whistles/hoohas -- since people seem to overwhelmingly agree with the fact of the close itself. jp× g 🗯️ 21:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Close the entire RfC, rather than a section by uninvolved administrator(s). I think this should be an admin closure per guidelines [3] #2, i.e. "The outcome is a close call ... or likely to be controversial." Saying that Anti-Defamation League was a "generally unreliable source" is controversial. Commenting on the closure itself, the 3:1 description was fair, but the "strength of the argument" was not. To say that the source was generally unreliable, one should show it was not just biased, but publish incorrect information on a regular basis. I believe this is not at all the case for this source after looking at the entire discussion. That's why I think this RfC should not be closed "by parts". My very best wishes ( talk) 02:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Please do not misrepresent the close; it held the source to be "generally unreliable" for a narrow topic area than for everything under the Sun. TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I know that some discussions end up with the conclusion that source X frequently publish misinformation in one subject area, but not in others. I think in all such cases the source as a whole should be regarded as unreliable. If they are liars, they can not be trusted. If this is not a reputable organization, then it just is not. However, in this case I did not see examples proving that they are liars. Of course I may be wrong. Hence we are having the community discussion that needs to be properly closed. My very best wishes ( talk) 13:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Plenty of sources are reliable for some things but not others. Consider Noam Chomsky, highly respected as a linguist, but with rather controversial political views. GRuban ( talk) 15:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I think we need to prohibit closing RfCs "by parts", as a matter of policy. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  It's not "by parts", it's 3 RFC's and was set up that way from the start "editors expressed concerns regarding the ADL's current status as a generally reliable source in several topic areas. I'm breaking these topic areas into different RFCs, as I believe there's a reasonable chance they might have different outcomes." Selfstudier ( talk) 15:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  So you believe that issues of Israel-Palestine conflict, antisemitism and hate symbols can be separated? No, of course not. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  It's not a question of what I believe, I am referring to the way the RFCs were set up, months ago, which no-one objected to at all until now, when the result turned up something people didn't like. Let's face it, looking at this filing, it is a group of option "1" voters, disputing a pretty clear cut result, with any grounds that might work. Personally, I don't mind if it is reclosed, the result will be the same, even if there are more words. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ My very best wishes multiple commenters have expressed different opinions in the different RFCs, so very clearly people do believe the three can be separated. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Well, this is just a matter of simple logic and fact. The are numerous subjects and publications that simultaneously belong to all three or two of the mentioned categories (the conflict, and antisemitism and hate). And of course they are closely connected. Here is a random example [4]. Yes, someone set up the RfC in such way. But it was wrong set up and a reason to say this is an incorrectly framed RfC. This has noting to do with anyone liking or disliking the outcome. I voted "2" in all parts of the RfC, but I am very much comfortable with any outcome. My very best wishes ( talk) 19:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse: This RFC needed closing, and if a piecemeal approach is the way it occurs, so be it. The close was sound and perfectly adequately reasoned. As has been noted elsewhere in the subsequent discussion, closing it any other way would have required a supervote. The closer was meanwhile not an involved participant by any standard reading of the guidelines. Never before have I seen the notion applied whereby "having an editorial compadre in the discussion" qualifies as being involved. Given how many Wikipedia editors are well familiar with each other, that would be a ridiculous bar to apply across the project (and this is probably why it doesn't exist). Iskandar323 ( talk) 05:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse This was a difficult decision on a contentious RfC but clearly closed in GF and within the bounds of reason. Chetsford ( talk) 05:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The coverage of the ADL is obviously vary varied (anti-Zionism vs. other content vs. hate speech database) and it is unsound to group them altogether and put coverage advocating against genuine (albeit from, in my opinion, a flawed organization) and horrifying manifestations of antisemitism in the same category as ideological drivel used to racism-jacket those who oppose what is credibly accused as a settler colonial state formed on ethnic cleansing that is currently committing genocide. Furthermore, the RfC has obviously gone on far too long and should be closed at this point, even if it is broken apart. GLORIOUSEXISTENCE ( talk) 05:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (as closer) - To repeat what I wrote at my t/p, 3 of 4 participants [almost none of whom were flyby SPAs or the like] were convinced that Option 3, at the very least, was necessary. There is no way that the discussion could have been closed differently by someone else, short of supervoting. Now, I can append a paragraph on why, notwithstanding the numbers, the argument offered by the numerically superior side carried the day but I doubt it would have convinced anyone to not relitigate it. TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - The extensive engagement and presence of an admin in the RFC (who was doing far more nuanced analysis of both the arguments and the players than a mere headcount) should have been sign enough that *any* non-admin editor (most especially one with clear and public WP:BIASED concerns) should not have thought it appropriate to step in and take charge on closure matters after an admin (with clear and established track record in the topic space), had studied the arguments extensively, and did not feel there were clear grounds to close in this way. If there were grounds to close on headcount alone (which usually there aren't) it would have been closed by the admin on those grounds - and it wasn't. In fact, the admin did not consider any consensus to have been found in the RFC, called the overall discussion a "dumpster fire" and provided a link reminding editors (who were pushing for a close and bombarding the board) to "allow administrators to enforce structured discussions." The closing non-admin, non-involved editor's sudden arrival and action in the discussion, lack of adherence and deference to existing and active admin assessment and recommended guidelines, and general unwillingness to engage in conversation as to their reasoning on closing (or be challenged on it) reeks of a bad faith hijacking of a process that clearly (and was clearly communicated) should only have been overseen to its conclusion by an uninvolved admin. Mistamystery ( talk) 14:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Mistamystery: Perhaps I am misreading, but it appears you are openly accusing TB of bad faith, in rather obvious violation of WP:AGF. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  My statement has been revised for further clarity, and in line with evidentiary concern that there may have been violation WP:AGF in the closure process and subsequent appeal process/discussion. Mistamystery ( talk) 17:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Just like determining the direction of a close, overturning one requires valid, policy arguments. The many editors here who are opining that an Admin should have closed this discussion are enunciating value preferences, not policy. Admins have no special closing rights and our WP:CLOSE clearly states "any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins", reserving closing for Admins only in cases where it's been requested by some party ("if you want to request closure by an uninvolved administrator"), something that did not happen here. Whether TrangaBellam is uninvolved or not (I believe they are) is probably a valid source of debate here. However, the idea that they may or may not be an Admin is irrelevant to an analysis of whether the close was handled properly and is an expression of a value preference that would have been properly addressed pre-close, not post-close. Chetsford ( talk) 17:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse This RfC has been sat in closure requests for over a month, and no admin had stepped forward to close it. So while I agree with the arguments that an admin should have closed it, or a group of partipants, not one person stepped forward to do so (despite suggestions for the latter); hence Part 1 was eventually closed by a non-admin. Despite the initially short and inadequate summary for the close, I still believe it represented the consensus of the discussion. Notably the summary has been expanded and further explains how the consensus was reached, in order to justify the closure. The fact the user in question has quoted a participant in the RfC is far from evidence of WP:INVOLVED, and there has been no evidence provided (that I'm aware of) that the user was involved in the dispute. If evidence were provided, I'd likely change my opinion. I'm otherwise certain that this closure would have ended up at ANI, if the result was GUNREL, simply for different reasons. CNC ( talk) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

If no one wants to close this RfC, this is fine an understandable. Then let's just archive it and let this matter remain undecided. This is frequently happens with other RfC. My very best wishes ( talk) 19:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

That's not how WP:ANRFC works. It can be archived, but would still end up being closed. CNC ( talk) 19:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Utter waste of time - they were/are not WP:INVOLVED, but more importantly I see almost nobody is claiming that this would not be (re-)closed as a 3. Unless you think that an overturn would come with a different result, and I personally think it beyond obvious that it will not, this is a complete waste of time and space. But if yall want to waste the time then I suppose I cant come up with words wise enough to convince you not to. But there is a very obvious consensus for 3, and overturning it will only result in spending more time to end up with the same result. nableezy - 19:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Reluctant endorse, or endorse and overturn - For INVOLVED reasons I'm not a fan of the user in question closing it themselves, but the editor consensus is fairly obvious and I feel as though overturning it only to re-close would be a waste of time and effort. Suggest leaving it up to admin discretion, however - I concur with Jxpg above. The Kip ^{( contribs)} 20:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse both because I'm not convinced the "INVOLVED" argument holds water (I broadly agree with what Iskandar323 above and Newimpartial below have said), and because NOTBURO, if most people here seem to acknowledge there's no other way it could've been closed without the closer impermissibly supervoting. -sche ( talk) 21:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Firstly, admins are not special and have no magical ability to be better closers than non-admins - indeed many non-admins are better closers of discussions than many admins. Secondly I remain completely unconvinced by the arguments that TB was INVOLVED. The closer read the discussion (which more than the OP here has done), summarised the close (not ideally at first, but adequately and subsequently improved) and arrived at the consensus that pretty much every neutral party agrees was the right one. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse-ish, basically per Black Kite below: in a vacuum, I'm not a huge fan of this closure. Ideally I would have preferred a totally uninvolved admin or a panel of such admins close all three sections. However, the consensus in section 1 is extremely clear, and this RFC has stayed open for months without closure. If we vacate the close, whoever closes it is going to close it the same way (because there's no other reasonable way to close Section 1, it's an overwhelmingly clear consensus), and it's likely going to take months to do, which temporarily restores a status quo that there's an overwhelming consensus against. So I don't see a dedication to procedure to be worth it here. (But if whoever closes the other two sections wants to take over the section 1 close, I wouldn't be opposed to that.) Loki ( talk) 01:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Non-participants

Please note that this discussion falls under WP:ARBPIA restrictions, and is thus only open to logged-in editors with extended confirmed permissions.

Overturn. I agree that this is such a long and potentially impactful RfC that it'd better be closed by an admin—and I echo BilledMammal's assessment here that an editor who has partisan quotes about an RfC's topic area (especially a quote from one of the RfC's participants) is just not the right person to close the RfC in question. I don't know if partial closes ever happen, but I've never seen one before, and I'm not a fan—it'll certainly have an impact on the unclosed discussions and their outcomes. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 21:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Seriously? The very point of creating three RfCs was to allow the possibility of different resolutions to be reached on different aspects and, that you have never seen one before, please consult Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I. TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah man, seriously. I'd never seen one and I think it was a bad idea. I'm not saying that's your fault, and if it's moot then it's moot—my stance on the close still stands, considering the scale of the RfC, your apparent passionate POV on the topic, your one-sentence summary, and my reading of how that discussion went. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 05:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Perhaps then, you can present me with a multiple-part-RfC whose components were closed by the same admin/non-admin/panel simultaneously? And, no, I do not have a "passionate POV" on the topic. As to "your reading of the discussion", you claimed to Levivich about "ofcourse" not having read the entire discussion; so, yeah. In any case, feel free to have the last word. TrangaBellam ( talk) 06:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Don't talk to me like that. I brought points raised by several editors to the appropriate venue, where a number of editors are taking the stance that your close ought to be overturned. We're not all bad-faith actors who deserve to have such limp jabs thrown our way as feel free to have the last word. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 06:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. I didn't participate in the RFC (and aren't an admin myself) but anything that long and controversial should be closed by an admin (barring a WP:SNOW case which is clearly not relevant here). Full stop. This is especially the case for radioactively controversial topics that editors have strong views on to avoid them becoming polls of "Which side of this conflict rallies the most supporters". SnowFire ( talk) 22:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse This is pointless. No one would've closed it differently, and it has been open for two months, for gods sake. The idea that expressing SYMPATHY for Palestinians somehow makes you unfit to close such a landslide RFC is frankly ludicrous. This is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy and the only way someone should overturn this is if they commit to closing it themselves. If not, we're just admitting why no one is stepping up to make this obvious close. Parabolist ( talk) 23:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  we're just admitting why no one is stepping up to make this obvious close
  I am missing the implication here. Why is that? ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 23:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Because so many of the closes in this topic area are subject to tedious bureaucratic objections. Parabolist ( talk) 23:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Gotcha, thanks. I have a feeling that an uninvolved admin providing a detailed summary in their close wouldn't have their close brought to any noticeboard, but I don't know for sure. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 23:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Maybe we could get a panel of admins, then? They could set up a discussion, take a week or two because of their different time zones, and then we could get the same close, but we would've wasted hours and hours of editor time in the process. Parabolist ( talk) 23:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Or we can just get one uninvolved admin to do the herculean task of sensitively reviewing this gigantic RfC and providing a detailed summary to explain the consensus to the community and how it was reached—something that nobody, including this non-admin closer, has done yet. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 00:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  So are you claiming they didn't read the discussion, didn't read the discussion "sensitively" (What does this mean?), or didn't provide enough detail? Because if it's just the latter, why aren't you simply asking them to just flesh out the close? You started this discussion claiming that the problem was that they were less qualified to close this discussion than an admin (Why?), but all of your replies since then have made it clear that your issue with the close is actually that you think they chose the wrong option. You need to pick a lane, here. Parabolist ( talk) 00:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I ask you, with love in the air, to please be a little more chill with me.

  I brought this here because it had been raised in three separate places, and directed twice to AN. My opening comment is just a summary of events and quotes from other editors with none of my own input.

  My personal view is that the RfC was not apparently well-read enough by the closer, who wrote a one-sentence, totally non-specific summary citing a rough vote ratio and made no acknowledgement of the most prominent counterarguments to the apparent consensus vote, which is that a lot of them had nothing to do with reliability in the Israel/Palestine topic area, but were instead related to the topic of antisemitism. This may be due to the closer's bias on the topic, as the original complainants have raised. I don't care so much about that; I care about votes being satisfactorily read for policy-based substance and treated with apparent care, which in this case (I think) they were not. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Parabolist: If Zanahary is claiming that TB didn't read the discussion, then that's no more than they already admitted to Levivich, that Zanahary had also not re/read the discussion before opening it up for further discussion here *facepalm* ...in other news, I guess WP:BLUDGEON might also make them profitable reading. ——Serial Number 54129 13:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  For the record, I read the entire I/P discussion after Levivich encouraged me to do so. You can scroll up to the hatted discussion between us to see a more in-depth discussion of votes I found problematic. I am now, though, unsubscribing from this discussion, in which I've made myself heard and there's clearly no shortage of opinions to take it to its end. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 19:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Overturn The responsibility of closing an RFC in such a sensitive, controversial area should be done by an admin, ideally one with a great deal of experience closing RFCs. It's not pointless bureaucracy; the more people respect a process, the more people will respect the result, which is something necessary on this topic. If only the end results of the process, not the justice of the process, mattered, then there would be no reason to care about insults, harassment, etc. beyond their impact to the content. I'm not in favor of a trout for the closer, not even a minnow; they made the closure in good faith, I just think it was unwise. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 23:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, per others here (especially CoffeeCrumbs). But also because there were many !votes for option 1 (or rarely 2) that expressed the fact that no evidence of unreliability has actually been presented, which I broadly agree with - the evidence that was presented was evidence of bias - but we're yet again dealing with the question "does bias = reliability" on RS/N right now for the Telegraph. And it seems that the consensus on WP still is, as evidenced by that discussion, that bias does not equate to unreliable. A closure by an uninvolved, experienced administrator which adequately takes into account the fact that at least a significant minority (if not majority) of option 3 !votes were based on the users' opinions rather than verified proof of deliberate inaccuracies in their reporting would be merited for such a controversial topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 23:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  The close has been updated since my comment. It still is insufficient, and in fact it continues the “vote counting” that plagued the original close. It then interjects the closer’s personal opinion over whether the rebuttals are sufficient to show bias rather than unreliability. This makes the close even more of a supervote than it was before. And this is exactly why contentious closes should be done by an editor who reads the whole discussion and can concisely summarize the points in the discussion, rather than someone looking for an “easy” close based on the numbers. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 19:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse largely per Parabolist and Levivich. I'd first like to emphasize the point that there is nothing magical in and of itself about an admin close. No disrespect to any admins, but I have no doubt that there is some subset of experienced non-admins who are 'better' closers than some subset of admins. Still, I understand that there's a certain value to the optics. Beyond that, while Wikipedia is not a court of law, I find an analogy here irresistible: in common law systems, procedural problems generally do not constitute reversible error unless some prejudice can be shown to a litigant. That's what I see here. It's difficult to see how a reasonable closer (admin or not) would come to a substantially different conclusion. Was it wrong for TrangaBellam to close? No, I don't think so. Was it suboptimal? Yes, I would say it was. But Wikipedia does not demand perfection--the crooked timber of humanity, and so on. I do not doubt Zanahary's good faith, and I honestly don't mean this as a criticism, but this feels a bit like a relitigation rather than a challenge to the close. As ever, reasonable minds can certainly differ. Cheers to one and all. Dumuzid ( talk) 00:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Rerunning a legal process due to some marginal procedural error can be prohibitively costly and overall terrible and inhumane, while reclosing this RfC in specific is either a trivial expenditure of community resorces if the close was materially fine or it is simply needed regardless of cost if the error is not procedural and is in fact material. So it should just be done, since people are complaining now, and they're doing an acceptable job complaining frankly. There's a perception. Path of least resistance is quickly vacating. — Alalch E. 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  That's a fair point, but I guess I have an innate bias against the elevation of form over substance. As such, we will simply have to agree to disagree, though I certainly won't make a fuss. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 02:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Vacate. This RfC should be closed by an administrator who is at the same time an editor who seems less involved, and if the close challenged here was a correct finding of a relatively obvious consensus, as claimed by some, it will be especially easy for a less-involved-seeming administrator to close it, meaning that the expediture of volunteer resources will be especially low and worth it, because avoiding this sensitive RfC remaining closed for perpetuity by a closer who is not such a great editor to close due to a perception of being involved is worth said very low cost of reclosing, and if the close was not a correct finding of consensus, then the outcome needs to be different, and an average admin is a bit more likely to find consensus correctly than an average non-admin and to deliver an appropriate closing statement, as needed. I recognize that per WP:NACRFC, a non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin, but the closer not being an admin is not the "only reason" as said reason is compounded by there existing a perception of them being involved so my recommendation is consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure: Generally, if you want to request closure by an uninvolved administrator, it's expected that the discussion will have already been open at least a week, and that the subject is particularly contentious or the outcome is unclear. (The subject is inherently particularly contentious; some editors are subsequently requesting a close by an uninvolved administrator as they have concerns about the close by the not-fully-uninvolved-seeming non-administrator). Worth the extra bother. Vacating and reclosing shouldn't be seen as a big deal.— Alalch E. 01:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Vacate I like Alalch E.'s term here. Looking at the numbers suggests 3 is the correct answer but the analysis of the arguments was extremely superficial. It's not just about the answer, it's about the process as well. It should be followed. Springee ( talk) 01:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Having a good process is important (regardless of whether or not the decision was correct) and this wasn't such. North8000 ( talk) 03:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Per User:Unbandito statement above. The vote and arguments in favor were strong. A profile quote in no manner outweighs the clear consensus reached through the discussion. Detsom ( talk) 04:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Closing statement too short. The RfC, according to my device, is approximately 600 million scrolls long. It was closed with a statement of thirty-three words. What did people say? What were the arguments made? I don't have an opinion on the propriety or practicality of the close, but the quality of the close is very poor. Folly Mox ( talk) 06:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Just fwiw, this was a three-part-RfC, only the first of which was closed. As to the content of the RfC: multiple editors presented multiple evidences of ADL's unreliability on the topic; most of the participants were convinced by this evidence but a minority claimed that atleast some of the evidence — if not all — can be, at worst, re-classed under "bias" (which I didn't find convincing, even ignoring the numerical strength) and hence cannot be perceived as grounds for unreliability. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, appended to the RfC close. Thanks, TrangaBellam ( talk) 06:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Overturn This is basically equivalent to the Fox News RfC, due to its political contentiousness. It cannot merely be judged based on numbers alone. It needs to be closed by (preferably a panel) of non-partisan administrators. As the person who originally opened the first ADL RfC, I don't have a strong enough opinion about whether the result was correct, but the justification is way too short. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 09:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but only because I can't see that anyone else would have closed it any differently. Such a contentious RfC should have been closed by an admin, and it should have been closed by someone who couldn't be accused of bias in the CTOP area. It was a poor idea for TB to close it; but the actual result is correct. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per NOTBURO, there's no point in wasting time reopening the discussion in orde for it to be reclosed the same way (which is all that would happen); policy does not allow for closers to be dictated by parties external to the project; and while the topic may be controversial, the discussion was not. ——Serial Number 54129 11:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The claim that quoting someone previously that has since participated in an RFC makes someone involved is like claiming someone is best friends with Kevin Bacon. It's such a long reach as to be patently nonsensical. Also, admins have no special powers with regards to closing RFCs. It's expected that we have a good understanding of policy and are trusted by the community, but a decent RFC closure is a decent RFC closure whether and admin makes it or not.--v/r - T P 13:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Overturn such an important, high-visibility action, which has already received widespread media attention, should be carried out by an uninvolved administrator, not an involved non-administrator. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  What makes TrangaBellam involved? Thryduulf ( talk) 14:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  The talk page quote is more than sufficient to disqualify this particular non-admin. If it was okay for him to close the discussion, then it would have been ok for me to close it. I didn't participate in the RSN discussion, and until today I never edited the ADL article and I don't have statements on my user page evincing a point of view on the subject area. Something quite this contentious requires a nonpartisan administrator if we're going to kick sand in the face of a reputable civil rights organization. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  if we're going to kick sand in the face of a reputable civil rights organization and of course this quote doesn't make you involved at all, right? Selfstudier ( talk) 15:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Exactly. That quote would be sufficient. Thank you for proving my point. Coretheapple ( talk) 15:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  What part of WP:INVOLVED are you referencing here? I'd happily change my endorse if any evidence was provided of the closure being involved in the dispute, past or current conflicts with involved editors, or disputes on related topics. Per policy, simply having a perceived bias is not enough to accuse someone of being involved. CNC ( talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  disputes ... about which they have strong feelings.

  Personally, I believe that you have strong feelings about a dispute if you feel the need to say you support one side of the dispute at the top of your user talk page. BilledMammal ( talk) 17:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  And not just because one has !voted option 1, lol. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I suspected this would come up, as it's easily misinterpretable, the full context is: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings." (emphasis added). Quite clearly the "strong feelings" is in reference to editors involved in disputes, not in reference to closures generally. You still need to provide evidence that the closure is involved in a related dispute, and I'm still patiently waiting for that. Your personal opinion that having strong feelings is involvement is not WP policy. CNC ( talk) 17:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I disagree; I interpret it as saying that having strong feelings on a topic makes an editor involved.

  Personally, it doesn't make sense to me otherwise. Consider an editor who has a user box saying "This user believes marriage is only between a man and a woman", but has never edited articles related to WP:GENSEX. Should they be closing RfC's related to homosexuality?

  Of course not, because the community would have no faith that they would make objective decisions - even though they haven't been involved in the specific disputes. BilledMammal ( talk) 17:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  That's not what the text says. It says that if you are involved, objectively, it can create perceptions of XYZ. It's not a generic filter for bias, because all editors have ubiquitous personal biases, whether conscious or subconscious. Iskandar323 ( talk) 18:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Saying one has sympathy for the Tibetans and the Palestinians does not demonstrate strong feelings related to the ADL or the Israeli Palestinian conflict. That’s just silly. nableezy - 02:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes, it technically would have been ok for you to close it. Based on your statement, you might have wanted to recuse yourself from it if you felt too close to it, but based on feels more than policy – just as some have suggested that TB might have wanted to stay away from it (but not that they should have done, per policy). As it stands, TB did nothing wrong and by most estimations closed in the only way possible. So there's nothing obviously wrong with the close, and even if there were, there's a strong clamour that the close is correct (so WP:NOTBURO comes heavily into play). Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  It's never BURO to vacate+reclose by an uninvolved admin when a perception that the non-admin is insufficiently uninvolved exists, because reclosing (not rerunning the process) is cheap: if the consensus is obvious the effort is a trivial one, and if the consensus is not obvious it's highly justified and worth it that someone less involved-seeming and more trusted as a closer closes instead. When there are real gains, it isn't BURO territory. — Alalch E. 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Except the closer here simply wasn't involved (by the standard definition) – the "perception" is one of perceived bias, or in other words the presumption that the closer was sufficiently compromised by bias that they couldn't close correctly – an assertion that is solely bad faith and otherwise unsupported. Iskandar323 ( talk) 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Vacate + have someone else close it Zanahary's concerns and Coretheapple's remarks sum things up nicely and no need to repeat. Someone else needs to close it, not a partisan. I recognize it may not change the outcome and while I acknowledge the ratio of those who want to mark them as generally unreliable, I highly question their logic and evidence. Someone uninvolved needs to take the time to read this stuff and assess how valid the claims are. Such a downgrade will have major political and social implications and will likely be featured prominently in national news. I urge people to slow down and make an unquestionable decision. Personally I think the ADL oversteps its bounds, but I think the criticism that they changed their methodology and came up with new numbers isn't nefarious as some people are claiming ("They changed their numbers from 310% to 176%!!!"). That's what reliable sources do when they change methodology. They update their numbers. Much of the other evidence is practically leftist propaganda and/or "Trump is bad!" logic. Buffs ( talk) 15:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Describing someone having a quote saying you have sympathy for the oppressed people of the world as a "partisan" is baffling to me. Parabolist ( talk) 19:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Describing "I sympathise with the silenced underdog in so many conflicts, be they Aboriginals or Palestinians..." as just "sympathy for the oppressed people" is not an accurate characterization. It presupposes

  1. The Palestinians are actually oppressed. The Palestinians in Gaza have been given billions in international aid and still struggle to form an effective government/local control that doesn't squander the money on creating a state bent on the destruction of their neighbor rather than helping their people.
  2. They are silenced at all. They seem to be rather well-voiced at every level.
  3. That such sympathy is warranted.

  That this is the crux of the discussion and/or is germane to the discussion (ARBPIA applies), the person closing this shouldn't be someone so prominently advocating against Israeli/Jewish interests. There is an inherent conflict of interest there. Buffs ( talk) 21:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  While I don't consider the statement quoted by the closer to indicate INVOLVED status (see my !vote below), I think the following definitely does:

  The Palestinians in Gaza have been given billions in international aid and still struggle to form an effective government/local control that doesn't squander the money on creating a state bent on the destruction of their neighbor rather than helping their people.

  Whatever the line is between "not really INVOLVED" and "too INVOLVED", I think it runs somewhere between an expression of sympathy for a national, ethnic or religious category, and blaming that whole category of people for the actions (presented without context) of their quasi-governments. Buff's statement (the latter kind) is the equivalent of holding "Jews" or "Zonists" responsible for the foreign policy of rhe state of Israel, but enwiki has pretty reliably demonstrated that the latter is well over the line. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• The discussion just really sucked. Both sides were talking past each other, !votes were functioning more as flag-planting than actual attempts to substantively engage with the question, lots of "gotcha" links were thrown around with little sign of anyone attempting to perform a neutral survey of the evidence. Under these circumstances I don't think it makes much sense to be talking about whether to endorse or overturn any sort of close: the most honest conclusion a closer could draw is "the community has collectively proven it lacks the capacity to properly answer the question at this time". – Tera tix ₵ 16:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Then call for a reclose and if it happens, see if the new closer agrees with you. Fwiw, I wouldn't agree. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  No point calling for a reclose if the discussion itself is awful. Garbage in, garbage out. – Tera tix ₵ 00:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Vacate and have a panel of 3 admins re-assess and re-close it. This is more about the procedure than the outcome in my view. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I think that's the ideal solution. This needs to be a bulletproof decision, unless of course we don't want it to be. That's the choice here. We can do the right thing or we can tell critics of this decision that all our fantastic procedures were followed and that's all we really care about. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Another thing to take into consideration is the impact of having three respected, truly uninvolved admins making the same decision. People who are hopping with joy over this outcome should think about that. Coretheapple ( talk) 18:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Thank you for volunteering. Charcoal feather ( talk) 19:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I assume that wasn't directed at me! I am not an admin. But your general point is not incorrect. Admins have tended to avoid this subject area. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Vacate Agree this is more about procedure than outcome. Just because a RFC is sitting at WP:CR for a long time doesn't mean we throw procedure out the window. It probably just means it's going to need an experienced closer to review it. Nemov ( talk) 17:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The closer participated in an Israel–Hamas war RFC. RAN1 ( talk) 19:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  And, what's the insinuation, here? To the best of my knowledge, I have put in a couple of RfC votes (maybe a comment or two, even?) but that's my involvement with IPA at best. TrangaBellam ( talk) 19:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I realize that was a "per" !vote from half a year ago, but it seems like too much involvement in a content dispute to close an RFC in the same area about the reliability of a source. RAN1 ( talk) 20:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, primarily per WP:NOTBURO - the correct option was found to have consensus, and the arguments for a "procedural" overturn are against the spirit of the project; the most likely impact of an overturn would be a "chilling effect" on NACs, and an emboldening of editors to seek "procedural" overturning of closes because they just don't like the outcome. Wikipedia needs more NACs of obvious consensus results, not fewer.

I would also point out that editors who think ..I sympathise with the silenced underdog in so many conflicts, be they Aboriginals or Palestinians or Tibetans is evidence of bias do not seem to be to be reflecting what the INVOLVED principle actually means. I can't imagine that we would be having this discussion if the passage quoted were along the lines of "..I sympathise with the silenced underdog in so many conflicts, such as victims of antisemitism" - but yet, here we are. As I have seen in other discussions within ARBPIA, this seems to be a deployment of FUD about bias to contest an outcome that some editors find distasteful.

Also, in passing, I find the argument that a discussion with a clear outcome requires a nuanced closure because of BLUDGEONING complex argumentation from the discussion's participants to be, once again, against the spirit of a project. To vacate the close citing this ground would only encourage additional BLUDGEONING unproductive pseudo-dialogue in future RfCs. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The "chilling effect" on NACs is a feature, not a bug, for discussions like this. They absolutely shouldn't be closed by non-admins and we shouldn't be encouraging that, lest we just invite more giant discussions overflowing to AN/ANI from the "losing" side. The whole point of these RFCs is to generate a strong consensus that is respected and has legitimacy, even in the eyes of those who disagree, so that they respect the decision and don't challenge it (like happened here!). If you think the outcome was that clear, prove it by letting an uninvolved admin close it. I also find it boggling to claim the result was "obvious" here in such a trainwreck. One side is claiming that some of the votes should be discounted as essentially cheerleading their "side" in a dispute without engaging with the topic at hand. Maybe that's true, maybe that isn't, but assessing that claim in a manner that is respected requires an admin, maybe even a panel of admins. This is a YESBURO situation even if you agree with the result of the current close, because a future close will be stronger and more respected if it comes from an unimpeachable source. SnowFire ( talk) 21:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - a sensitive RfC like this should only be closed by an uninvolved admin. Rlendog ( talk) 20:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Vacate while I sympathize with concerns about excessive bureaucracy, I think the community needs to take a hardline against controversial non-admin closes. While I'm not fully convinced that we can concretely say that TrangaBellam was INVOLVED, it would have been better for the discussion to be closed by someone else. So let's have someone else do it. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 21:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. So it appears that the closer did highlight some comments from known ARBPIA participants that could reasonably be seen as biased. Closure like that will absolutely benefit from longer rationale, because anyone looking at it should more or less understand the "why" of the decision and main arguments. I tend to be verbose in RfC closures so that if I'm an ass, at least everyone sees it, but it's me. I guess at least two hallmarks of WP:BADNAC are here: probable involvement and controversy. However, BADNAC is part of an essay. We are not a court of law. It isn't like recusal must be automatic, though it is desired.

Now the thing is that this closure would have been appealed no matter what, even if a panel were to summarise it. In discussions of this size and degree of controversy, it's inevitable. Because closing RFCs is largely an admin thing, one would expect the closer, whether admin or not, to face accountability, so here we are, grilling TB at RfC closure review. I guess that's more than enough scrutiny, so that's one reason against using technicalities to overturn.

Now WP:CLOSECHALLENGE asks people to point out what's wrong with the closure. It seems the JTA agrees, and a lot of voices to overturn do not say they would have closed it otherwise, or say how the summation did not reflect consensus, or which argument should have carried more weight. Sure, if the problem with likely INVOLVED closes in edgy cases persists then TrangaBellam should have some talking to, including RfC closure bans or ArbCom intervention, as INVOLVED is policy. However, the overall result is correct as far as the discussion is concerned, so it's a pass for me. INVOLVED is meant to prevent biased closures, and maybe the closer was biased but the closure wasn't, which I think is all that matters for CLOSECHALLENGE purposes.

They attempted an enormously difficult task, their explanation should have been more detailed. But they did OK. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 22:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Seriously? This isn't a bureaucracy (despite us having "bureaucrats"). Just because a close was performed by a non-admin does not mean it is any less respectable or any less legitimate. Anyone arguing that a non-admin close is less of a close because the closer doesn't have the all-fanciful admin bit, needs to re-read WP:NOBIGDEAL. It's almost shameful that having the admin toys is considered an endorsement of ones opinion. There's plenty of admins who were given the tools in the olden days and just kept them up to now, but they were only ever put through RFA with a few people, when adminship was actually seen as the lack of a big deal that it should be seen as today. Maybe we need to step back on how we see admins as some god-like figures, and see them more as humans, just like every editor on this platform. EggRoll97 ^{( talk)} 22:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  That is a great speech about the all-fanciful admin bit, can you do one about the all-fanciful admin-and-also-not-having-quotes-on-your-talk-page-about-how-you-think-one-of-the-sides-is-right bit? jp× g 🗯️ 23:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  It does no such thing, and I feel like I'm going insane with people saying this. The actual quote is the most mild sentiment imaginable. Is Tranga now disqualified from closing RFCs about Tibet, or Aboriginal issues? Parabolist ( talk) 02:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Vacate This is far to controversial an RFC for a non-admin close. If it the decision is not seen as having come from somebody uninvolved (even if they actually aren't INVOLVED in a literal sense) then it leaves room for endless Wikilawyering about how strong a consensus was every time the topic comes up. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse good close, INVOLVED argument not convincing, no admin is magically going to produce a better one just because they've gone through an RfA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per NOTBURO. I share Newimpartial’s impression of FUD; I can’t speak to anyone’s motives but I object to undermining a close other than on the basis that it was wrongly concluded. Innisfree987 ( talk) 01:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Warning of meatpuppetry

Potential meatpuppets incoming: Article in Israeli website -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 07:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• This discussion falls under ARBPIA, so any comments from non-ECR accounts or IPs can be removed. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • It would be useful (and minimally bitey) to put a template or other note at the top of this discussion noting that fact. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Good idea. Done. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      • It's got quite a bit of Jewish media coverage. [5] Secretlondon ( talk) 20:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
        • Counterintuitively, the discussion did see a bunch more !votes come in just after the press coverage (and after discussion had otherwise slowed), but it was largely from people critical of the ADL rather than supportive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

          Or, intuitively, WP, does in fact, have it right, that's several sources I have seen now implying that. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

For those interested, here [6] is a video of Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, discussing this decision and Wikipedia in general. He seems to me to have some understanding of Wikipedia, but not enough to avoid error. Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid ( talk) 16:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

At Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, the entry under June 15 for Kevin Campbell has been marked ready for over two and a half days now, even while other stories have been posted. I can't post it myself as I nominated it. Could someone do the honours? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done Waggers TALK 10:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Black Kite: for future reference, there is also a template {{@ITNA}} which pings admins who typically post to ITN. Natg 19 ( talk) 16:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC). reply

Hello admins, I ask you to intervene in a matter concerning Aearthrise and the article Pennsylvania Dutch, which I believe is harming Wikipedia. I made a previous request which was too long and detailed; it can be found in the above collapsable for specific insults and more difflinks and here is article's talk page.

In under two years, Aearthrise has dominated the Pennsylvania Dutch article, contributing over 50% of its content and making 83% of all edits. [43] [44] While single authorship isn't inherently problematic, in this case, it has led to significant damage to Wikipedia's reliability, neglect of its principles, and a lack of respectful communication. Aearthrise adds and deletes content as he pleases, often in a bullying manner. Meaningful discussions about the article’s content are impossible. Attempts to introduce alternative perspectives are ignored, and discussions quickly become personal and unpleasant. Regardless of the arguments or sources provided, Aearthrise does what he wants. Four talk page discussions illustrate these issues.

In the first discussion, Aearthrise reverted edits by @ 47thPennVols:: and demanded a source on how "Dutchman" can be considered a slur. 47thPennVols provided a citation and raised concerns about Aearthrise’s sources, which were aggressively and unilaterally dismissed. 47thPennVols eventually gave up on editing the article. [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] The second discussion involves a long bilingual quote added by Aearthrise in Fraktur font, highly uncommon on Wikipedia. When @ Theodore Christopher:: addressed this, a very unpleasant discussion ensued. Aearthrise made derogatory remarks and repeatedly reverted Christopher’s edits. My support for Christopher’s changes was also ignored. [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] The third discussion is a NPOV-dispute about the etymology of "Dutch" in "Pennsylvania Dutch." Both views should be represented, but Aearthrise opposes one view and repeatedly removes it, despite valid sources. He spams the talk page with quotes from unreliable sources and insults, questioning others’ motives. An AfC was similarly spammed, deterring other participants. [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] In the fourth discussion, an anonymous IP asked for a source on Elon Musk’s Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry. Aearthrise responded insultingly and added text from questionable websites. [66]

Aearthrise’s behavior has led to unreliable and outdated materials in the article. His aggressive, insulting, and bullying style drives committed users away, preventing improvements. This must stop before it worsens. Wikipedia's principles on personal attacks, proper use of sources, and NPOV must prevail. I kindly ask you to intervene in this matter and hope my description of the problem is now brief enough to be workable. Vlaemink ( talk) 06:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm condensing this section because Vlaemink has edited his original post to make it smaller, and is making different claims now.

He claims that 1.my challenging 47thPennVols insulted him, so it scared him away; this is untrue, as I asked for evidence for the opinion he was presenting, but he did not produce anything beyond a weak quote unrelated to the topic.

2. Vlaemink claims I made derogatory remarks and reverted Theodore Christopher comments; none of those links he added shows "derogatory remarks", it's just long-winded debate, and for the reversion, it's because Theodore Christopher completely removed content, which I challenged the removal, and we subsequently discussed it.

3.Vlaemink's problem is not the addition of content (beyond the false content he added), but rather the misleading nature of equating a consensus based on an abundance of hard evidence with an anecdotal folk etymology debunked by experts on the topic.

4. Vlaemink says I insulted the anonymous IP by calling him lazy for asking for evidence, when evidence was already present on the article, attached directly to the information he read; the anonymous IP didn't at all make the post about reliability. Now, on this thread, Valemink is now claiming these are questionable websites. Forbes is a questionable website? I don't think so, and if it is this isn't the place to discuss that, it should be done the article's talk page. Aearthrise ( talk) 22:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Vlaemink and @ Aearthrise these are both quite extensive walls of text. It is far more than I and many other editors or indeed administrators (all of whom, remember, are volunteers contributing in their spare time) will have time to read. I'm sure you both carefully crafted your comments and were aiming for completeness but I'd urge you both to condense your concerns down to the most salient points. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 22:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I can condense this whole argument: Vlaemink is mad that because he can't argue with hard evidence, he would rather make an ego-filled post here to administrators about how my words could hurt people's feelings, instead of actually providing well-sourced proof for his arguments. Vlaemink wants an administrator to step in and save him, rather than address the points of discussion. Aearthrise ( talk) 22:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This type of combative WP:BATTLEGROUND response doesn't exactly defend yourself well from the complaints above. The Kip ^{( contribs)} 23:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

That's your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that this whole post is about how Vlaemink says my words may hurt other people's feelings, and that he made it here because he wasn't willing to wait for comment on the article's talk page (he already put in a request for comment); his arguments weren't convincing through discussion and evidence, which is why he is taking the route of notifying administrators- his actions show that he's not confident that he can win with his own arguments. Aearthrise ( talk) 09:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not about ″winning arguments″, it's about finding sources and finding consensus. The fact that I asked for a third opinion, RfC and now have taken to the Administrators Noticeboard is anything but a sign that I do not believe in the validly of my sources and the need for their inclusion. Vlaemink ( talk) 13:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is about showing what is verifiable and true, and that is "winning arguments"; Wikipedia is all based on evidence. There is no evidence that Dutch is just a corruption beyond that people have said it. The consensus on the origin of Dutch has an abudance of evidence to show why it's correct, and that's the view scholarship accepts. Aearthrise ( talk) 15:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Any Wikipedian familiar with Wikipedia's principles can tell ( and show you) why that is completely false: Wikipedia does not show what is ″true″, it repeats and summarizes what has been written about a particular issue by reliable and valid authors. And if there are multiple views, then multiple views are to be mentioned to provide the reader with the full scope of an article. This an encyclopedia, not a bundle of personal essays. Vlaemink ( talk) 18:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

That is 2000 words. You'll need to cut that down by like 75 percent at least. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

While this is far too long, I'll just say that from inspection, Vlaemink raises some good points, and Aearthrise needs to adjust their behavior even if they're right (which I don't think is a given). In #4, an IP address asked a harmless question, and Aearthrise was pointlessly rude and insulting, and even made their case seem worse by linking some truly awful sources like random websites with "A brief biography of Elon Musk for young kids" (looks obviously AI generated! Terrible formatting, alien wording! [67]). See WP:BITE, there's no need to be hostile to a standard question, just politely link your source and move on, or ignore it. (And frankly, given Musk's reality distortion field, it wouldn't shock me if it was at least possible that someone just made it up in the past, so there is an interesting question here.) For #2, We absolutely don't do fancy Fraktur fonts because it was contemporary, and I don't think the Miller quote is worth including at all, let alone 4 full paragraphs of it that is extremely partial (I'm sorry, but Eastern Pennsylvania was not the "model of the world" for agriculture, the good professor was deluded, why are we quoting this guy). Aearthrise claims that German nationalism only existed in the "late 19th century" ( diff), which is 1000% false to anyone who knows anything about the German question. For #1, I'd argue that one Aearthrise has a point on the merits, but he was still needlessly hostile on the talk page, seeming to invoke ownership rather than finding some compromise, like a footnote discussing the issue from both sides. Similarly, for #3, even if we grant for a moment that Aearthrise is correct (we'd need someone uninvolved to examine the literature), then there's probably an interesting missing section about the "folk etymology", its supporters, and reliable sources on why it's wrong. Instead of just deleting it outright. SnowFire ( talk) 23:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Well, I read all of the comments here and Aearthrise, if you can honestly read all of this evidence and blame it all on a "hurt ego", it shows to me that you are taking this too personally and refusing to address the merits of the complaint. Of course no one likes to be criticized but there is some unreasonable and uncivil behavior on your part that you can't wave off with a "hurt ego" comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I addressed the merits of the complaint, but my point of contention was that Vlaemink was misleading people by equating anecdotal evidence with the consensus explanation of "Dutch" by linguists and experts, proven by an abundance of hard evidence. Vlaemink refused to revise the content he wrote, and included false content at the same time. Aearthrise ( talk) 09:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

You can repeat this time and again, that etymology A consists of ″anecdotal evidence″ and etymology B does not — but it doesn't make it so. It's a debate tactic, it's not based on the sources provided. The talk page contains numerous publications by reputable authors which subscribe to etymology A, and this alone shows that a ″consensus explanation proven by an abundance of hard evidence″ does not exist. One of the authors supporting etymology B even explicitly mentions the fact that etymology A is mainstream among nonscholars and scholars alike. A Wikipedia editor is supposed to report on relevant view from reliable publications, we are not here to create our own preferred version of reality. This is the core issue here. Vlaemink ( talk) 13:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

You show you don't want to cooperate on this article, because you ignore the points of contention and want to make the claim based on anecdote equal to the one based on heavy evidence, and is the consensus view on the origin of Dutch.

You don't want to acknowledge how equating these arguments is misleading, and that's the whole problem, not whether we include the information at all. Aearthrise ( talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ SnowFire: I didn't claim German nationalism only existed in the "late 19th century" as you're claiming from that revert link, but if it is a point of contention, it can be easily discussed and proven or disproven with proper evidence. I didn't revert Vlaemink's revision because of when German nationalism started, it was because he deleted a lot of content, and for his inclusion of false information, that High Dutch was a calque of "Hochdeutsch", false and not substantiated by the sources added, and misleading content which was saying there was confusion by linguists about an anecdotal folk etymology while there is consensus of the historic of use of "Dutch" backed by an abundance of hard evidence. There is no problem with adding a footnote, but Vlaemink did not want to change his position on the way of writing the content, because he wanted to present them as equal arguments.

  You talk about the quotes for Elon Musk, which as I said were all easily found on a quick Google, and you only mention one, being the last quote. The others are Forbes.com, Industrytap.com, etc.

  As for the Fraktur, which you're trying to dismiss in the same way as Theodore (who called it ridiculous), and Vlaemink who called it (ludicrous), i've spoken at length on the discussion page why it should presented in that form, as it is a classical literary variety of Pennsylvania Dutch written specifically in Fraktur as a way to fight against the complete loss of German education in Pennsylvania. The Fraktur wasn't only a circumstance of being written at that time as you want to claim, it was consciously written like that to be an opposition to fight against the "Englisha rule" Pennsylvania Dutch, which was simply the spoken language of the time written in an English way, and part of the reason it was ridiculed.

  For the quote by Daniel Miller itself, it painted very well the feeling of the prejudice faced against the Pennsylvania Dutch community, and that was the point of the paragraph. Your nitpick is on how Dr.Miller showed that emotion towards the prejudice, and are making an argument about his words aimed at uplifting a marginalized people.

  As for invoking ownership, there is no proof for that claim, unless you're basing it on the passion i've shown to make this a quality article. I always want people to challenge content on Wikipedia, but the content should well-sourced, and if there is confusion about content, it can be discussed until a resolution is made, based on the best argument and best evidence. Aearthrise ( talk) 09:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Leaving aside a literal declaration of ownership, there is plenty of clear evidence that you are behaving as if you own this article:

• Over half of the current article content was added by you in less than two years and your edits make up 83% of the total during that period. [68] — and these edits did not come about in a collaborative and constructive way: you are unnecessarily aggressive and insulting.
• Prior to 2022 you did not edit this article. You described yourself as a Louisiana Cajun living in New Orleans, and a professional translator proficient in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Latin, Greek, Italian and Romanian. [69].
• After 2022, you stated that your grandfather was Pennsylvania Dutch and claimed to speak Pennsylvania German. [70] You started to edit the article intensely and at one point even claimed that you yourself were in fact Pennsylvania Dutch, as evidence by a remark in which you accused a fellow editor of ″not even speaking the language nor knowing our cultural traits″ [71] and explicitly stated that you edit the article because it ″helps you to connect with my German heritage″ [72].

And therein lies the problem, because that's only half the story. It's clear to me (and I hope also to others) that it's not just your desire to connect or explore your heritage but also a clear desire to shape your claimed heritage to your own personal liking. If you were truly interested and invested in this article, you would welcome every possible view, nuance and sourced addition to the article. Instead, you seem to exclusively want to see your own personal views and preferences in the article page and get abusive as soon as anyone dares to challenge or even as much as doubt it. That's a clear example of WP:OWN-behavior and I really do not see how you can objectively deny this given all the evidence and examples provided. Vlaemink ( talk) 10:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Vlaemink, as someone who agrees with you, Aearthrise's cultural background is irrelevant, and I'd recommend dropping the topic. Judge by actions here, not possible motives. The sole thing that matters is refusing to work with others to improve the article and instead insisting on "their" view. SnowFire ( talk) 10:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ SnowFire: You are right, I should have stuck to the refusal to cooperate and ignoring of alternative POVs. Vlaemink ( talk) 13:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The refusal to cooperate is on your side. You don't want to listen to opposition and work towards a solution; it's not about ignoring alternative points of view, it's about making points of view that are weak equal to ones that are very strong, based on hard evidence. Aearthrise ( talk) 15:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The problem being identified in the discussion of personal background is the rather blatant inconsistency of the claims, suggesting strongly a history of dishonesty. 100.36.106.199 ( talk) 11:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

You want to purport that sharing self-identity on the talk page this platform is supposed be an "inconsistency of the claims", and say the writing self-identity on the talk pages "strongly suggests a history of dishonesty". This is an incorrect statement, and users should be able identify however they want on their talk pages, without being harassed about it. Aearthrise ( talk) 14:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Vlaemink, you are doing everything to try to save face. You claim WP:OWN, but your only evidence is that I added more than over 50% of the current content on the article, that my talk page identifies me in a certain way, and finally a cherry picked quote from the discussion about treatment of Pennsylania Dutch language in the Fraktur discussion with Theodore Christopher, which his whole argument was based around how we treat standard German.

You're using personal information now to try to prove that I claim ownership on the article, but all you're doing is making a discussion of who I am as person. Aearthrise ( talk) 10:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• (de-indent, reply to Aearthrise above, but it seems Vlaemink decided to reply there instead): I'm going to try to keep this brief. A), Yes you did make such a claim on German nationalism, it's right in the linked diff above (and the incorrect statement wasn't in the version of the article in 2022 before your revisions), but if you're saying it was a good edit of Vlaemink's accidentally swept up in the undo, fine, glad we agree. B) Okay, so your sources are right and Vlaemink's are wrong on etymologies. Put a pin in this. C) You clearly aren't understanding The Problems in what I wrote on the IP's Musk question. C1) How would you react if someone on a talk page asks what is in your view a simple and easily answered question in the future? The same way or different? Why? C2) I agree that the Forbes article is the real source. I was saying you only should have linked that before. Instead you linked obvious chatbot splurge as "proof" as well. This suggests you thought it was real proof. This does not speak well for your discerning judgment in figuring out which sources are reliable and which aren't - do you understand that? Everybody makes mistakes, it's no big deal, I've personally trusted some awful sources in retrospect. But an editor who makes mistakes, refuses to acknowledge them after they're pointed out, and then basically invokes their own judgment on which other sources are reliable (say in case B on etymologies) as unquestionable is treading on thin ice. (SnowFire, interjection by Vlaemink)

@ SnowFire: I hope you don't mind me placing this small comment in between your comment, but the sources I've provided on etymology A are valid, reliable, and cited in full on the talk page. Also, Aearthrise is trying his utmost to frame this as ″my theory″, but I've provided sources on both etymologies and have no personal preference; my POV is that both should be mentioned as they both appear in the scholarly field. Vlaemink ( talk) 13:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC) (SnowFire again:) reply

That was meant only as a summary of Aearthrise's argument that I'd loop back to (hence the "put a pin in it"). I'm not saying he's actually right about everything and you're wrong about everything. SnowFire ( talk) 13:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for clarifying that, I misunderstood. English is not my native language and I think I got my idioms mixed up. Vlaemink ( talk) 13:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

You claim i'm trying to frame this as your theory, but show no proof of it. The point of contention, and we've repeated this several times, is the consensus around the origin of the word "Dutch" in English. The other theory has been debunked by experts of the topic, and the debunking is based on a plethora of hard evidence.

You haven't tried to revise your work as of yet, and you still want to present them as equal arguments. Wikipedia is based on what you can prove, and you can prove that some people mention it as the etymology of Dutch in English, but it has no evidence behind it beyond anecdote.

Oxford for example lays the term out perfectly "from Middle Dutch dutsch ‘Dutch, Netherlandish, German’: the English word originally denoted speakers of both High and Low German, but became more specific after the United Provinces adopted the Low German of Holland as the national language on independence in 1579.". Oxford on the same page explicitly mentions the Pennsylvania Dutch as an example that falls under the historic use: The German language, in any of its forms. Obsolete except in High Dutch n. A.1a; Low Dutch — Pennsylvania Dutch, a degraded form of High German (originally from the Rhine Palatinate and Switzerland) spoken by the descendants of the original German settlers in Pennsylvania. Aearthrise ( talk) 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

At this point I think there can only be two options: either you never understood what is being discussed to begin with or you did but are now purposely creating a smoke screen: nobody is contesting that the word ″Dutch″ at one point had an older, broader meaning in English which, in today's terms, could also include Germans. I wouldn't be able to name a single professional etymological or historical linguistic publication that has ever disputed that. That's not what being discussed here: the issue is not whether ″Dutch″ had additional meanings in the past, but why the ″Pennsylvania Dutch″ are called ″Dutch″ — and that question has at least two possible answers. Yoder in his 1980 article assumes ″Dutch″ is a relic of an earlier meaning surviving in American English, another explanation found in reliable sources is that its an Anglicization of ″deitsch″ or ″deutsch″. That's two theories, both of which should be mentioned in the article. The fact that (etymological) dictionaries prove that ″Dutch″ had a more diverse meaning the past does not mean they validate or prove Yoders hypothesis, it merely means Yoder used a historical dictionary as part of his explanation. Your quote from an 1897 Oxford Etymological dictionary entry (which also defines Pennsylvania Dutch as ″degraded German″) is in the same ballpark: it supports Yoder, but this has no relevance on the fact that other scholars hold a different view and that this view should be included per WP:NPOV. Louder already explicitly mentioned the popularity of the alternative among scholars, proving its relevance and further casting doubt on your continually repeated claim that a ″total consensus″ exists on the matter. Vlaemink ( talk) 18:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

First, this Oxford post is from the online dictionary, which they've updated with all of the information they've collected, so you're claim that it's a 1897 quote is unsubstantiated here. You say "Louder already explicitly mentioned the popularity of the alternative among scholars, proving its relevance". Dr. Louden like Dr.Yoder explicitly states that this idea is incorrect, and he provides reasoning why, the same that I have presented to you over the past few days.

You're still trying to push the definition not based on any hard evidence to be equal to one that does. Your thought process is like using a paper tiger. You can't prove it isn't a tiger by looking at it, but it doesn't hold the weight of a true tiger.

This is the whole point of contention, which your unwillingness to compromise has lead you to create several RFC requests, and being impatient, skipped over them to make this call to administrators because you're not getting your way. Aearthrise ( talk) 20:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• On Fraktur, I'm sorry, but unless the passage is specifically on fonts or art, it isn't how things are done on Wikipedia, and the other editors were correct. We don't have Kulturkampf in Fraktur despite it being the contemporary font in 1870s Germany. Maybe we need an explicit passage in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting forbidding this but I think this just has never come up before. On the very long Miller quote, it's very, very common chest-thumping that thanks to its language only gets seen by its intended community. You could find near-identical statements in Norwegian in 1903 Minnesota, or in Yiddish in 1903 New York, or in Guarani in 1903 Paraguay, talking about how wonderful a local group is and how people look down on them but they're totally wrong and we're actually awesome. It's all standard cheerleading written a million times before, not just the wild claim on agriculture. But this is more a vanilla content dispute. Suffice to say you haven't made the case that this is really a worthy quote to include both the translation AND the original text.
• Your final comment on demanding "proof" ownership is occurring is very strange. What do you think the purpose of this AN thread is? SnowFire ( talk) 10:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I agree that German nationalism was a just swept comment, and if it needs to be corrected, it should be. The focus of the reversion wasn't about when German nationalism took place.

  As for the quotes I added, I simply added four extra web pages (in total 5 with the Forbes quote already present on the article, and the next four web pages after it) to demonstrate that it was easy to make a Google Search to find the information.

  On the Fraktur point, the literary Fraktur Pennsylvania Dutch should be given consideration due to its history and unique circumstances, and should be treated in the same way other languages are uniquely written for their circumstances (I mentioned Yiddish and Coptic Greek for example). Nevertheless, the whole paragraph on prejudice against the Pennsylvania Dutch is unnecessary on the article and can be removed; the removal of content so far has been about how the language information was presented.

  As for the final point, I asked for proof of ownership, because the only points Vlaemink provided are my passion for the quality of the article, how much of the article i've contributed, and who I am as a person. Aearthrise ( talk) 10:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  For your Musk quotes: AN is a little tense for a "learning experience", but you still don't seem to be engaging with the problem here. It doesn't have to be a big deal, exactly, but you seem to think that more quotes is better and the other person was very lazy (your words, not mine) for asking the question. Did you read what I wrote above that "you made your case seem worse by linking some truly awful sources like random websites"? If someone asks what the capital of Illinois is and you link a terrible AI-generated source, it makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about, even if the source is accurate. If you couldn't be bothered to critically examine the websites at all and were literally just pasting Google links, maybe don't do that? To back up a little here, your enthusiasm in researching the Pennsylvania Dutch article is a good thing. But learning what sources are reliable and what aren't is a key Wikipedia skill - one that frankly most of the world is bad at (most people believe memes shared on Facebook uncritically). Please click on your own links. Discarding sites like that are the basics of learning how to source. If you agree that those non-Forbes sites weren't useful, then great, we can move on to tougher questions like when to trust old sources from 1878 or whatever. But if you still don't see the problem, then nobody is going to believe on your judgment anywhere else.

  On that note, you didn't answer my C1 question above. If someone asks an in-your-view "easy" question in the future, how would you respond?

  It's moot, but for future reference, you will want to distinguish fonts and language scripts. Yiddish and Coptic are written in non-Latin scripts. Pennsylvania Dutch, like German and English, is written in the Latin script, of which Fraktur is one font. Varying up the script to match a language is fine; varying up fonts within a script is very unusual and not done just because it would have been contemporary without a very good reason.

  On ownership: I think Vlaemink has made his case. I think you have two ways you can defend yourself: A) Actually, everyone else IS really wrong, and you were just performing good stewardship by stopping these wrong editors. But given some of errors so far in your preferred versions, you're not making this approach the easy one. B) You commit to accepting feedback and not reverting and working with others. If you commit to B, and then actually follow through, that'll actually be the happy case - but you have to understand that you will sometimes "lose" and other editors will put in the "wrong" stuff and you'll need to develop a consensus on the talk page otherwise, politely, and without bludgeoning. Are one of these doable? SnowFire ( talk) 11:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I would like to draw to our attention recent off-Wiki activity undertaken by an organization that was at the center of a contentious RSN RfC that is now closing.

The organization which is the subject of the aforementioned RfC is asking their supporters to mass email a template letter to the WMF with demands to "launch an investigation" into "attacks by some editors" against it.

Obviously, there's nothing to "investigate". Nonetheless, the very existence of a request with this illiberal and threatening tone may have a chilling effect on the frank and honest nature of our discussions and the Community Culture Statement requires we "support people who have been targeted" by "hostile and toxic behavior".

The reason I bring this up is for aid of context to demonstrate the "need" requirement of WP:IPEC, if editors who participated in the RfC in question -- particularly those quoted in recent news reports -- were to request WP:EXEMPT. Chetsford ( talk) 00:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that info. We can probably also expect an influx of "questions" about this, such as this one at the Teahouse: [73] RudolfRed ( talk) 00:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I believe your quotations misrepresent the situation slightly. The template says the sender is writing to "express [their] deep concern and utter dismay regarding the attacks by some Wikipedia editors on ADL’s reliability on the topic of antisemitism" and much later asks the Wikimedia Foundation to "immediately launch an investigation into this effort and the motivations behind it". The way you have worded your report suggests they are asking for an investigation into individual editors and I can't say I support this assessment. I agree that this is of note to contributors to the English language Wikipedia project and we should be aware of it, but I have concerns about the way you have represented the template's contents. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 01:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It depends on how one interprets demands for the WMF to "take action" in regards to the "some editors" the ADL is accusing. Silver seren ^C 01:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think there's a whole lot ofany ambiguity as to the meaning of this letter. The phrase "immediately launch an investigation into this effort and the motivations behind it" is clearly directed at individual editors since the motivation for any edits on WP is individual in nature. But I appreciate your perspective. Chetsford ( talk) 01:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC); edited 01:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your perspective too, however I still believe they way you quoted the form letter is somewhat problematic. If we were to cherrypick and reorder quotes in such a way in an article it would quite rightly be challenged. Particularly when the majority of editors are unlikely to either be willing to provide an American address and mobile number or fabricate them (as I did, there's no option for non-US readers) in order to actually read the contents of the form letter (that really irritated and annoyed me, being compelled to give out personal information before I knew exactly what I might be signing my name to - obviously I didn't hit send though, I do not endorse the contents). On the motivation for any edits on WP is individual in nature, yes I agree with that but this is about an RfC which is an attempt to gain consensus and I'd argue that's a form of groupthink making the exact motivations slightly less clear cut. To be clear, I do not agree with the form letter or the attempt to interfere with internal Wikipedia editorial process. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 02:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Is this a parody? There are probably more counterproductive responses, but this is not an action that is going to enhance any impression of being a reliable source. CMD ( talk) 02:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Intimidating editors who see through their lies isn't something I want in a source labeled as anything but deprecated. They should be blacklisted for this. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contributions)} 02:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

For those who don't want to click through their form, this is the default message that they recommend everyone send to the members of the WMF Board of Trustees:

The trustees might want to set up an email filter for a while to move these out of their inboxes. The real question is if the WMF will do anything to support the community if individual editors receive any harassment. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 02:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

That RfC was a dumpster fire that mostly consisted in both sides planting their flags, offering bare assertions, and picking out a few links to justify their impressions. External scrutiny into our processes for deciding on reliable sources is overdue. We should welcome it rather than close ranks. Yes, the ADL complaint should be taken with a heavy dose of "well they would, wouldn't they?" – but let's not pretend Wikipedia is squeaky-clean here. – Tera tix ₵ 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

So we should welcome harassment of Wikipedia editors because they agreed that a source was unreliable? What's wrong with you? Silver seren ^C 03:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

That's not what I said. – Tera tix ₵ 03:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Bothsidesism? When the ADL called for harrassment? For real? LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contributions)} 03:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This is a loaded question which no doubt I will regret responding to, but just because I have said the RfC was a poor-quality discussion does not mean I automatically agree with anything or everything the ADL or any other critic says or does in response to it. Don't find me guilty by association. – Tera tix ₵ 04:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Well he would, wouldn't he?, one of our featured articles I felt could have been linked in your reply. I think it equally applies to both sides. Well the ADL would complain about the RfC, wouldn't they. Well, Wikipedia contributors would object to the interference, wouldn't they. Neither side are entirely right, neither are entirely wrong, but both responses are to be expected. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Maybe I gave the ADL higher credit than both of you, but no I would not have assumed the ADL would launch a mass email campaign targeted at WMF to complain about Wikipedia editors. CMD ( talk) 03:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't entirely agree with the campaign, I am certain there are better ways they could have gone about this, but surely it's understandable that a publication would seek to defend themselves against being declared an unreliable source. As much as I loathe the Daily Fail, their article in response to their deprecation is entirely understandable even if quite problematic (riddled with factual errors, merely highlighting to anyone who's taken even a cursory glance at that particular RfC why the Daily Fail is unreliable). Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

If they had just written an article we would not be having this conversation. It is very poor that that is being declared equivalent to setting up a targeted email campaign against volunteer editors. (And an advocacy campaign to protest an RfC which partially hinged on the ADL being more advocacy group than academic source, just a terrible response all round.) CMD ( talk) 04:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, Wikipedia contributors would object to the interference, wouldn't they. I'd like to think we're capable of not just acting on reflex like this – "oh, these outsiders are complaining about us treating them unfairly, I had better stand by my in-group" – and notice when our processes are flawed. – Tera tix ₵ 03:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I'd like to think the same, but unfortunately that's just not the reality. There are hundreds of thousands of different people contributing to Wikipedia from across the globe and from all walks of life, and we're all going to have a different perspective on everything on this project. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree regarding the flag-planting (and that's a good term for that behavior, I've never been able to find one). I strongly believe that it would be a major improvement if we looked through the major Palestine–Israel discussions, found which editors always !vote in a way convenient to their side, and just tbanned the lot of them. If they can't put their emotional attachment to the subject aside, they're harmful to the project. But I disagree that we should consider this or anything like it to be "external scrutiny". It's a reactionary partisan response, planting their own flag no differently than the Palestine–Israel CPUSH trolls. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 03:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sure, we're not dealing with an unbiased critique here. That's a big reason why it's so tempting to dismiss. But biased critiques can still end up highlighting genuine problems. The fact ADL is obviously biased on this matter does not "bleed into reality" and make any issues with Wikipedia less serious than they would otherwise be. – Tera tix ₵ 03:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

(ec)Well, more threats, that doesn't help this discussion at all. Let's step back from proposing mass topic bans and consider this situation calmly and not be reactionary ourselves. I appreciate knowing about this campaign but it's up to the WMF how they want to deal with it and this discussion shouldn't be an opportunity to vent about the organization which doesn't resolve anything about this issue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree completely with Liz.
My intent in opening this thread was not to initiate a general discussion of ADL's call for revenge but merely to attention the community to it so that, where appropriate, specific protective measures could be extended to those editors who may be impacted. As I said, I believe anyone who participated in the RfC and !voted in a way that subjects them to the potential for off-Wiki harassment should be granted block exemption so that they may edit through a VPN, if they so desire. More abstract and philosophical discussion on this topic may be better continued in a different forum than AN. Chetsford ( talk) 04:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

IP block exemptions would not provide editors with any sort of protection here. The ADL are requesting that the WMF investigates editor intentions, not that the WMF gives the ADL access to IP address data, either current or future. If the WMF investigates (and I am not saying that they would or should), those editors' IP addresses are already logged and available to inspect against all edits and retained for a certain period of time. Future editing via VPNs would not erase existing logs. So, I do not understand what would be gained by requesting IP block exemption. I say this as someone who has worked on MediaWiki installations and inspected the IP addresses used by problematic logged-in editors. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 04:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I couldn't disagree more. They're retained for 90 days. Extending IP block exemption now, while not erasing the past three months of data, would instill confidence in our editors that personally identifiable information might not -- in the future -- be disclosable through subpoena from frivolous litigation or a malign internal actor motivated by ADL's call for revenge. "I say this as someone who has worked on MediaWiki installations and inspected the IP addresses used by problematic logged-in editors." I say this as someone whose IP address data has previously been subject to a legal preservation request. Chetsford ( talk) 04:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I’d theoretically back this as well, problem is said prominent POV editors are skilled-enough Wikilawyers that’s they’d get any TBAN overturned swiftly. It’s a shame, and the area will continue to be a disaster as a result. The Kip ^{( contribs)} 16:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

<- Am I missing something? The ADL's statement looks pretty innocuous to me. The way individual people choose to respond to it is not under their control. The 'Full text' section is not ADL, it's just some random angry person, isn't it? Anyone who edits in the PIA topic area for long enough is very likely to be subjected to off-Wiki harassment at some point. Simply following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is enough to make you a target. Comes with the territory, unfortunately. It's not ADL's fault that some of their supporters will be angry irrational people. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 05:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The 'Full text' section is not ADL, it's just some random angry person, isn't it?

Did you really come in here and make up this claim without even bothering to go into the very website you linked? If you add in the Details information, it takes you to the next Messages tab, which includes the full text quoted above. It is directly from the ADL, but thank you for acknowledging that the text is akin to some random angry person. That is what the ADL is at this point. Silver seren ^C 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

So yes, he was missing something? 😅 jp× g 🗯️ 17:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The call for revenge contained in "Full Text" is, in fact, the official, corporate voice of the ADL. This is the template text they are directing their followers to barrage blast the Trustees with. The email system does, however, allow users to modify the template text to be something even more hostile and threatening if they so choose. Chetsford ( talk) 05:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Silver seren:, yes, apparently, I did do that, or thereabouts. So, I guess it's lucky I included the "Am I missing something?" and "...isn't it?" questions or else I might look even more foolish. Thank you for the extra details. There is no way I would have discovered the myself because it involves filling out a form. Either way, it's unsurprising. Wikipedia editors will be 'investigated' and harassed with or without ADL's efforts. People will use it as another excuse to ignore the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct, ignore the EC restrictions, ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, justify the use of deception via sockpuppetry, and all of the many ways a determined subset of Israel supporters have discovered to trap themselves in a cycle of self-defeating behavior. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 06:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The default full text and the form explanation were given by Thebiguglyalien above. I'm not sure whether the surprise is relevant, it is specifically the ADL's fault if others use the preprepared ADL statement ADL is asking others to use. CMD ( talk) 06:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, having edited in the Arab-Israeli topic area for a long time, I'm very cynical. Whether what happens is ADL's fault or not doesn't really matter. It would happen anyway. There is a large reservoir of easily manipulated and exploited people out there primed to act. The Wikipedia community made a decision. There will be consequences for Wikipedia and individual editors because there are plenty of angry irrational people. That's just how it works for anything related to Israel-Palestine. There is apparently very little that can be done about it. If the ADL burn themselves down in the process, so be it. Maybe some good will come out of it, a better ADL. For me this is just more tears in rain. Sean.hoyland ( talk) 07:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

So much for staying calm. Please stop anticipating worse case scenarios, if they happen ("IF"), then they can be dealt with. Bashing ADL just plays into this Them vs. Us, no win scenario. We have no idea and no control over whether people will send out these letters or how WMF would respond. This thread has basically been an announcement and it should be closed since there is nothing admins can do about this. Better to move this discussion to an off-Wikipedia site like that website that should not be named where editors can vent. But AN is not an appropriate place for fear and speculation, that's not what this board is for or what admins have the ability to deal with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

While I agree the thread should be closed and this prolonged discussion is not appropriate at AN (as I've previously stated, in fact [74]), I'm unclear if this -- "Bashing ADL" -- refers to some statement or action I've done and, if so, what that statement or action is. I can't, for the life of me, find any instance in which I've "bash[ed]" the ADL either here or elsewhere. Chetsford ( talk) 06:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

"Antisemitism" according to the ADL:

Criticism of Zionism = Y antisemitism

Criticism of Israel = Y antisemitism

Criticism of the ADL = Y antisemitism

At least they're consistent. I hope the WMF informs the ADL that among the dozens of editors who voted that the ADL is unreliable are Jewish editors, Israeli editors, editors whose parents and grandparents died in the Holocaust, editors who have been the victims of actual antisemitic attacks, editors who don't appreciate the ADL purporting to speak on behalf of all Jews, and editors who are profoundly disappointed that the ADL has lost its way. Levivich ( talk) 12:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Not to mention the editor who has been celebrated as the most committed fighter against Nazi disinformation on this website ( [75])... _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Willbb234 ( talk · contribs) A few months back I invited editors to comment on an unblock request that Willbb234 posted on their talk page. My post did not attract the intended audience and the appeal was closed as unsuccessful due to lack of participation. Willbb234 has posted a new request, pasted below:

In December I made a nasty comment and I would like to apologise for said comment and for the distress it caused. I would also like to apologise to those that had to read the comment. I promise that this won't happen again. In my nearly five years of editing this is what I believe to be the first personal attack I have made, and so it is certainly not like me to make such a comment, and I have learned and changed from this block. I would also like to acknowledge the seriousness of my comment and the fact that I have read through the resources given on my talk page and have given thought to what they have said. Passing off sexual harassment as a joke is completely inappropriate.

There was a lack of consensus for unblocking in the community discussion on my talk page, which comes down to the fact that two of the users participating there had previously had disagreements with me. I think a community AN discussion would allow for wider participation hopefully from users who can view the situation with an unbiased perspective. Thank you, Willbb234 23:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss the new request here. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 12:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Support unblock This was a first block for WP:NPA and I choose to believe the remorse expressed in the unblock request is genuine. I read through the unblock discussion hosted on Willbb234's talk page. The edit warring concern was a tangent that was not a consideration when making the block and should be dealt with on its own merits if that behavior recurs. Schazjmd  (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Support, per WP:ROPE. I am prepared to give the user some mild benefit of the doubt in the episode that got them blocked, since the editor they were abusive about was trying to put a really bad BLP violation into an article. However, they really need to edit productively from now on, and that means no edit-warring as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I'd probably support, except... I feel like I recall this at the time it was happening, and if so it was probably at a noticeboard, but there's no link to that discussion here. A little help, so that everyone doesn't have to do their own detective work? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 15:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm beginning to think there was no noticeboard discussion; all I can find is the block thread on their talk page, which they annoyingly removed at the time, and which does not include an AN/ANI notice. So I guess I knew about this because their page was already on my watchlist for some reason? I don't think I've ever posted there. Weird. Anyway, at this stage I think we have to either say "support" or "never". The request seems honest, and complete, and more clueful than the first requests that happened at the time. I can't imagine what more we would want. Also, the edit warring is kind of a red herring; that wasn't edit warring, as the BLP exemption applied. So I'd support an unblock, with a short leash. Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#Willbb234 for reference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 16:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support per Wikipedia:Standard offer. We'll be less forgiving if it happens again. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Note: I have had a previous dispute with the user, but those who know my contributions know that I am fervently against restricting editors just because you don't like them, so I do not believe this is a conflict of interest. What it does do is gives me knowledge that their behaviour is routine, this isn't a one-off, and while I would probably support unblocking if it was just the indecent message, I am swayed to oppose because of why the indecent message was sent. Will can say they have never made a personal attack before, but IIRC this is far from true. The indecent comment was Will's response to a basic-level warning, and while more severe than any other of their replies, it's this pattern that concerns me. So I'll repeat my thoughts from their last appeal: in a regular pattern of behaviour, they are unwilling or unable to actually discuss anything at all. (I.e. they made that comment in response to a warning, rather than discuss the edit.) It's vital to collaborative editing, and I'd like to see an acknowledgement that their tendency to edit war or insult their way out of disputes is inappropriate, and some kind of pledge that they will make an effort to reach out and discuss first in future if they even think about either. Kingsif ( talk) 17:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Frankly, this is a problem. While the talk page isn't a wall of shame, it's not exactly favorable to make people look through the history to find the actual block, much less that comment. I would expect a bit more of a concrete plan on change before considering supporting the unblock of someone with such a checkered history. EggRoll97 ^{( talk)} 19:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  For any admins interested, this is the relevant diff I believe. It's been revdelled. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply