Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

 Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	0	58	42	100
TfD	0	0	13	1	14
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	2	10	12
RfD	0	0	0	47	47
AfD	0	0	0	92	92

• 16 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 48 sockpuppet investigations
• 66 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 18 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 163 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 34 requested closures
• 86 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 28 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (40 out of 11917 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel – Iran war 2025-06-14 23:32 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Rosguill 2014 Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shootdown 2025-06-14 23:12 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree Ali Shamkhani 2025-06-14 21:28 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Talk:Israel – Iran war 2025-06-14 18:37 2025-06-28 18:37 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Rosguill Israel – Iran war 2025-06-14 18:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Rosguill Template:Refh 2025-06-14 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2504 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Month year sports events in country category header 2025-06-14 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2523 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Month year sports events in country category header/core 2025-06-14 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2523 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy 2025-06-14 16:22 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Fathoms Below Draft:Terry Ananny 2025-06-14 10:20 2025-12-14 09:39 create What my colleague most likely wanted to do Favonian Draft:Siege of Herat (1749) 2025-06-13 22:45 2026-06-13 22:45 create Izno Amir Ali Hajizadeh 2025-06-13 21:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter June 2025 Iranian missile attack on Israel 2025-06-13 19:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Rosguill Talk:June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran 2025-06-13 18:51 2025-06-27 18:51 edit,move Arbitration enforcement, I'm seeing maybe 1 constructive suggestion from a new account out of the dozens upon dozens of posts being made. Maybe things will calm down once this isn't breaking news. Rosguill Union for the Homeland 2025-06-13 18:13 2025-06-15 18:13 edit Large scale revert wars on sourced material; please take this to talk BusterD Hossein Salami 2025-06-13 12:35 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP; WP:CT/A-I Ganesha811 June 2025 Israeli strikes in Iran 2025-06-13 02:04 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Rosguill Meant to Be (Philippine TV series) 2025-06-13 01:52 2025-07-13 01:52 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: request at WP:RFPP Materialscientist Bob the Builder 2025-06-12 22:48 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case Shivangi Joshi 2025-06-12 22:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Sherut Avir 2025-06-12 22:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Am Yisrael Chai 2025-06-12 22:21 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Barrier troops 2025-06-12 22:06 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Ra'ad Sa'ad 2025-06-12 21:04 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Soumoud Convoy 2025-06-12 20:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Grupo Austral case 2025-06-12 20:35 2025-06-26 20:35 move Move warring: per request at RFPP Daniel Case Attack on Matt Greenman 2025-06-12 20:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:ARBPIA5; requested at WP:RfPP, will log Ganesha811 S-400 missile system 2025-06-12 20:22 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Haitham Khuwajari 2025-06-12 20:16 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Alaa Al Najjar 2025-06-12 19:35 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Fort Johnson 2025-06-12 03:14 2025-07-12 03:14 edit,move per WP:CT/AP Swatjester Fort Novosel 2025-06-12 03:11 2025-07-12 03:10 edit,move per WP:CT/AP Swatjester Fort Barfoot 2025-06-12 03:10 2025-07-12 03:10 edit,move Per WP:CT/AP Swatjester Fort Gregg-Adams 2025-06-12 03:09 2025-07-12 03:09 edit,move Per WP:CT/AP Swatjester Fort Cavazos 2025-06-12 03:08 2025-07-12 03:08 edit,move Unifying the protection level + period with the other to-be-renamed base articles; per WP:CT/AP Swatjester Fort Walker 2025-06-12 03:07 2025-07-12 03:07 edit,move per WP:CT/AP Swatjester Elena Dorfman 2025-06-11 21:34 2026-06-11 21:34 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Shuja Asad 2025-06-11 12:15 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Vladan Kuzmanović 2025-06-11 12:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Tahanang Pinakamasaya 2025-06-11 11:01 2026-06-11 11:01 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian

Andy Ngo RfC review

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

---

Szmenderowiecki recently made a good faith and generally very well considered closing of a RfC at Andy Ngo dealing with calling Ngo a journalist or not (Talk:Andy_Ngo#RfC:_"journalist"_in_lede). I wish to challenge one part of the closing which is the statement that the description "journalist" does not have consensus to be in the first sentence of the lead, "So there is rough consensus to do it somewhere in the lead, but not in the first sentence," My concern is this appears to be answering not only a question that wasn't asked in the lead but also was largely not discussed by editors who were for or against saying Ngo was a journalist. I opened a discussion on the closer's talk page [1]. Since the location (first vs second sentence of the lead) wasn't discussed by the vast majority of editors this particular conclusion seems hard to pull from the discussion. Thus I'm asking for a close review related to if the discussion can reasonably decide where the term should be used in the lead. Springee (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I left a note on Szmenderowiecki's TALK in regards to the closer's justification that "journalist" is a continuous value-laden label. It's an occupation. The discussion around whether or not it should be used to describe Ngo could be considered continuous, but WP:CONTENTIOUS is quite clear. The argument that it should be removed on MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE grounds is perplexing. If that's the case, then any continuous discussion around occupation would result in automatic removal. Thanks Nemov (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It is evident from the prolonged discussion and RfC participation that "journalist" is CONTENTIOUS in this instance. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There are 2 issues here. The first is if it's reasonable to claim "journalist" is is a contentious label and thus special considerations apply. The second, bigger issue is if this is a supervote. For first vs second/other sentence of the lead to be part of the closing the closer needs to show that editors discussed that aspect and that there was a clear consensus for/against/no-con regarding where the term could appear in the lead. I don't see that location was discussed in any meaningful thus declaring consensus in that area can't reasonably reflect the discussion. Hence, that part of the closing was a supervote and should be struck. Springee (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONTENTIOUS isn't about all terms that people on Wikipedia have disputed; it specifically applies to "value-laden labels", giving examples such as "cult", "racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter" and "perversion". "Journalist" is in no way comparable to these. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The amount of dancing around to even consider the term "journalist" as a contentious term in this case is epidemic of how we in general with out left leaning bias write about people and groups on the opposite extreme. There needs to be a massive course correction here. Masem (t) 16:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

We have the exact same "dancing" around the term journalist for left wing figures like Julian Assange and Max Blumenthal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is also true. Just that I think the problem is far more visible (number of articles and how frequently that they come up at the various "drama boards") for those at the extreme right, or even those with connections to that side. But any resolve must address both political sides. Masem (t) 20:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been against both Ngo and Assange labeled as journalist. Nothing to do with right or left in my mind. Consider that the reason this comes up far more often for right-wing "journalists" is that there exist far more far-right wing activists/provocateurs calling themselves journalists. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Contentious terms don't have to be negative. The examples given include "terrorist, or freedom fighter", those are terms that could be applied to the same subject depending on POV. I've no opinion on the particular discussion, but terms that validate a subject can be as contentious as any other label. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Definitely doesn't have to be negative to be contentious, "hero" is one of the more common contentious terms largely because it is so strongly positive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Those two examples aren't occupations. Could a plumber be a contentious term? A person is either an electrician or they're not an electrician. A person's occupation is either described as a journalist or not. Based on this narrow interpretation any argument about occupation means that occupation is now labeled is contentious and must be removed per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In this case many WP:RS described the person as a journalist. Either way you cut it it doesn't make sense in regards to Ngo. Nemov (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

But "journalist" can be contentious, it gives a much more positive image than "activist". In the modern newsscape using pseudo-journalism for political propaganda is all to common, regardless of what side of politics it comes from. Those engaged in it are not journalists, and calling them that gives them a veneer of respectability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Self-stated labels aside (which we are not required to use, but that's not the case here) we should not be trying to pass judgment on standard occupational terms like "journalist" here, rather than claiming it to be value-laden. If the person was at even one point employeed to write news coverage for a news outlet, regardless if it were the NYTimes, Fox News, or RT, they're a journalist. We can talk elsewhere in an article about issues with that career that's documented in sources (as would certainly be the case for Ngo) but trying to play word games with one of the clear occupations he's held seems extremely POVish. Masem (t) 20:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

But as I've stated it's not a standard occupation term any longer, to apply it without backing would be against WP:NPOV as it acts as cover for political activism. Also again, per my previous statement and the one below this, I don't care or have an opinion about the specific subject involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You comment changed as I replied to it, so I'll just restate that I have no opinion on the subject. Whatever is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject should be used, as per WP:LABEL. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources say that such and such term applied to such and such person is contentious why would we not treat it as contentious? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There were WP:RS that said he was a journalist. The closer said it was contentious per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. Nemov (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Its a long discussion which I was not involved in but there also appear to be RS which said that he was not a journalist and others which said it was contentious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think that the closer did a thoughtful and thorough job and thank them for their work. With respect to the structural issue raised here, I think that what what the closer did would be a good creation of a compromise in some other discussion venue, but IMO it is a supervote here and that that aspect should be overturned or set aside. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• That looks like an exceptionally tough close and Szmenderowiecki should be commended for tackling it, Springee and North8000 make some good points though and its unlikely that a tough close of such a long discussion would be entirely uncontentious... I'm not sure if this is significant enough to reopen the discussion for though, but on the plus side if we do hopefully we can reach a clearer consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Szmenderowiecki did a very good job overall with the close. I do agree with North8000 that the RfC close is a little too broad. However, an overturn seems like overkill. A narrower discussion about the first sentence should be opened now that the question about the lead is settled. It appears that some editors place some value on the occupation of journalism so there may not be support to add it to the first sentence, but that discussion cannot happen with the way the close was worded. I would support an amended close leaving the question of the first sentence up for discussion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Incase there was a question, I'm only challenging the part about not including in the first sentence. I see no issue with the rest of the closing and agree with was on the whole well reasoned.

Springee (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree that it was largely not discussed whether the term should not be included in the first sentence. I specifically raised MOS:LEADBIO and MOS:FIRSTBIO as my main arguments on a number of occasions in the discussion part of the RfC and there were additionally a number of other editors who agreed with my assessment. I specifically noted that it was beside the point whether he was considered to be a journalist or not by others in his field, that what was important was the main reasons for his notability and that journalism wasn't it and that it therefore shouldn't be given prominence in the lede. I think Szmenderowiecki did a very good job with the close and that it should be upheld. TarnishedPath^talk 22:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you show any examples where you argued that inclusion in the first sentence was an issue but inclusion in the second sentence is acceptable? There was a significant part of the discussion focused on if we should use qualifiers as part of saying his is a journalist. If you think there was an area where first sentence vs later in the lead was discussed, please provide a link. Looking at both of your MOS links I don't see that either would clearly address this once consensus supports calling him a journalist. Certainly even the sources that were negative about Ngo often identified his journalism as the issue. Springee (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  @User:Szmenderowiecki specifically addressed MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE in a discussion with you and others at User talk:Szmenderowiecki#Andy_Ngo_closing and referenced me and others by name.

  Quoting @User:Szmenderowiecki "The first sentence clearly says that the discussion may end in a closure that does not necessarily answer the question as asked if participants discussed the topic even though it may be seemingly unrelated to the question asked. The second sentence affirms this - if editors discussed a certain topic within the RfC, it may be evaluated for consensus. It need not be the main topic of the discussion. Besides, it is clear that when we are speaking of the lead as a whole, we are also speaking of its first sentence, so if editors want to voice an opinion about the first sentence there, it's fine. My duty is to summarize these comments if they have sufficient support and/or strength. I pointed you to comments that mentioned the first sentence specifically (see also TarnishedPath's comments from 22 September, where they argue that MOS:FIRSTBIO prevents the word "journalist" from being in the lead because it's not Ngo's main claim to fame. I did not mention it in the closure because consensus was not likely to develop either way as to whether this guideline even applies here). In short, I believe that the part with the first sentence fits within the general question asked, and even if it didn't, I am not bound by the RfC question but by the content of the discussion (unless participants misunderstand the question, which is hard to do here)." TarnishedPath^talk 23:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Notably @Springee there was not one person to address the instances when other editors or myself put forward MOS:FIRSTBIO or MOS:LEADBIO, instead everyone else kept on arguing about whether he was or wasn't a journalist, whether it should be qualified, what reliable sources said about the matter, etc. TarnishedPath^talk 00:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  First, none of us agreed with Szmenderowiecki's use of BUIFIRSTSENTENCE in this case. Second, which editors other than you put forward those MOS sections and why? When the RfC was specifically could we call Ngo a journalist at all and basically none of the discussion was "can we do it in the opening sentence", it becomes a supervote to decide "yes, it can be in the second but not the first sentence". There certainly are RfC's where the issue is "can we call BLP "X" in the lead?" In some of those cases the discussion will have many people who say, "yes in the lead but not in the opening sentence". When a number of people respond that way it's reasonable for a closer to say, "consensus is yes but not in the opening of the lead". That isn't what we had here. Let's put it this way, which editors do you think supported a "yes, but not in the opening sentence" response? What edit of yours do you think supports "yes, but not in the first sentence?" If you can't find sentences that clearly support that closing then it's a supervote. Springee (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Um no, there wasn't basically no discussion. I've already quoted you a portion of text from @User:Szmenderowiecki quoting me to demonstrate there was actual discussion, the opposite of basically no discussion.

  Another editor who was referenced in the discussion you had with Szmenderowiecki was @Coffeeandcrumbs in their vote from 5 September 2023 they wrote:

  "No - The description of "journalist" being given to this person in the lede, in wikivoice, especially in the first sentence lacks NPOV and is UNDUE. It is true, per UNDUE that [n]eutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources, and per BALANCE, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, [we should] describe both points of view and work for balance.

  However, the first sentence (MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE) and opening paragraphs (MOS:OPENPARABIO) should also avoid subjective or contentious terms. The evidence that describing Ngo as a "journalist" is "subjective or contentious" is shown by other users above. The first sentence and opening paragraph should instead include the main reason the person is notable. Ngo is not notable because he is a journalist. He is notable as a social media personality and provocateur. Therefore, to the question of this RfC, "Should we describe Andy Ngo as a journalist in the lede?", the answer is no! Certainly not in the first sentence or first paragraph. Perhaps a later paragraph in the lede section can give a balanced description of the both view points, per BALANCE. But that balance viewpoint is that reliable sources disagree on the viewpoint. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

  Another editor who was referenced in the discussion you had with Szmenderowiecki was @Davide King who in their vote from 30 August wrote:

  "No because I think, and I am further convinced of this by the fact that we are still discussing it, it is better to have a contextualized and proper sentence than a label that is admittedly contested, not only among us but also by reliable sources. This is what I propose and what I believe is a reflection of what reliable sources say.

  Andy Ngo ... is an American activist, author, and social media influencer ... Many news outlets contested his self-description as a journalist [then we make a summary Aquillion's provided sources, which should probably have a section of his own including the academic sources provided by Isaidnoway, saying that he has been variously described as an agitator, provocateur, et cetera, and that have casted doubts or, to quote TFD, that "His peers, who write for reliable sources do not consider him to be one". Then we mention the various labels used by those who have described him as a journalist, such as "conservative journalist", "right-wing journalist", "independent journalist", "'busybody' journalist", etc.]. ... Politically, he has been variously described as conservative, right-wing, and far-right [or just far-right if academic sources consider him as part of a radical right grouping or is consistently placed within that context].

  I think last time, I was for "Yes, but", hoping that a sentence would be created to describe this issue. Ultimately, this time I think there is sourcing in support that the journalist label is contested, that Ngo is best known as an activist, and that there are enough sources that question his "journalism" that the real notability or what we should be saying and discussing is not that he is a journalist but the discussion on whether he is by reliable sources, rather than stating as fact that he is a journalist. I am not convinced by arguments that sources do not say he is not a journalist; they do not need to say that, it is sufficient that they give a different label, meaning that they attribute his notability to being an activist, a provocateur, or whatever other label use to describe rather than journalist (MOS:LEADBIO)"

  Again, I'll point out that when other editors or myself raised the policies of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE or MOS:LEADBIO no one addressed why the points we were raising didn't apply or were unimportant or were superseded by other policy considerations. You were all content to keep discussing whether he was or wasn't an journalist. How many sources said he was or wasn't, etc, etc.

  Ps, if you have any concerns about me pinging individual users, I intend on pinging everyone who was involved when I have a bit of time. TarnishedPath^talk 00:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  My quick count is 45 editors replied. You are saying that two editors, yourself and Davide King, who both opposed calling Ngo a journalist were actually saying, "yes in the lead but not in the first sentence". If this was a major point of discussion I'm sure you can find some additional editors, especially a number of YES !voters who agree that where in the lead was a significant part of the long discussion. Absent that, this is a supervote. Springee (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  This was a discussion in which not one person addressed the policy of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE even though it was raised on a number of occaisons. You were all content having a different discussion. Consensus dictates that the strength of arguments is measured, not just the numbers. TarnishedPath^talk 01:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ps, I don't think I'd constitute just under 60% Yes and just over 40% No to be a supervote for Yes and again we operate on consensus around here. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't consider the 60-40 = "consensus" to be a supervote either. The supervote aspect (and I do think the closing was good faith BTW) was the part where they felt there was a consensus or not on a topic that was not signficiantly discussed. I think we can address MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE (a MOS, not a policy BTW) right here. Point #4 says, "The first sentence should usually state: 4 One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." So consensus supported journalism as one of those noteworthy positions. Springee (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE states "The first sentence should usually state ... 5. The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". The main reason Ngo is notable is for reasons other than him being a journalist. I.e, inserting himself into controversy.

  You can play word games if you like but manuals of style are considered policy where I come from. TarnishedPath^talk 02:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Why ignore #4? But let's use #5, his work as a journalist and the subsequent consequences is what made him notable. So BIOFIRSTSENTENCE doesn't justify that part of the closing. But that ignores the bigger issue. The primary problem with this part of the closing is the closing is meant to summarize the discussion. This first vs second sentence stuff was not a significant part of the discussion thus should not have been part of the closing. Springee (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  per 4 ".. avoiding subjective or contentious terms". This was discussed on @Szmenderowiecki user page.

  per 5 "The main reason the person is notable". The main reason they are notable is for their activism and inserting themselves into controversy, this precedes their journalism. If it wasn't for their activism and inserting themselves into controversy we would have never known about them and they would have likely never had a job as a journalist, at least not at any of the publications that we know about today because they came to notability on the back of putting themself in the centre of controversy. TarnishedPath^talk 02:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  As others have noted, "journalist" isn't a subjective or contentious term. Also, per 5, Ngo is notable due to his journalism (ie the controversies associated with his journalism). Neither of these are a strong argument to say we cannot use "journalist" in sentence 1 but it's just fine in sentence 2. Springee (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Others have disagreed and stated "journalist" is both subjective and/or contentious, both here and in the RfC. That constituted quite a bit of discussion in the RfC. Per point 5 it doesn't say "The reasons the person is notable", it says "The main reason the person is notable". If Ngo didn't come to notability because of inserting himself into controversy, then he would have never been notable as a journalist. This whole discussion would be moot, the article wouldn't exist. It is a strong argument according to WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. Additionally it was an argument which was put in the RfC and not addressed. The closer did an appropriate job per WP:SUPV in assessing that there had been policy based arguments put for which no alternative response had been provided. TarnishedPath^talk 04:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Note: importantly I've never made any argument for not calling him a journalist anywhere in the article. My only question has been where is the appropriate point in the article to do so given the appropriate wiki policies. TarnishedPath^talk 04:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I just reviewed the RfC. Only two editors even mentioned BIOFISRTSENTENCE. The fact that 43 other editors didn't mention it suggests that it wasn't viewed as a significant argument with respect to the question the RfC was asking. Thus it is inappropriate to base a significant part of the closing on a question that wasn't debated by all but two of the participants. The closer clearly felt this was an important question. The correct way to raise the issue would have been to state it as an open question in the closing thus more editors would weigh in. It's certainly improper to have an argument made by only 2 editors given the weight of a consensus 45 editors. Springee (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I just saw this reply, and I mentioned the same thing (about two editors) in my comment below. In my view, based on the arguments in the RfC, this should have been another retain the status-quo closure. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Incorrect. Three editors mentioned MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE or MOS:FIRSTBIO which are identical in content. Importantly when we did bring those policy arguments they were not addressed with any alternative arguments policy arguments. TarnishedPath^talk 23:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  OK, 3 out of 45 editors mentioned FIRSTBIO. For all the long winded discussion no one pushed the point. If you felt it was such a strong point, the point to hang hats on, why not push it when you felt editors weren't able to address it? That seems to be the typical way these things work. If an editor makes a strong point it is often repeated and picked up by others (see the list of sources that changed many minds). But you are saying FIRSTBIO, a MOS guideline that can just as easily support inclusion in the first sentence, was a major point of discussion? Understand that if it wasn't then there was no consensus around it's value to the overall discussion thus any closing that pivots on it would be a supervote rather than a summary of arguments. That gets us right back to the original issue here. There wasn't a consensus or even much discussion regarding where this might be used in the lead and certainly no consensus that it should be moved out of the first sentence. Claiming a "rough consensus" based on 3 of 45 editors making a secondary point is simply not reasonable. Springee (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Refer to WP:SUPV and I quote "It should be noted that consensus discussions (including XfDs and RfCs) are not really polls. For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. (See also WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Rough consensus.)" TarnishedPath^talk 00:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with the general point. However when only 3 editors discuss a point and the other 42 don't see it as important, well that looks more like a super vote vs a summary of consensus. Springee (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you show me where the other 39 editors (not 42) wrote that they did not find Wikipedia policy important, rather than that they were simply engrossed in a back and forth argument about whether he was a journalist or not? If they did write that they didn't find Wikipedia policy important I would find that rather concerning. TarnishedPath^talk 01:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you two knock it off? All either of you are convincing anyone of is not to get involved in this thread. Closure reviews need outside input, not two people involved in the RFC arguing with each other. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Springee: "You are saying that ... were actually saying, 'yes in the lead but not in the first sentence'." Well, I understood the question to mean the first sentence (since the article read "Andy Ngo ... is a conservative/right-wing journalist", I assumed it was mainly about the first sentence of the lead, and is what I believe other users understood, so users like Aquillion or TFD mainly focused on that; I think it was clear the real question was about the first sentence, and my !comment assumed the "Yes in the lead [with a proper discussion of the issue] but not in the first sentence"). So yes, I think that was in fact a good summary of my view and what I meant better than I could write it myself. :D
  
  I think the closure reached the correct conclusion (as an involved user, I am not in the position to talk about defects of form), and their response was reasonable, and what is the best compromise and a path forward (rather than keep having new RfCs about the issue with "No consensus" closures) to improve the lead (it would include journalist as the "Yes" side supported and discuss the issues as the "No" side supported; the closure "Yes [in the lead] but not in the first sentence" sounds like a good compromise to me) and the article itself, which will not be improved as long as we will keep arguing about this when there's a clear compromise solution that this closure perfectly highlighted.
  
  You have your right to appeal, and I understand your reasoning as well, but what is the proposed solution? To hold yet another RfC with yet another result of "No consensus" that will lead us towards further stalemate rather than the compromise this closure provided us that may lead us to improve the article following the closure's suggestions?
  
  @Pincrete, author can be simply changed to say "writer, activist, and social media personality" in whatever order, and additional caveats (conservative, right-wing), is preferred.
  
  Davide King (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  The only kind of writing Ngo does AFAIK is some print journalism/commentary, and one assumes the scripts for his video reports. If he has written anything else, it isn't mentioned in the article anywhere I can see. A writer who produces news reports - even dishonestly biased and awful ones - is called a journalist by us and by in Ngo's case most sources. Why call him a 'writer', which usually means books or long articles? Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Pincrete: "A writer who produces news reports - even dishonestly biased and awful ones - is called a journalist by us." I think this requires some clarity that I hope it will help to better understand the closure and solve those issues, as I agree uninvolved users are the ones who should discuss this.
  
  That does not apply, for example, to James O'Keefe, who is called a journalist by some unreliable sources that also describe Ngo as a journalist, was cited in the RfC, and seems to be a case similar to Ngo but perhaps to the extreme. He is called a "political activist" and "Reception" discusses the fact that he is not considered a journalist despite what you wrote. As for "writer" (other possibilities include "news editor" and "opinion columnist"), some reliable sources, which were used in support of journalist, did use the term "writer" to describe Ngo. To quote Springree, "Some of the sources say he's a writer or author (both true and neither conflict with journalist*)."
  
  [*I had argued the fact they then did not use journalist outright was telling though; if journalist is not considered a contentious label, why a significant number of sources do not use it? This is where MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE comes into focus: sources consider other labels to be better representative of Ngo's notability than journalist, and a significant number of sources use labels that I believe even Springree agreed are in fact in conflict with journalist, e.g. activist or provocateur.]
  
  Ultimately, what matters is not "us" but reliable sources. If they call Ngo or whoever a writer, an activist, or whatever, that is what we do. If there is disagreement among sources, we do not use a label, even if it may not be considered contentious (it is apparently considered contentious not only by us but by reputable news organizations), as an uncontested fact; we write a sentence contextualizing this and report the various significant viewpoints and labels used. Davide King (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Davide King, to the extent that I understand your reasoning, it only confirms my sense that the close was a fudge and that there is little likelihood of the reader understanding why we have written this as we have (ie understanding that by placing 'journalist' in the second sentence, we are saying that the descriptor is disputed and that by putting 'author' in pole position, we actually mean 'person who mainly writes disputed journalism' - rather than the ordinary meaning of someone who creates books, especially fiction). I think that uninvolved users are often best placed to assess whether a close reflects the balance of discussion, but in this instance the close does not even pretend to answer the binary question asked (journalist or not), but rather arrives at a novel solution never even framed in the discussion.

  Of course I accept that RS are the ultimate arbiters here and I was persuaded in the previous RfC that sufficient prominent RS used the term 'journalist'. I argued in addition that 'journalist' is a description of an area of activity, not a moral or quality endorsement. People who write for bigoted sources are usually also described thus, here and in the real world. People who argued against often implied that what Ngo did was so far from journalism that it besmirched the word itself. I accept that some sources seem extremely reluctant to use the term 'journalist', sometimes they come up with other descriptions, (none, including 'author' I believe, was anywhere near as common as 'journalist' ). Sometimes sources employ novel means to avoid a job-noun, such as describing what he mainly does (create contentious video news reports), rather than what he is as a job-noun. Had such a suggestion been framed at the RfC, I might well have been able to support it.

  If we and RS acknowledge that someone creates film scores, but for some reason significant sources avoid 'composer', it would very easy for us to record what that person does and avoid any job-noun. There may be other ways out of this impasse, but saying that Ngo is a 'journalist', but doing so almost as an afterthought after 3 other job-nouns, despite it being acknowledged that his 'news videos' are his primary claim to notability/notoriety, seems the worst of all possible worlds to me - assuming the reader will understand why we have broken the convention of 'main job first' compounds that.

  I won't reply further, since I have made my feelings clear about what I consider to be an invalid - albeit good faith - close. Pincrete (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Pincrete: FWIW, I don't think author and social media influencer should be in pole position. I believe MOS:FIRSTBIO point 5 would have us put something else in pole position. What brought him to notability, i.e the main reason for his notability, his activism is unlikely to be agreed to though. The rest of the first sentence makes sence "who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators." in line with MOS:FIRSTBIO. TarnishedPath^talk 23:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  [Edited to add] The closure also stated: "Among the most interesting pieces of evidence submitted was a table with sources mentioned in this discussion (see Discussion section). Not only editors were unable to agree if the table presented consensus for mentioning the label 'journalist', but also it is a bit of a stretch calling the slight majority of sources 'consensus to call him journalist'. If I were to summarise the discussion based on sources alone, it would have been a no-consensus closure."
  
  This cannot be dismissed as a defect of form like MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, as other users beyond TarnishedPath and I clearly disagreed with sources used to support the claim. This position would entail support for the "Yes in the lead [as there is a significant number of sources using the label] but not in the first sentence [as there is a significant number of sources not using the label, and when going through source analysis the result is more of a 'No consensus']." So even if there may be a defect of form in regards to the MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE (it is not my fault if this argument was so convincing but ignored :D), the source analysis would get us to the same result and support the same closure's position that also gives us a clear path forward to improve the article and end this diatribe. Davide King (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  If it had been a no consensus closure, then the status-quo would have been retained. And maybe, just maybe, the reason your argument was ignored by the majority of editors is because it wasn't a compelling argument to begin with, except to of course the closer, and no, that is not your fault. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Or perhaps many of them just !commented and were done with, or that it was used as an argument when there have been many other !comments already so it did not persuaded (I count at least one or two who !commented citing me, so my argument was not ignored and was not not compelling as you wrote). Instead, I find the "!yes [status quo] per sources" arguments not compelling to begin with, to quote you, when the source analysis, which included unreliable ones in support, is closer to "No consensus", so it should not be stated as fact but be discussed in a proper sentence in the lead, as the closure concluded.
  
  It was not a !vote, it was about the arguments, and the "Yes" side basically reduced themselves to "!Yes per sources", asked us to prove a negative ("Show us a source explicitily saying he isn't a journalist!", completely missing the point and ignoring the rest, apart from one or two who engaged with us), etc. To quote Loki, "it's a guideline so it should be applied here, and nobody ever answered the objections based on it. And it's ultimately the closer's job to evaluate argument quality, not just argument quantity."
  
  So perhaps it was really the lack of good arguments in support of the label as fact, not errors on the part of the closure, or that "argument was ignored by the majority of editors [Aquillion just debunked this here] ... because it wasn't a compelling argument to begin with." Davide King (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think we can both agree we were involved, so we each have our own opinions about the closure. In other words, we'll have to agree to disagree. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @LokiTheLiar, @Grayfell, @Chess, @Barnards.tar.gz, @Isaidnoway, @Dorsetonian, @Burrobert, @TFD, @Peter Gulutzan, @Aquillion, @Spy-cicle, @HAL333, @FormalDude, @JzG, @Generalrelative, @DontKnowWhyIBother, @Objective3000, @Neutrality, @Dlthewave, @Crossroads, @-sche, @Ortizesp, @Darknipples, @Caeciliusinhorto-public, @Caeciliusinhorto, @Alpha3031, @PackMecEng, @Jweiss11, @ScottishFinnishRadish, @JPxG, @Sceptre, @BonaparteIII, @Binksternet, @Thriley, @Pincrete, @Wehwalt, @starship.paint and @Willbb234 as you were involved in the RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

After reading Szmenderowiecki's defense of their close on their talk page, I think their defense of their close is reasonable. It's not the typical sort of vote-count close but that's explicitly not required or even formally encouraged of a closer. It's totally reasonable to say "some people argued this, it seems to me like a strong point, and nobody answered it" in a close. Loki (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't reasonable to claim a significant aspect of the closing can be based on 1 person out of 45 argued a point. Also, as I noted above, the MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE argument kind of falls flat when point #4 suggests the opening sentence should mention significant positions. Positions like say, journalism. This isn't a place to relitigate the actual RfC. It's a place to argue if the closing reasonably summarized the discussion. It hardly seems reasonable that someone who opposed calling Ngo a journalist would then argue they actually meant just don't call him that in the first sentence (but the second sentence is fine). Springee (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't 1 person out of 45 and more importantly was a policy that no one addressed. Please refer to WP:SUPV which states:

"It should be noted that consensus discussions (including XfDs and RfCs) are not really polls. For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. (See also WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Rough consensus.)" TarnishedPath^talk 02:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 to what Loki has said. I personally disagree with the close, but it was very thoughtfully constructed and well reasoned on the basis of policy. I commend Szmenderowiecki for stepping up to take on this difficult task! Generalrelative (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it couldn't have been easy to wade through all of that. TarnishedPath^talk 02:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The best input in a close review is that of uninvolved editors. Pinging a bunch of people who already hold opinions on the RFC question isn't likely to be very constructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Imho, strike the part in the close about "in the first sentence". Next time, this RfC should have specific proposed wording of the lede paragraph. Workshop it for a week and rerun with detailed options. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I've seen RfCs with too many options aren't very good RfCs in general. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: I meant along the lines of exact wording. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chess While I agree that would have been a better thing to do from the start, that's not what we actually did, and I don't see any compelling reason to completely re-run the RFC. Loki (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Responding to ping, I must say it never occurred to me that any decision about Ngo's primary occupation would go anywhere other than opening sentence, as it always does, and as it was before the RfC. Nor that a 'close' would decide a question neither asked in the RfC nor really broached in the ensuing discussion. What we have arrived at is distinctly 'fudging' NPOV by effectively saying he's an author, he's an influencer. BTW we have to say he's a journalist, but we'll tuck it away somewhere later, without explanation or context. AFAIK Ngo does very little writing except for journalistic/news commentary and he is primarily known for video, rather than printed text - so where does 'author' come from, which ordinarily means books? Do any sources describe his primary occupation thus? This is the worst of all worlds IMO. I believe there is prior agreement to call him a 'right-wing journalist' and the sentences following his basic biog info detail quite well why he is controversial and much-criticised, (his credibility and accuracy have been questioned, he is accused of producing misleading and selective content - sometimes of being a provocateur). This is the correct way to deal with his bias and his controversial methods and 'product', not by 'holding our noses' when describing his profession, or assuming that no one reads beyond the first sentence. I'm UK and only know Ngo as a result of WP, but from what I have read of him, he's loathsomely unprincipled and his 'product' is despicably 'loaded', but I don't see any reason for deviating from normal practice of describing his main profession (area of activity) in the opening sentence - certainly not as a way of 'avoiding the issue' of a difficult RfC, which appears to have happened here. The close should be reconsidered IMO, if the recent RfC failed to reach an agreement to exclude the term journalist from the opening sentence, then the default position arising from the previous RfC, is to include it as his main profession in the opening sentence. Pincrete (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the notification. I am flabbergasted at the time and energy this is taking so don't have much enthusiasm for prolonging it; my view on the question is recorded on the original RfC so I won't repeat it here; what I might say is that the straightforward-looking question appears to have had different meaning to different people: "Should we describe Andy Ngo as a journalist in the lede?" does not say "should we include journalist in the lede?" and so leaves it uncertain whether this excludes or includes the possibility of "<qualified>-journalist" and/or "journalist and <other>". If people were answering different questions, there's no way this can have reached any kind of meaningful consensus. I think the options are: (a) run it again, with a more precise question/set of options, or (b) because this is taking way to much time and energy, stop asking How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I, for one, support the option where there is no need for discussion on this for at least approximately 6 months. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Pinged: Yeah, that's a problematic RfC close. We should avoid describing the person in the first sentence using terms that are contentious, which was shown here. Looks like to me the closer basically looked at a couple of editors who invoked MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE and used the term contentious in their arguments, (C&C, DK). I don't know what the solution is here, but the idea that author (in the first sentence now) is what Ngo is best known as, and more prevalent in sources than journalist, is a ridiculous conclusion to that RfC. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  There was definitely a lot of discussion at the RFC about whether journalist was contentious or not, how so, why, etc etc.

  What seems to be the issue is that there wasn't a lot of discussion of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE specifically. And, I agree that there wasn't, and this definitely makes me feel less good about this close than a lot of other closes I've seen. But, there was some discussion, it's a guideline so it should be applied here, and nobody ever answered the objections based on it. And it's ultimately the closer's job to evaluate argument quality, not just argument quantity. Loki (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. His primary occupation is right-wing grifter, and that should definitely be in the lede. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Now this description I would consider a contentious term. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Multiple users did discuss the inappropriateness of the first sentence specifically. In addition to TarnishedPath (who mentioned it above), Coffeeandcrumbs also objected to it being in the first sentence specifically and referenced MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, while Davide King argued specifically that this is sufficient for me to consider the label a subjective or contentious term (thus, violating MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE) in the discussion (the original poster here even replied to them, so they can't say they didn't get a chance to argue against moving it out of the first sentence.) More generally, large numbers of the other contributors mentioned WP:DUE and the problems with prominently presenting a label that the sources clearly treat as contested in the article voice as if it is uncontested as a concern. Due weight is partially a matter of placement and, as multiple people in the discussion pointed out, content being uncontested is particularly important for the first sentence; it is therefore reasonable for a closer to interpret the arguments as not strong enough to remove the descriptor entirely, but strong enough to reduce its prominence, especially since multiple people did discuss the inappropriateness of it being in the first sentence specifically. I also think that this objection would be more reasonable if it had come from someone who had pushed for removal rather than retention - your argument is essentially that it was unreasonable of the closer to interpret arguments for complete removal of a piece of text as also supporting reducing its prominence; but if that's the case then it should be easy to find people who wanted it removed and who take the position of "no, that's not what I meant, if we're not removing it entirely it should stay in the first sentence." Just looking at the discussion here, it's clear from who has weighed in and what they said that the closer was correct in interpreting arguments along the lines of "there are problems with this text, therefore we should remove it entirely" as also supporting reducing its prominence if the evidence they presented and the consensus behind them was strong enough to do something but not sufficient for complete removal. --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you provide some links or time stamps so the posts you feel support the not first sentence claim can be verified? Springee (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Good close. Whether or not a word is contentious is context sensitive. Consider the word "dictator". In most contexts, it would be consider a contentious word. However, we find it in the first sentence of Adolf Hitler. Suddenly, the word is not contentious because obviously he was dictator and we would have a hard time finding a reliable source to say otherwise. The reverse is also true. The word "journalist" is typically not contentious. Apply it to Andy Ngo and suddenly it is. That is not only my opinion. That is the opinion of several reliable sources that disagree on its application. The closer correctly saw the strength of my argument and properly closed the RfC. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Disagreeing on its application doesn't make it contentious, it would be subjective, as in a difference of opinion. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  But contentious means that there is a difference of opinion or some other disagreement, that is a distinction without meaning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Would the close be unproblematic if it used the latter word instead of the former? Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Good close. While I was originally against removing "journalist" from the opening, I can agree that this is not the reason why Ngo became notable. There are sources that describe him as such, and some that don't. While I empathize with the confusion and frustration on that point, I feel the closer's logic is sound. I tend to disagree with this review, because while it's intent may be in good faith the reason for it is unclear, other than a quality VS quantity argument, which seems to forget WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CCC. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• I would have to agree with Springee here regarding the neccesity for a close review here as Springee makes sound points regarding the consideration of FIRSTSENTENCE in the close.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• endorse I think the consensus for not having the title in the first sentence was weak, but it was certainly discussed and seems like a reasonable way forward given the relevant policies. I don't know that I'd have been comfortable making that reading, but it's within discretion IMO. The rest, as others have said, seems great. Hobit (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  That BIOFIRST was discussed is undermined by the fact that editors were trying to use it to say "journalist" couldn't be used at all in the lead. That clearly was refuted as even the closing said the second sentence was OK. There is also the issue that it's not the closer's position to pick what they feel is a compromise from a consensus that wasn't discussed. "Not in the first sentence but OK in the lead" was not an option that was discussed in any significant way and thus shouldn't have been on the table. The compromise close in this case would be "no-consensus". Springee (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• The recent change to the article's short description illustrates the problem with this close. It's clear from the RfC discussion and closing that "journalist" is the most common description for Ngo (with the understanding that it usually has a qualifier like "right wing"). The short description was changed from journalist to "personality" then "influencer", neither of which has consensus nor represents the most widely used descriptors. The justification was that if "journalist" isn't allowed in the opening sentence then it can't be used in the short description. Thus the questionable closing where 3 editors referenced a MOS guideline in a questionable way we now have a claim of consensus between 45 editors that the best, single descriptor is "influencer" rather than "journalist"? This part of the closing doesn't reflect consensus and should be reverted. Springee (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agree the short description was not part of the RfC, and should be reverted back to the status-quo. And frankly if the logic behind the RfC closure is that "journalist" is a contentious term, then the replacement with "author" is a contentious term as well because sources disagree on that descriptor too, and "author" certainly doesn't meet the guideline of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE for a noteworthy position. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, Andy Ngo is a journalist and this fact belongs in the first sentence of the lead. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about whether on not he is a crappy journalist, and I encourage everyone to write their thoughts about that on a blog, or on social media, if they so choose. That we are seriously considering whether on not a neutral occupational descriptor like "journalist" is a contentious label is a testament how discussion and curation of contentious topics and contentious figures has been compromised here on Wikipedia by political bias. Many editors are intent to infuse neutral occupational descriptors with moral and political considerations, over which a subject must clear in order to qualify. That we have an administrator stating in this discussion "his primary occupation is right-wing grifter" is emblematic of how badly this project in failing to deliver on its core mission in many topic areas. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  What would you say made Andy Ngo notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article in the first place? DN (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Like-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  As I understand it, JzG resigned as a sysop some time ago. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would have preferred a more specific term, but that is out of scope, and I would rather the discussion had been read more narrowly. I'll try to avoid saying anything further. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Without rehashing the merits of the RFC in general, I do feel like it is a bit of a supervote to give a novel answer that was largely not discussed. Since the location of the label was not covered in any depth in the discussion it is hard to agree with that part of the close, the close even stated Oddly, almost all editors focused on the first sentence only even though the RfC question asked about the lead as a whole. Given that I would strike the part about the first sentence and have it go back to it's long standing position. PackMecEng (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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

The futility of "close review"

I've observed that, once an RfC is closes and the close is elevated to status quo, it's extremely rare that an immediate rehash of the same mixed poll is going to find strong enough new consensus to overturn the close. Not that the comments aren't earnest and thougthful. But "close review" is a structurally flawed and ineffective procedure. Just sayin'. Is this really worth it? SPECIFICO talk 11:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This is often the problem with close reviews. Rather than focus on if the close was proper, they often devolve into relitigating the case. In this case the focus should be if there was sufficient discussion in the RfC to declare a decision on where the consensus material can be in the lead. If there isn't then at least that part of the close was improper as it doesn't summarize the discussion. Springee (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to echo those comments. In addition, when the only thing that's clear is that it's a borderline issue, surely that's the point where we have to allow the closer a bit of discretion. If it's not a clear-cut "bad close" then it's probably a good close, or at least a "good enough for now" close. After all, consensus can change so no decision is set in stone forever. WaggersTALK 14:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the comments about close reviews. I will comment that the most active 'close review' process is Deletion Review, and at DRV there is a rule that "DRV is not AFD round 2". AN should not be RFC round 2. DRV is not perfect, but we try to remember that DRV is not AFD round 2. I am not sure how AN close review of RFCs should be improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

But I will that most close reviews at AN are RFC round 2, in that they usually involve the participants saying how they would have closed the RFC. I think that they seldom focus on whether the close was a reasonable exercise of judgment by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

One of the recent RFC close reviews was structured with involved / uninvolved sections, which seemed to help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Springee (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Especially if involved editors only post in the involved section. Maybe something like:
= New section header =
[Basis for challenge]
== Involved section ==
== Uninvolved section ==
== Discussion ==
There really is very little documentation for RFC reviews.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I like that. It would be good to emphasize that this isn't supposed to be RfC2.0. Instead the arguments should focus on why the closing didn't reflect consensus of the discussion. Springee (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Does involved editors mean those who took part in the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That's how I would interpret it but I could see someone arguing that "involved" usually refers to the topic/article etc. Perhaps "Involved in RfC"/"Uninvolved in RfC" or similar would make it clearer? Springee (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

+1. I hope "Uninvolved" and "Involved" subheadings become standard for AN close reviews. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what path forward is for this... the extended arguments between involved editors here simply obfuscates the entire issue. Also, it was really poor that everyone was pinged about this because it's going to choke out outside comment. That's a shame, because I feel like the point I raised has not been adequately addressed and others have also expressed concerns with how WP:CONTENTIOUS was applied. At this stage it seems more trouble than it's worth. Nemov (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  The path forward is for people to WP:DROPTHESTICK 23.246.110.58 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Definitely. More generally we could perhaps look at a proposal to separate RfC close reviews to a separate noticeboard where review requests have a defined structure, like the one @ActivelyDisinterested suggested above. I guess the counter-argument is that we need to avoid the proliferation of admin noticeboards. WaggersTALK 10:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  There's no reason the format can't be used here, an RFC review board hasn't garnered much approval in the past. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  ActivelyDisinterested Well, I can't confirm your opinion.

  In 2017, there was a discussion with some encouragement to have one but clearly outside the scope of the closer of the review to decide about that.

  I am not able to find any other discussion that specifically addressed the issue of a separate board. You can automatically implement the proposed division when you launch a closure review (involved/uninvolved/discussion). Yes, AN will become a pretty empty space at this stage but maybe this is the whole point? Admins will get the news they need (backlog drives, ECP pages, arb decisions, news from Wikimedia Foundation) with relatively little distraction (most of reports to AN are about; users will still be able to attend dramaboards at their own pleasure (ANI, AE, CLRV/RFCRV, whatever).

  You can even theoretically try to integrate this into WP:CR, but I'm not sure about the technical aspects.

  But I suggest that WP:VPIL is the correct venue to prepare for a discussion that may launch such a board. You need to give a good general idea of how this is implemented and why this is an issue at all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  You misunderstand I'm not against a separate board for RFC reviews, that's just the general vibe I've got from general discussions. Also I have no intention to take anywhere, it's just part of the current discussion. Feel free to take it up if you think it would help AN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Nemov:, I'm not sure I see what you're getting at, given that you were involved in the RfC yourself and contributed to the close review prior to anyone being pinged. TarnishedPath^talk 00:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The closer missed the fact that most respondents thought that the term journalist had to be qualified by "right-wing" or "conservative," since few if any reliable sources refer to him as a journalist without qualification. The qualification is required because he does not meet the usual definition of a journalist, which is a professional who strives to report the news accurately.

As used by mainstream media, it's an oxymoron: "a figure of speech that juxtaposes concepts with opposite meanings within a word or in a phrase that is a self-contradiction." If the news media for example said that Ngo "presented alternative facts," we should not interpret that as he "presented facts."

TFD (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

In some 'perfect' world where 'pure neutrality' reigns, perhaps conservative/liberal/any other political, economic or national leaning would be an oxymoron. In the real world most journalists work most of their lives, to a greater or lesser extent working for news sources that reflect the prejudices, prorities and positions of the source and its readership, many of which are on a L-R spectrum. 'Conservative journalist' is no more inherently oxymoronic than "conservative judge', it describes a tendency. Ngo is of course more overtly R-wing than most journalists. Pincrete (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That's just spin. Mainstream media don't refer to themselves and other journalists as right-wing, left-wing or whatever. Clearly they are distancing themselves from him. They don't think the quality of his work meets their professional standards.

Editors should be able to identify irony when they see it. TFD (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes when controversial close reviews come to AN, I set up "involved" and "uninvolved" sections before things get out of hand. That's usually gone pretty well, and I've been thanked for it from people involved on both sides of the debate. Perhaps that should become standard procedure. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

+1. I agree completely. I hope this becomes standard for AN close reviews. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 Pretty sure you setup the one I was remembering, it helped immensely with keeping things orderly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Is that to give more or less weight to the arguments of those involved? PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Less, in my opinion. With the idea being that RFC participants are most likely to opine the same way they opined in the original RFC, and that a close review should give more weight to a fresh and less biased/unbiased set of editors. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We would not expect everyone in a close review to go over every vote. So why would we discount the people that know the subject best? Plus that is not something we do anywhere else. It is always by strength of arguments not if they have commented elsewhere. PackMecEng (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In the RFC review I saw it used it, it's main effect was to stop involved editors bickering with each other in the replies of uninvolved editors (as they had a whole section of their own to bicker with each other). I would hope, as I was someone of the involved editors, that it wasn't used to devalue arguments. I would disagree that subject knowledge is necessary in any review though, as only the policy based nature of the close is up for review. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer to see out guides on bludeoning followed to solve that. But that is a fair point on subject knowledge. PackMecEng (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO its actually preferable that the closer not be knowledgeable about the subject, that just begs the question of why they would close rather than contribute to the discussion (which a closer does no do). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm going to put a related comment here to the the "no-consensus" close above. The above closing (which I'm not disputing) illustrates one of the problems I've seen many times with questionable RfC closings. Generically have a supervote/bad close where what could be viewed as a no-con is closed as consensus for something questionable. So we open a close review. I would like to think we need a consensus to keep a questionable close. Instead all we need to keep a bad close is enough editors who are OK with the result to prevent a consensus to overturn. It would probably be better to require consensus to keep a contested close. If nothing else that means a mildly bad decision doesn't stand. In effect the question should change from "should the close be overturned" to "should the close stand". Springee (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Drop it. The close review has closed. TarnishedPath^talk 05:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I really hope the problems with requiring a second close with reversed consensus on every close should be blatantly obvious. Loki (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Is it? Please explain why that is better than letting a close stand without consensus? Springee (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Because nobody could ever close things. We'd be arguing about anything that didn't have WP:SNOW levels of consensus forever, since anyone who disliked a close could come here and have presumption to overturn it.

  But that doesn't change any opinions on the original page, who will presumably arrive at the same conclusion, get it overturned again, and on and on and on... Loki (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  TP, please AGF. Springee (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't intending on doing otherwise mate. TarnishedPath^talk 10:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  A problem with Springee's proposal is that it would give a strong disincentive to closing a contentious RFC, since the editor would likely then face a guilty-until-proven-innocent accusation of having made a bad closure. Normally in an appeal process or accusation of having done something wrong, the burden of proof is on the person making the appeal or the accusation. NightHeron (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. The suggested reverse onus is not what we should be looking to go to for a model. TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  In almost any other aspect of Wikipedia a nocon results on reversing the change. This is the one place where reversals are locked in when there is a no consensus. If the community isn't willing to stand behind a closing then we should revert it. That doesn't mean it couldn't be reclosed just that the original closing was poor. Springee (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's your opinion that the closing was poor. There's no consensus on that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  That there was no consensus the closing was good is obvious. If the closing doesn't have consensus that means we can't say it did follow the process (that would take a consensus to keep). Springee (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Drop it. The close review has closed. TarnishedPath^talk 12:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear the no consensus was because I decided not enough uninvolved editors participated in the review relative to the number who participated in the original discussion. But there was a "rough" consensus that the close was appropriate and if the standard was what you propose I wouldn't have closed it at all. I'd likely have left some kind of comment similar to what I do when relisting some AfDs along the lines of "A consensus appears to be forming for X, relisting in order to get more editor feedback". Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's always a fair way to close things. If the closer of the original RfC had raised the first sentence question then let people comment we wouldn't be here. Springee (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  You suggested that another user drop it above. I agree, you as well. Nemov (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Springee: "[…]a nocon results on reversing the change." Let’s reword this a bit: “When considering a proposal to change something that resulted from a long process over time, a nocon results in no change.” When an edit that changes the stable version of an article is disputed, the onus is on the editor who wants the change. When an editor wants to change the closure of an RFC (usually the result of about a month of discussions), the onus is on that editor. In both cases, as Springee put it, a nocon results in no change. There’s no inconsistency here. NightHeron (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Basically though in this case the RfC closing did result in a change so that is why I think a nocon on the closing should revert the close thus resulting in no change with the opening for a new RfC closing. Springee (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  An RFC, whatever its outcome was, is not like a bold edit by one editor. It involves a serious time commitment by several editors over about a month. Reversing the closure should not be the default option if the appeal has nocon. NightHeron (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  But would not using that argument ("a nocon results on reversing the change") means journalist must be gone anyway (from the first sentence at the very least) because there were multiple RfC resulting in "No consensus", so there is no longer a consensus to "Keep" it in the lead? Ironically, the closure you wish to reverse established a consensus for journalist to be in the lead, just not as an uncontested fact or in the first sentence. Basically, either way, it would results in the new status quo. Davide King (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, that would be a misunderstanding of what I've said. If the RfC closing doesn't get consensus then we should revert the closing, treat it as if the closing hasn't happened. That doesn't mean we do something to the article. If the article was changed due to the closing then yes, it would be reverted. In the case of a NOCON RfC then we do what we always do, we don't act on the RfC. In this case there was a first RfC that said, "consensus to include". I don't think that RfC was challenged. The next RfC reached a NOCON result and thus wouldn't change status quo. Here we have a strange case of a closing that supported the original RfC yet added a stipulation that was not widely or clearly discussed. That part of the closing (and the whole closing if one says you take all or nothing) was found to not have "good close" consensus. It wouldn't result in a new status quo, it would result in a return to the unclosed RfC. Springee (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Rabid Islamophobia and Nazi apologetics. Again

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

---

The Latvian user @Egilus: I complained about yesterday for forcing a pro-Cukurs blogspot as a source in Wikipedia continues to promote Nazi propaganda. He refers to Herberts Cukurs war crimes as "alleged", calls him a commie collaborator (but thinks calling him a Nazi one id defamatory). He downplays the war crimes of the Waffen SS who he think's wasn't Nazi and thinks it is wrong to call the Waffen SS Nazi. But now he is being a comedian, calling Hamas rockets "your Muslim missiles" to me and blaming Kazakhstan for everthing from that to the war in Ukraine and said that my username KazyKazyKazakhstan is a Nazi-similar username "listening to the accusations of Nazism that you expressed in various Wikipedias from a person with a similar nickname is at least strange" even though my username is just joke at the expense of Herman Cain for his comments about neighbor Uzbekistan and is absolutely not a mockery of Ukraine at all. Kazakhstan does not share a border with Ukraine or Gaza for the record. Kazakhstan is a secular state with good diplomatic relations with Israel and has no part in the Hamas rocket program. Kazakhstan is not Russia. Kazakhstan is a state that tries to keep positive diplomatic relations with all countries whenever possible but at an arm's distance because diplomacy is always better than war. For the record I am not anti-Ukraine I just target Ukrainian copyright violations even less than I target Kazakhstani copyright violations and I have made article Ukrainian Oleksiy Ananenko who led the Chernobyl "suicide squad" that saved Europe from catastrophe. Please prohibit this anti-Kazakh user from editing Kazakh articles at a minimum and issue punitive sanctions for his Nazi apologetics and Islamophobia. I would like to once again say that calling Cukurs a war criminal and saying the Arajs Kommando did Nazi war crimes against Jews is not a false accusation you can read the wikipedia article about the Arajs Kommando if you do not believe me.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: Egilus is insisting on keeping references to the Nazi magazine Journal of Historical Review in the name of "neutrality". Again, be protected the page so that I couldn't remove the reference even after I clearly told him that it was a Nazi magazine.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• The OP failed to notify Egilus. I've just done so. I've also blocked the OP for 72 hours for personal attacks. Although the discussion at Talk:Remembrance Day of the Latvian Legionnaires is replete with attacks and inflammatory rhetoric, the worst thing the OP has accused Egilus of is the "your Muslim missiles" statement. Although Egilus was clearly provoked by the OP's comments, Egilus should not have made the statement.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  I have to admit that you are right, for an old user like me it was quite bad. I’ll just clarify that my breakdown was still caused by the military situation, and the conflict with another user, which began not here, but in the Latvian version, is only secondary. But with my extensive experience on Wikipedia, this is a very poor excuse. -- Egilus (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Can't you both just calm down and thrash out the content issues on talk pages, when you are both able to edit? Plenty of people had ambiguous views in World War II, most notably the Soviet Union and fellow communists who supported the Nazis from the start but then changed sides when they invaded that country. I had never heard of Herberts Cukurs before, and it seems like he was a nasty piece of work, but we need to describe him accurately according to what reliable sources say. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, I do not think that the Soviet Union and fellow communists who supported the Nazis from the start is in any way an accurate brief summary of what happened. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression agreement that lasted less than two years from 1939 to 1941, and otherwise, the Nazis and the USSR were bitter enemies for 12 years. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  A non-agression pact with a secret protocol that partitioned Central and Eastern Europe between them, led to an essentially joint Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland and was broken by the Nazis, not the Soviets, all of which would be relevant if this conflict wasn't about one editor making personal attacks against another. –Turaids (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  By "from the start", as I thought was clear from the context, I meant "from the start of World War II", not "from the start of the Nazis' rise to power" or anything else. Anyway, this is a side issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Cukurs is a perfectly non-ambiguous historical figure. Just a big-scale Holocaust organizer. Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the persistent and provocative nature of KazyKazyKazakhstan's own profanities, threats, demands, insults and accusations over the course of four days in Egilus' talk page on Latvian Wikipedia, Remembrance Day of the Latvian Legionnaires talk page and then their own talk page after being blocked, disregarding an adminstrator's (Papuass) request to "keep civil attitude towards others" and ignoring repeated requests from an uninvolved editor (Alaexis) to provide sources for their claims, and having already filed a very similar Administrators' noticeboard report on Egilus just 5 days ago, I think this calls for a WP:BOOMERANG. And that's not to say, that a few of the points raised by KazyKazyKazakhstan aren't valid (such as that anonymous self-published blogspot pages don't belong on Wikipedia) or that Egilus' brash style of communciation or remark about "your Muslim missiles" also didn't escalate the situation to some extent, but Egilus has expressed remorse for his limited role, while I'm not so convinced that KazyKazyKazakhstan has learned anything from this experience and won't just continue making personal attacks and filing Administrators' noticeboard reports on editors they disagree with. –Turaids (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yet one place of that conflict -- Egilus (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Making gross overgeneralizations like many Latvians are romanticizing this monster and trying to whitewash his war crimes. has definitely gone beyond personal attacks and escalated into hate speech. –Turaids (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - "many Latvians are romanticizing this monster and trying to whitewash his war crimes" said in the context of someone promoting a blog that calls Cukurs a Latvian national hero is hate speech, but said blog that accuses Jews of talking about the Holocaust fleece Europeans of money (textbook anti-semitic trope) and uses phrases like "alleged gas chambers" is not hate speech? Do you even know what hate speech is?--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you also think that this is not hate speech? "All of the accusations against Herberts Cukurs, were lying and irresponsible. Some Israeli entities as the center Simon Wiesenthal, insist on maintaining that farce, because yours negotiates highly lucrative depends on those lies.In the day in that they could not be used of those lies, with certainty they will go the bankruptcy. One day, with certainty, the Jews will have to recognize that they committed a terrible mistake, when slandering and to murder an innocent one. Con man as Simon Wiesenthal, and his/her bully Efraim Zuroff, they should be banished, and in the very close future, they will render bills in the justice, for the crimes that committed against innocent, with the only purpose of they fill their pockets with dirty money." (again from the so-called "reliable" blog that Egilus likes so much). If people think that blog is good, they have no right to claim to be a victim of hate speech, because that blog is full hate speech.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

No, let me get this straight, so you made the statement about "many Latvians" based on your interactions with... two Latvian editors, one of whom you specifically engaged on their discussion page (instead of posting on the article talk page or even the community hub) and the other who actually agreed with you on removing the blogspot. And nothing that some random blogspot in Brazilian Portuguese says or doesn't say allows you to say something like that. Two wrongs don't make a right. –Turaids (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

How is that hate speech? Hate speech would be saying "all Latvians are racially Nazis" (not my opinion just an example), not just simply recognizing that there are many Latvians who try to defend Cukurs, as evidenced by the page history of his Latvian article and the press coverage of events dedicated to celebrating Cukurs. If anyone defamed the Latvian people it was Egilus for insisting that the Latvian people agree with his disgusting support of Holocaust denialism blog.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a statement attributed to an essential characteristic, is not generalized to all members of that nationality, and it is clearly about the specific political content being discussed. Further, the statement is simply factually accurate as evidenced by commentary on that very trend in international media over a prolonged period of time:

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/canadian-government-condemns-parade-in-latvia-to-honour-nazi-ss-unit/wcm/22536036-6a6e-4370-8213-dcce71024054/amp/

https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/nazi-hunter-zuroff-condemns-cukurs-musical.a101688/

as well as in academic scholarship:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/48595523?typeAccessWorkflow=login

Latvia also had a day of remembrance for Cukurs’ SS unit from 1990-1998 and currently has a major political party in their legislature advocating for the return of said remembrance day:

http://espritdecorps.ca/on-target-4/on-target-no-denying-latvias-nazi-past

National Alliance (Latvia)

You appear to be engaging in an attempt to abuse the moderation system, no reasonable and unbiased party would consider that statement “hate speech”. 2601:644:8584:2800:14B6:31CB:E460:2663 (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please login under your username to continue this discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll weigh in since I've been tagged here. I agree with u:Turaids that KazyKazyKazakhstan raised some valid points. Let's give them a chance to make conclusions and contribute to Wikipedia while following the Civility policy. Alaexis_¿question? 20:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

And to finally start providing reliable sources for any of the claims they make from now on. –Turaids (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The blog has no place in Wikipedia, removing it was right, period. There is no valid debate or anything murky about it. That blog was FASCIST. Let’s take a look at the blog that Egilus thinks is a “reliable source” so reliable that it was worth editwarring to keep in the article. Quote:

“Below I have compiled a list of former NS bureaucrats and camp personnel who after the war died in a fashion which could be described as “convenient” to the upholders and propagators of the officially sanctioned Holocaust narrative. They are all individuals who must have had insight into the truth regarding the “Final Solution” and the alleged gas chambers.” (italics added for emphasis)

There’s also an article accusing Simon Wiesenthal of being a greedy Jewish liar and other typical anti-Semetic tropes and other Nazi propaganda. I don’t deny that I called him (Egilus) Nazi apologist, but how can anyone who isn’t a Holocaust denier say that this blog is a reliable source? I will not file another thing on this noticeboard if Egilus admits that the blog was Nazi propaganda and that the gas chambers were real, the Arajs commando committed war crimes - which should not be hard to do. He apologized for the Muslim rockets statement (and should apologize to the community of Muslim Wikipedians for it), but he still hasn’t expressed any remorse for promoting that blog that even many fellow Latvians think is too extreme. I am remorseful for being uncivil to Egilus as an editor but I am not remorseful for edit warring to remove the link to the blog, nor will I apologize for saying that blog was Nazi propaganda. The gas chambers are not "alleged" they were real. The crimes of the Arajs commando are not "alleged" they were real.KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I think people really need to understand how much of a provocation it is to call that blog a reliable source and edit-warring to restore it was. There is nothing that justifies promoting an anti-Semetic rag like that. It should never have been in the article in the first place and restoring the blog and praising it is absolutely despicable. You cant just say that there is nothing wrong with a blog that uses phrases like "alleged gas chambers" and expect people to not get emotional about it. This all started because I watched a documentary about Cukurs so I read his article and checked out the Latvian and Hebrew versions and I was just completely dumbfounded that a link to that blog was in Wikipedia. I was even more dumbfounded and just shocked that anyone would defend it or defend Cukurs. There is no dispute that he was in a position of leadership in the Arajs commando and there is no dispute that the Arajs commando mass murdered Jews (expect among Holocaust deniers). I never expected this to become such a controversy and blow up like this.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was wrong to say that "many" Latvians were celebrating him, I based this off of Egilus suggesting that the Latvian Wikipedia community had a consensus that the Holocaust-denying blog was a reliable source. I am glad to see that other Latvians agree with me that the blog does not belong in Wikipedia. But we still need to address Egilus thinking that blog was a reliable source. My overly broad statement about Latvians liking Cukurs pales in comparison to the articles about Jews on the blog.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You have to finally start taking accountability for your own actions, instead of blaming everything you do or say on someone else or using your outrage as an excuse. I cannot help but to read your last sentence as: "I can say nasty things about Latvians, because there's a blog in Brazilian Portuguese out there that says much nastier things about Jews". You've clearly lost it. –Turaids (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

First Egilus should take respobnsiblity and admit that the Nazi blog that he actively promoted was not a "reliable source". You don't get to praise a Nazi rag that actively promotes Holocaist denial and encourages violence against Jews and then claim to be a victim when called a Nazi apologist for promoting the blog. My un civil words are not the main problem here. A supposedly experienced editor thinking the Mark Weber Nazi rag is "reliable" is the wider issue here. And the "Muslim missles" attack when confronted about his Nai promotion.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

And yet you were the one who got blocked, not him. And yet he has not tried to restore the blogspot link after another editor removed it 6 days ago and has expressed remorse about making the "Muslim missles" remark, while all you've done is continue to double down on your personal attacks. I'll have you know that edit summaries are also not a place to take jabs at other editors. You don't seem to have learned anything from this experience. –Turaids (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Why should I when Egilus hasn't expressed remorse for promoting a blog that denys the existance of gas chambers? You want me to say "sorry for being rude to people who promote Holocaust denialism"? Other people on the RS noticeboard all agreed that the blog was terrible but Egilus hasn't expressed any remorse. Blocker of me made no look at the blog in question only read my remarks calling him a Nazi apologist which is a very accurate description of someone who unrepentedly considers that Nazi trash blog a "reliable source".--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

No one also objected to you being blocked for 72 hours for making personal attacks, so that should tell you something as well. So much for giving you a chance to make conclusions and contribute to Wikipedia while following the Civility policy. –Turaids (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobody outside of Latvian Wikipedia thinks that the blog is a relible source. the RN board widely agree that the blog is disgusting and that I never should have had to argue that the blog was bad. Egilus still hasn't apologized for promoting the blog, so much for giving him a chance, he has had days to admit that the gas chambers were real and that Mark Weber is not a reliable source. I will continue to use profanity to describe the blog, civility is for other wikipedia editors, not for outsiders like Weber and Cukurs. There is huge consensus from everyone minus Latvian wiki that Cukurs and Weber are the bad guys, but apparently saying that is anti-Latvian now.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Continue with your personal attacks against other editors and hate speech towards other nationalities and next time the Administrators' noticeboard report will be about you and the block will probably be much longer than just 3 days. –Turaids (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have anything against the Latvian people. I just strongly oppose the attempts to rehabilitate Cukurs and the Arajs commando. Saying that Cukurs, Arajs, and Weber are bad is not hate speech. I certainly wish more Latvians would stand up and speak out against the Holocaust denialism that some vocal editors of Latvian Wikipedia are promoting unrepentantly. I have never called the whole Latvian people Nazi or suggested that the whole Latvian people deserved collective punishment. That Nazi blog, on the other hand, is undeniably hate speech.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You clearly do, which is especially alarming at a time when there is a war very close to both of us escalated over the very same pretext of a large portion of certain population being Nazi supporters. And the fact that you even openly admitted to basing your hate speech on a single person's word is despicable (I based this off of Egilus suggesting that the Latvian Wikipedia community had a consensus that the Holocaust-denying blog was a reliable source.), but even more despicable was your attempt at falsely implying that instead I had called your insults of a Nazi-supporting Holocaust denier's blog "hate speech" (How can wikipedia function if insulting the blog is "hate speech"). –Turaids (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Last I checked Russia isn't invading Latvia so the war in Ukraine is irrelevant. Stop playing victim, this isnt' about te Latvian people this is about Latvian Nazis promoting Holocaust denialism in Wikipedia, nothing to do with Russia. On could argue that Latvians constantly defending Cukurs and **** like the Nazi Journal of Historical Review is beneficial to Russia. I'm starting to wonder if Egilus is a double-agent working on behalf of Russia o embarass Latvians, seeing as he makes a point of loudly defending Nazi references whenever the opportunity presents itself. I still won't apologize for saying that the many Latvians who celebrate Cukurs are Nazi sympathizers. You just can't separate the individual from the masses, like communists like to conflate the two all the time.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

“ I will continue to use profanity” That’s not moral and no context is an exception. Primal Groudon (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobody outside of Latvian Wikipedia thinks that the blog is a relible source. Why, then, are we having this discussion on English Wikipedia? As I have repeatedly said, Latvian Wikipedia issues are dealt with on Latvian Wikipedia and cross-Wikipedia issues are dealt with on meta. This is nothing to do with us here. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You still don't know what hate speech means do you? Hate speech is calling for mass punishment of Jews for talking about the Holocaust. Hate speech is not saying that people who adore that blog are disgusting human beings. Pretending that the reliabliity of the blog is an innocent matter but the "real" problem is my calling lovers of the blog "Nazis" is grossely innacurate. You still can't grasp that calling Egilus a Nazi apologist was justified because he promoted a blog that had phrases like "alleged gash chambers" despite being told again and again that it was a bad Nazi blog and not a reliable source. He just kept doing mental gymnastics and denying Cukurs crimes. You should be concerned about Egilus claiming his love of the Nazi blog is representative of the Latvian consensus, not me thinking that Latvians who like that blog need to be told that is it a bad source.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Impossible to talk with someone who continuously attributes things to me that I haven't said based on their own preconceived notion of Latvians as general supporters of Nazis and Holocaust deniers. –Turaids (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

My preconceived notion of Latvians was of a people who make great cheese and are good at seafaring with a very small number of vocal of whackjobs [the Cukurs-lovers] just like every single ethnic group has a its whackjobs [mine included]. I wrongly assumed that Latvians were near-universally not proud of Cukurs being of Latvian origin and were disgusted by his crimes and would be very grateful to me for removing the blogspot link and never imagined anyone on Wikipedia would restore it. Unfortunately my preconceived notion was wrong. And no, I don't think all Latvians are Holocaust deniers. But I do think that people praise a Holocaust-denying blog are Holocaust deniers.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no point in saying "period" if you're just going to continue talking about it. I've already stated my view that a blogspot like that doesn't belond on Wikipedia in my very first comment here, so please (re)read it if that's still unclear to you. –Turaids (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems very bizarre to be claiming that KazyKazyKazakhstan is engaging in hate speech or saying “nasty things” by commenting on an evident, widely discussed, and ongoing political controversy in Latvia over recognition, celebration, or historical revision regarding Latvia’s SS units and Cukurs in particular. Elsewhere in this talk page I have linked a range of media and academic publication discussing this.

It’s not an appropriate accusation to claim these statements constitute hate speech or a form of national disparagement. 2601:644:8584:2800:14B6:31CB:E460:2663 (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What is bizzare is to have an anonymous user with zero edits suddenly join an Administrators' noticeboard discussion and pretend not to see the disconnect between articles about controversies and an editor's blanket statement that casts a large portion of a certain nationality as romanticizers and whitewashers of Nazi war criminals. –Turaids (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't understand that "many" and "most" are very different words. If you think that a large portion of Latvians are Cukurs supporters, that's an embarassment for Latvians not me. "Many" can be a small minority of a population. There are millions of Latvians, so even if 0.1% of them are Cukurs fans (not a blanket part of Latvian population), you still have many Latvians who support him and as result create all this idolotry of him. If I said that most Latvians were Cukurs idolators, that would be defamation and hate, but many is not a false or hateful statement. No apologies for insulting Cukurs fans. If people don't want to be called Nazi they shouldn't idolize Nazis like Cukurs.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If you want to understand the contributions of in IP6, you should look at the /64 range: [2]. --JBL (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

So a five days old anonymous user with 14 prior edits, 12 of whon have been about a single article, I stand corrected. –Turaids (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be good if you adopted a less combative attitude in this conversation; I did not "correct" you, I provided some additional information that you might have found helpful, yet here you are trying to have a fight with me about it. Similarly, you say (above) "impossible to talk with someone ..." -- but apparently not so impossible as to prevent you from making more than 20 comments in this discussion. Perhaps you could just chill and let uninvolved people discuss the issue? JBL (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Didn't mean it as a attack, just that I don't think there is a big difference between a one day or five day old user for a conflict has been dragging on for six days already. –Turaids (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• I am not going to weigh in all of the inter-personal drama between these editors. There are enough admins already on that. I will confine myself to stating a fairly obvious point; blogs are very rarely accepted as RS. What flies or doesn't on the Latvian Wiki is neither here nor there. Our policies and guidelines are what we go by. If there is an argument over this particular source, it should probably be handled at WP:RSN. Based on what I've seen I would extremely dubious about this blog. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The blog was already removed 6 days ago before this or many of the other discussions. I wasn't part of any of the previous discussions involving KazyKazyKazakhstan either, but decided to insert myself here after seeing them repeatedly use the talk pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. –Turaids (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

And Egilus has had 6 days to admit that restoring the links to the Nazi blog was very, very, very wrong in the first place. And if Egilus doesn't want me to call his muslim missles comment stupid then maybe he should read the quran and understand that inanimate objects cannot be beleiving muslims.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

And you had three days to reflect on what exactly got you blocked, but it's starting to seem like three days wasn't long enough.. –Turaids (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting for Egilus to admit that the gas chambers were real and Mark Weber is not reliable. If he can't admit that I won't apologize to him. I've reflected more and I've come to the conclusion that it is worth considering shuttind down Latvian Wikipedia for 3 days if anything needs to be done seeing as it is so hard for Latvians to admit that Cukurs isn't a great guy.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Just the fact that you continue insisting on someone's apology to even admit that you shouldn't have made your blanket statements about "many Latvians" romanticing and whitewashing Nazi war criminals or being supporters of Nazis and Holocaust deniers says a lot about you. –Turaids (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want me to day that many Latvians whitewash him then Egilus shouldn't have said that many Latvians agreed with him and insisted that if I challenged the link that the Latvian Wikipedia community would side with him. You should be directing your anger at him for defaming your people for saying that the source represents the Latvian consensus. You should be mad at his statements insisting Cukurs is innocent. You should be mad that he humiliated Latvian Wikipedia by promoting the blog.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Still blaming someone else for statements YOU made about "many Latvians". –Turaids (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of your crocile tears. I will not "take responsibility" for saying that the people who idolize Cukurs (many of them are Latvians, yes I said that, and, many are non-Latvians) are Nazi supporters. If you are going to cry, cry about the infant that Cukurs shot for crying, cry about the Jewish women he raped, cry about Jewish family that he burned alive.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

KazyKazyKazakhstan, you used the "thank" tool to express appreciation for my comment above asking another user to chill and let uninvolved editors discuss. Since you have also made more than 20 comments in this discussion, may I extend the same request to you? --JBL (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• It seems unclear whether the complaint is about edits to the English Wikipedia or to the Latvian. As the OP has already been told, the English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over the Latvian Wikipedia, any more than the Latvian Wikipedia can mandate what happens on the English Wikipedia. If you think that the governance of the Latvian Wikipedia is inadequate then you need to raise the issue at meta or with the Wikimedia Foundation directly, not here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • The complaint is that Latvian editors currently active on English Wikipedia continue to defend Herbert Cukurs, a Holocaust-denying blogspot, and the Waffen SS, and then cry hate speech and complain that the only problem is that I am not civil enough because they think that a dead Nazi and Mark Weber deserve more respect than the Jewish people mercilessly slaughtered by Cukurs. Turaids keeps insisting that I bneed to learn a lesson and be sorry but I have nothing to be sorry about editwarring to remoev that link and saying that people who like the blog and claim is is a reliable source are Nazi apologists. Egilus has had plenty opportunity to apologize for promoting Holocaust denial but his friend is just belligerently insisting that I was in the wrong for confronting Egilus's promotion of the trashy scummy racist Nazi blogspot.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger: the first, already closed report was about these edits and this discussion on Latvian Wikipedia, while this report at least originally seems to have been about this discussion on English Wikipedia, but at this point the OP is just all over the place. And then there's OP's third Noticeboard report, which also has been closed already. –Turaids (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That was before Egilus's "Muslim missiles" comment. And this discussion is inevitable since he kept doubling down on defending the Nazi scum baby-killer trash that is Cukurs.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I know it's more convenient for you to pretend it didn't happen, because it doesn't fit your narrative, but Egilus said pretty early on that for him personally, Cukurs' membership of Arājs Kommando alone would be enough to decide on the death penalty. The potential consequences of any of his words and actions are for him deal with. But how a relatively short and already resolved conflict between two editors can be reescalated into one of them going around different talk pages across multiple Wikipedias writing slander about the Latvian Wikipedia as a whole and the Latvian people in general is still beyond me. –Turaids (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Where on earth did he say that? Also that doesn't make up for promoting the shitstain Nazi blog as a "reliable source" and literally editwarring and protecting the page to protect the link to the Nazi scum website--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

User:QazyQazyQazaqstan, there was never any attempt to claim that that blog was a reliable source for the English Wikipedia. You haven't listened the many times that you have been told before that we have no jurisdiction over the Latvian Wikipedia, so PLEASE read my last post and complain to someone who can do something about your complaint. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

off-topic, pointless
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are zero situations where using the s-word is morally acceptable. Primal Groudon (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Seriously? if htere ever was a time for swearing, describing that blog would be it.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC) “if htere ever was a time for swearing” and there simply is not. Primal Groudon (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC) I agree with QazyQazyQazaqstan that there can be a time for swearing, but do not agree that this is it. Once again, nobody has suggested using that blog as a reliable source on English Wikipedia. That editor, who probably has a perfectly valid complaint, should just fuck off to somewhere competent to hear it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC) There are no circumstances where use of the f word is morally acceptable. Primal Groudon (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC) WP:CIVIL requires that we treat other editors with consideration and respect, it doesn't say that we can't describe Nazis as exactly what they are. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC) “WP:CIVIL requires that we treat other editors with consideration and respect” Doing that and replying with profanity to a comment disapproving of profanity (what Phil Bridger did in his reply to me) are literally mutually exclusive. Doing either one necessarily involves not doing the other. Also, I don’t know why you brought up accusations of Nazism in your reply to me, given that I have nothing to do with that topic or the person that this noticeboard discussion was originally about. Primal Groudon (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC) You complained of QazyQazyQazaqstan using the s-word in relation to Nazis, I'm guessing you meant their use of "shitstain Nazi". Phil Bridger used "fuck" to highlight the juxtaposition of their first and last statement. Neither of these uses are uncivil, or morally wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you need some rest from each other. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: Egilus just restored a reference to the Neo-Nazi Holocaust-denying Journal of Historical Review after I removed it, their edit summary was "t first, Wikipedia and its editors should be neutral and show different point of views. You are not politically neutral and can not be an editor." Again, I will not apologize for removing that reference, Wikipedia should not be giving "both sides" to Nazi propaganda and promote a Nazi magazine. The fact that I have a bias against Neo-Nazis is not a disqualification to be an editor, it should be a requirement to be Wikipedia editor to be biased against Nazis. Egilus can't play dumb here, I clearly told him that Journal of Historical Review is a Nazi magazine. He is very clear that he wants to spew the Nazi point of view into Wikipedia and we shouldn't pretend his views are ok. He has made it very clear that he is very biased in favor of the Nazis.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Update again: I showed him that Jounral of Historical Review was a bad source and he said this: "I'm really not interested in this article and its text. But your action was politically motivated for destroing of Wikipedia as place for information and therefore will be always reverted until you not stop destructive behaviour. Besides, you showed beforee full misunderstanding in theme "who is Nazi" and prefers to do discutable changes without disputes before it - it is not normally." In other words, he wants Wikipedia to be a source for finding Nazi propaganda and reverted the edit because it was by me, a revenge-edit. Clearly Egilus needs to be told that Nazi sources are not appropriate for Wikipedia.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if you without discussion will delete anti-Nazi sources, my reaction will be the same. In Latvian Wikipedia it is a standard to dispute controversial changes before making changes in articles, not after it. Especially if a new participant, who has already shown that he does not know the rules well, wants to do it. -- Egilus (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I should never have to defend removing a Neo-Nazi periodical from an article because it never should have been there in the first place and you admit that you think no source I call Nazi is a Nazi source just because I call it a Nazi source, even when every single respected insitution in the world calls it a Nazi magazine--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yet again you are bringing up an edit on the Latvian Wikipedia. I think with this lack of understanding we are getting into WP:IDHT territory. Maybe if I shout you will hear me: WE CAN DO NOTHING HERE ABOUT OTHER WIKIPEDIAS. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. If an editor was to persist in inserting the Journal of Historical Review in articles here at en.wiki then they would swiftly find themselves on the end of a block. However, we can do nothing about what Latvian admins think about the situation. I would hope that they would have the same view, but as we have seen in the past, Eastern European wikis can often have different standards. Black Kite (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that Egilus is an admin on Latvian Wikipedia and he just seals a page whenever someone removes sources and then he insist that that Nazi sources are needed for "neutrality".--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not too much can be done here, but reading Egilus' comments on their lv talk page makes it clear their "mindset" and their idea of what an encyclopedia is are not appropriate for en.wikipedia. For sure, we will have to double-check their en.wiki contributions in the future. And it's pretty sad they are administrator in lv.wikipedia. Cavarrone 08:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Need to get some facts straight.

1. The source under discussion (Faurisson, Robert (1982), "Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine?", The Journal of Historical Review, 3 (2): 147) is currently used in same article on English Wikipedia to support claim that there are people who question the books authenticity
2. The article in Latvian Wikipedia was poorly formatted (tagged for improvement) and the sources were just dumped at the end. Today it was improved so that references are added to specific claims.
3. Saying that Eastern European standards are different is offensive, because it ignores the fact that the smaller size of the community is the real issue.

Papuass (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not say that "Eastern European standards are different", we have however seen in the past that some Eastern European wikis can be hijacked by admins with extreme views of various types. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact. I hope that the Latvian Wikipedia does not have that problem, and looking at it (with the language barrier) it appears so far that does not. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Update again: Egilus just said] "By Wikipedia rules, Nazi journal has the same rights as anti-Nazi journal" to defend use of the Nazi magazine. Can we all agree that that is Nazi sympathy? He literally admits he thinks Anti-Nazi journals are no better than Nazi journals. What next, should we be giving Harvard Medicine Journals equal status to Natural News?--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The sentence that that citation is used as one of three references for is "Although many Holocaust deniers, such as Robert Faurisson, have claimed that Anne Frank's diary was fabricated, critical and forensic studies of the text and the original manuscript have supported its authenticity." I don't see much wrong with that. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Egilus doesn't want it as an in-line citation limited to a single sentence, he wants to treat it was read-worthy supplemental literature and equated the magazine to anti-Nazi magazines--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not what I read from Egilus reply. He says that it can be used as a source to confirm what Holocaust denier has claimed (this is how it was used in enwiki and now also on lvwiki). Papuass (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Dude he just said that the magazine has just as much right to be used as a source as an anti-Nazi magazine, and this was not a single line-citation for one sentence, this is was the book list. He started off by defending the source and attacking me for saying every source I don't like is Nazi even though literally every respectable institution agrees it is a Nazi magazine. He is very clear that he thinks it is wrong to have a bias against Naziism.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

As it was already pointer out, it was not "Book list", but "References used in article" added by someone who did not how to insert them properly. Papuass (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Looie496

I just found out that he died. He was an administrator at one time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it violates Wikipedia Rule #347: Do not utilize the word 'utilize'... About the best piece of wisdom someone could have left us with.

I see a special issue of Behavioral Neuroscience was dedicated to him. I wonder if he would pass GNG or NPROF. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Stub article created: William E. Skaggs. RIP. Tails Wx 15:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Now past a stub. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

image displayed on the Labour Party (UK) page preview

The image displayed on the Labour Party (UK) page preview is obviously inappropriate. It isn't clear how it can be changed since the page preview isn't generated from the content on the page, which is in any case semi-protected. Penbottleglasses (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Where are you seeing this preview? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

In the page preview for the article, it shows what appears to be some rather chunky stew. I'm trying to track down the source, but don't let that stop anyone from also doing the same. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was vandalism on Template:Labor. I've purged some pages, and it seems that Labour Party (UK) now no longer shows the image. --rchard2scout (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like template vandalism [3], already reverted. Don't know why the page preview hasn't caught on. —Kusma (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps it has now, I can't see this anymore after purging the page. —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Page preview is dependent on the system cache, so if that hasn't happened (either manually or by the servers refreshing after a template change) an image like that will still show up (even hours after the primary vandalism has been reverted). Primefac (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

COI editing on Chinawhite (nightclub)

There appears to be a newbie with an obvious COI with Chinawhite (nightclub) adding business information to the article. I reverted initially but he reverted and added sources. It's rambling to read and spam-like, but perhaps there's something in there which would be worth mentioning. I suspect if I extracted what is relevant and merged into another section he'd restore his version. Can you look into it, thanks. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked as spam. Secretlondon (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to the following restriction indefinitely, which may be appealed after 12 months have elapsed:

Kolya Butternut may discuss no other editor's undisclosed personal details anywhere. This includes both onwiki as well as any other online location or other Wikimedia-associated offline location.

For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Kolya Butternut unblocked

SSSniperwolf

(I originally posted this in the wrong admin noticeboard.)
This is pretty much a WP:BFDI-ish problem. A group of users have attempted to game the system for what is basically unsuccessfully attempting to get a non-notable internet personality called SSSniperwolf on Wikipedia.

So far, there have been 5 AfD nominations for articles about her:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperWolf
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sssniperwolf
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperwolf
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperwolf (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperWolf (5th nomination)

Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is no admin intervention, this could become a sitewide problem. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Davest3r08: Sorry for pestering but the ANI rule about notifying reported users also applies here. CityOfSilver 01:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks for informing me. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 01:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The notified users are:

User:Zunairah2211

User:Das osmnezz

User:Keke Zoë

(I did not notify them, they just happened to be informed of the AfDs on their talk pages at the time they were happening.) Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 01:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Davest3r08: I notified all three of this discussion. Would you please review the pink and red box at the top of this page so you'll know next time? CityOfSilver 02:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for my involvement in the last 2 of the 5 AFDs. I was adamant that sources like [4], [5], and [6] as well as her tens of millions of subscribers made her notable but I should have realized that I needed more in-depth sources to actually meet criteria so I apologize for that. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 10:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

nah. five tries aren't bfdi level. you'd need 50 tries for that. ltbdl (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ltbdl Isn't this still somewhat of an ultra problem that could bite back if no one does anything to slow this down? Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 10:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The person in question (SSSniperWolf) just doxxed comedy YouTuber jacksfilms. I could see several people making accounts for the sake of creating a page about her despite not being notable. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 10:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

what do you suggest we do? ltbdl (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The article itself for SSSniperwolf has been SALTed, and was done a month ago. I'm not sure what other actions need to be taken at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone could add a table row about her at the barely sourced trash pile List of YouTubers and create-protect the improperly capitalised variants of the article title. Folly Mox (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, as a complete outsider SSSniperWolf looks like a borderline case, there's a strong argument that the article already passed GNG. There's a ton of coverage online surrounding her, even if it's the doxxing case. I find Wikipedia always tries to safeguard against influencers whether they get coverage or not. Ortizesp (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, at the time the 5 AfD discussions were happening, she literally had little to no significant coverage from reliable sources. If you really want SSSniperWolf on here, just start a draft. It may or may not be accepted, only God knows. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 11:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You might not realise this, but Ortizesp is an exceptionally experienced editor, with over 140,000 controbutions and the autopatrolled flag. I don't think they need any advice on what to do if they think an article is lacking. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh. My apologies @Ortizesp. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 11:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Ortizesp, unlike BFDI I've heard of SSSniperwolf before. Probably through YT suggestions. SVG.com (SVG.com), MSN, Forbes, dotesports (Dotesports), Hindustan Times, HITC (HITC), HotNewHipHop (HotNewHipHop), GameRant (GameRant) - how much more is needed? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• As I understand the online situation with this person, I think we need to take the same route as we have with Chris Chan, which is to avoid article creation and mention of them, because there's just far too much internet drama from unreliable sources (even if there are a handful of some in Alexis' list above - but given this being a BLP, we should expect far higher quality). --Masem (t) 17:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Basically, just banning all sitewide mentions of her? Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 17:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, it might be too soon to ban mentions of her yet, the doxxing incident got covered by Insider and Forbes, both of which are well-known sources. I would wait at least a week or two before doing anything at this point, but what do I know anyways? Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 17:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  The Forbes ref isn't a reliable source (written by a "senior contributor", see WP:Forbes): Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Schazjmd (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Schazjmd, how about Monsters and Critics? https://www.monstersandcritics.com/celebrity/sssniperwolf-canceled-youtuber-has-been-accused-of-transphobia-and-racism/ from 2020. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  All due respect, but did you actually read this drivel? I only had to make it to the second word of the headline to rule it out for use in any WP article, much less a BLP. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  The title of the article reads like clickbait sensationalist garbage, to be fair. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 19:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  For what is going on with these people, I would rather see coverage in strong RSes before we have articles about them. I'm talking at the level of NYTimes, WashPost, BBC, etc. There's a lot of mid-quality coverage of this but we're opening a really bad door if we don't have pristine sources at the start. Masem (t) 19:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've created Wikipedia:Sssniperwolf sources overview to analyze the sources, hopefully others will contribute to this. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  that probably shouldn't be in wikipedia space. ltbdl (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I forgot about that. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 19:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Regex salted via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. MER-C 18:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that a chunk of the controversy, along with some dodgy sourcing, has found its way to jacksfilms#Conflict with SSSniperWolf (2022–present).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

And SSSniperWolf (created before the title blacklist) redirects there. MrOllie (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Sssniperwolf has garnered some new reliable coverage today. Especially with her controversy with JacksFilms. YouTube has temporarily demonetized her YouTube channel and it was covered by publications such as Time Magazine, NBC News, and Forbes Staff. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  "The Forbes ref isn't a reliable source (written by a "senior contributor", see WP:Forbes): Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons."

  - Courtesy of @Schazjmd

  Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 22:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Davest3r08: The Forbes article in question was written by Antonio Pequeño IV, who is credited as "Forbes Staff", not "Forbes Senior Contributor". Per WP:Forbes, "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes articles written by Forbes staff and not Senior Contributors or Contributors are reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles" Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464 Oh, I got confused with the one what was written by a contributor. Sorry. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 22:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Davest3r08: You're good. I wanted to include three NEW sources - which were Forbes, Time Magazine, and NBC News. All of these articles were posted today on October 20, 2023. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Unused Contentious Topics

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by a series of motions that:

Motions that passed

Remedy 1 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. The final remedy of Liancourt Rocks ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. Remedy 1 of Longevity ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. Remedy 2 of Medicine ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. Remedy 2 of September 11 conspiracy theories ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded due to the topic area being covered by the post-1992 American Politics contentious topic. All actions taken under the rescinded authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. Remedy 1 of Shakespeare authorship question ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. The following remedies from Macedonia 2 are rescinded: Remedy 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned) Remedy 6 (Stalemate resolution) Remedy 30 (Administrative supervision) Editors are reminded that Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed, continues to be a contentious topic. Remedy 6 of the The Troubles case ("One-revert rule") is amended to read as follows: A one revert restriction (1RR), subject to the usual exceptions, is applied to all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Unused Contentious Topics

Request to delete Global Day of Jihad asap

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

---

There's an overwhelming consensus to delete Global Day of Jihad – editors agree that no such event has ever been announced or took place. Regretfully, this hoax, perpetuated publicly, has already claimed a child's life (see Killing of Wadea Al-Fayoume).

May I ask an uninvolved admin to close the deletion discussion per SNOW? Thank you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Page deleted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Just seeing that it was restored as a redirect (the creator attempted a withdrawn deletion review); do we need a RfD now? Nate • (chatter) 17:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Having looked, the AfD consensus wouldn't extend that redirect. You could try RfD, but given that the day is mentioned at the target of the redirect it seems likely to survive there. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Sabotage user

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

---

User:Mikeimi deletes all sourced content and replaces sourceless content as if he is one of the vandals of Wikipedia. 1michel100 (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You haven't notified them of this discussion. Please read the big red box at the top of this page. WaggersTALK 08:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I notified them of the discussion, they should be here anytime soon. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 11:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Original poster threatened to report other users to the Wikipedia Sergeant:

• User talk:Mikeimi#This account will be reported to Wikipedia Sergeant

I guess that's you guys?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Need a separate admin for an RFC closure

On the article List of major terrorist incidents we currently have an RFC on the talk page about should the recent Hamas attacks be added and do they meet the article's inclusion criteria of 1) reliably sourced as a terrorist incident, 2) major, 3) by a violent non-state actor. This has been running over a week now and the discussion seems to be quieting a bit. It may be coming to a time where a non-involved administrator should take a look at it with a view towards a closure one way or another. There has been some emotions in the discussion, but it's been very civilized given the topic, but there is contention in there. Cheers. Canterbury Tail talk 13:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

What should I know now?

Hello admins, Muhammad Ayub Khan should be renamed as Ayub Khan (President of Pakistan). I had requested about it in Wikipedia:Requested moves but it was reverted, see here. It was reverted by a bot operated by User:wbm1058. Hamwal (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hamwal, you need to follow the instructions at WP:RSPM to request a move, which involves placing a template on the article's talk page. The page you added your request to is a list of requested moves that is maintained by a bot, so adding your request there will result in it being removed automatically. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Random websites can determine you're an admin

Public service announcement: any website you visit can determine you are an administrator on Wikipedia. I'm not going to explain publicly how I did that and neither should you, but you can find a poorly optimized but mostly functional proof of concept in phab:T147995#9268645. Note that this task is restricted so you may not be able to view it. If you really need access perhaps @MatmaRex can help.
If you find this concerning, disable third-party cookies in your browser or use separate browsers for Wikipedia and the rest of your browsing needs. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it easier to just use the user rights log? Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 18:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Davest3r08, you need to know someone's username for that. Perhaps you misunderstand, do you know https://www.WhatIsMyIp.com ? It shows your IP, and whoever owns whatismyip.com can log that information or send it to whoever they like. The exploit in question here allows a site to do the same thing, except instead of your IP they can figure out whether or not you're an administrator here. To put it more bluntly, imagine this as an ad: "Hot singles in your area are looking for a Wikipedia administrator", which only Wikipedia admins would see. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Overly Attached Editor

This is an issue about Hipal

Hipal has been reverting edits about exhibitions on Amy Karle. Hipal reverted the 3 edits I made today and didn't seem to check them before doing so. From the history of the article, Hipal has done this before about exhibitions. Hipal appears to be very attached to the article and trying to control it without constructive behavior.

Please see the talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amy_Karle especially at the bottom under "Long laundry list of Exhibitions" where Hipal states: "I strongly suggest proposing changes rather than adding them directly to the article, in order to avoid violating BLP's requirement to get consensus. Please don't add any that don't have an independent, reliable source that meets the standards of BLP. If in doubt, ask here. --Hipal (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)" Then when and editor asked he replied "If you don't know, we're not going to make any progress. I've spent far too much time on this already. --Hipal (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)" without providing any constructive feedback.

Today, I worked on the exhibitions that Hipal has reverted on various occasions throughout the history of the article. I retained valid sources and replaced other sources to ensure that all are independent, removed exhibitions that were poorly sourced, and removed problematic language. Shortly after, Hipal reverted my 3 edits with edit summary "rv exhibits per talk" but added no further mention about it on the talk page.

It appears that Hipal's level of investment in this page may be hindering their objective assessment.

I request that: 1)the exhibitions section be reviewed by unaffiliated editors as Hipal has shown reluctance in evaluating the sources and providing constructive feedback 2)Hipal's edits, comments, and affiliation with this page be analyzed, and if deemed problematic that Hipal and his related accounts are blocked from involvement with the page. (Hipal appears to be both overly attached and orchestrating and coordinating with Netherzone.)

I may take some time to respond due to outside issues. Please take this complaint seriously and investigate. If it needs to be escalated elsewhere please do so. I hope this issue will be resolved. Regards 169.229.6.164 (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and administrators do not solve content disputes. You must gain consensus at Talk:Amy Karle. If you do not gain consensus, then the content that you want to add needs to stay out of the article. There are various forms of Dispute resolution available to you. What is your connection to Amy Karle? Cullen328 (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Alexandra Lugaro

The article on Alexandra Lugaro about her lawsuit is not correct ,i have been trying to correct it only to have been blocked by another user of wikipedia i also have facts to back up what i am disputing. Tmmusgrove (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Tmmusgrove, you are going about this the wrong way, and shouting in all caps on your talk page is the wrong way to proceed. Make your case calmly and rationally at Talk:Alexandra Lúgaro, bringing forth reliable sources that verify the content you are trying to change. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)