User talk:Eggishorn

User page

Contributions

Linkages

Talk to me here

Sandbox

Log of RfC's

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Filer Blocked
Filing editor blocked for 48 hrs. after filing back-to-back bad faith reports.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tognella99 (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC) @Tognella99:, your bad-faith attempt to weaponize AN3 to "win" a content dispute has been noted. Note also that I consider this accusation and report a personal attack and will not hesitate to report any further such disparagement for action. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tognella99. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 04:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis

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

@Barkeep49:, you're more than welcome. It is gratifying to hear that my analysis was of some use. Happy New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Strange your ping didn't come through here or at ARCA. I didn't think twice about it ARCA but not sure why it didn't come through here... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

List of fake news websites

Hello Eggishorn

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

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

RFC close

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

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

can you please say which other sources supported this sentence? I cannot find the sources added afterwards support this sentence at all.Idealigic (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Idealigic:, they have not been added to the article but are listed in the discussion. If you review the discussion they are readily apparent, starting with Vice regent's first comment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

That is supported by this source,

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

The other sources provided by VR are these,

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

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

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

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

@Idealigic:, to repeat myself: the position of an RfC closer, whether and admin or non-admin, is not to evaluate what should or should not be in the article. Doing as you are asking is a WP:SUPERVOTE and explicitly not allowed: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community... [emphasis added] The close is not my opinion on the merits of the discussion participants, their arguments, or their sources. It is a summary of what has been said. Whether I think that the sources actually support the disputed sentence or not is immaterial. The question I evaluated as closer is if the discussion participants felt that the sources supported the disputed sentence. There was an obviously and strongly expressed opinion by multiple editors that they did. This view did not gain consensus but neither did the view that the sources did not. I haven't expressed an opinion on whether "the other sources support the disputed sentence" and it would be inappropriate for me to do so, either in the close or here. You are free to think that the sources used violate policy and you are allowed to open a further discussion on the article talk page. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. You say that "I evaluated as closer is if the discussion participants felt that the sources supported the disputed sentence. There was an obviously and strongly expressed opinion by multiple editors that they did." Besides what participants felt (which is really irrelevant since what we need here is a substantiated arguments), can you please clarify what you think the substantiated arguments were for keeping this sentence in the lead? (it cannot be the sources added during the discussion since they do not seem to support the sentence). This clarification is needed to understand how we can continue to build on the points made in that RFC. Thank you again. Idealigic (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic, before I address your specific question, I need to make a small correction. Where you said: Besides what participants felt (which is really irrelevant since what we need here is a substantiated arguments)... I think perhaps my use of the term "felt" may have mislead you. What I maybe should have said was:

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

As I've already said, my role is not to decide if those arguments were correctly evaluating the sources presented but rather to take into account that such arguments were made. So the only thing that is relevant is what the participants "felt expressed as opinions". The only arguments I can discard in evaluating what the participants expressed are: ...those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. The key here is "flatly contradict". That is a high bar to clear and although there were some which did so, those that you appear to question did not. I understand that you disagree that the sources presented in the discussion did not, in your judgement, fulfill the sourcing requirements of the core content policies but that is not the standard that is used to close a discussion.

You seem to want to draw me on my judgment about sourcing. I thought I had made it clear that I won't express my own opinion on what or how or how well anyone's arguments were substantiated beyond what I have already said in the closing statement. I can, however, provide the "clarification...needed to understand how...to build on the...RFC": Both the pro-MEK and anti-MEK editors need to stop talking and leave the article and its talk page completely alone. This article and related ones have been treated as a battleground for far too long. Both "sides" need to go away and let neutral, unbiased editors actually try to reach some sort of stable consensus version. For years now one group mobilizes on one small point and as surely as Newton formalized this has an equal and opposite reaction and nobody actually attempts to reach a consensus. Everyone just argues past each other and drives away any possible source of actual mediation or consensus-building. This is wasteful and not what the project stands for. I hope that clarifies the next steps but, hey, my advice is worth exactly what you paid for it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Your signature

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

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

Divya Khosla Kumar

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

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

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

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

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

Notice of AE appeal

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

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

NAC tip

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

@SMcCandlish:, that is a very good suggestion. I've amended my close accordingly. Thanks for the feedback. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Too optimistic

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

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

walt disney

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

Hello, Kibours, and thank you for updating your request. I do not have access to that book at present so I can't verify the requested addition nor can I cite it properly. I'm afraid I can't make the addition you request without that since verification is a core content policy. I know that's not what you want to hear but I hope it helps explain my reasons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem; I thought it was of real interest as these drawings are the very first. The second reference I made is a catalogue of the world wide known auction house Bonhams and I give the link access very easy to check:"www.bonhams.com/auctions/22486/lot138". Furthemore, If you just google "early disney scrapbook" you will get the information. So it is your choice not to allow wikipedia to relay the info....

bestKibours (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Admin Report Wes Sideman

Blocked sock griping

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

YAMs

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

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

Interaction ban

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

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

I will keep my mouth shut. It fits nicely in with the real shitty day that I have today in real life. The Banner talk 18:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly sorry to hear that. I wish that there was something better I could say. Knowing that a disruptive person will eventually flame out is not much comfort when the flames are directed at you. I can only offer the empathy that you are not along in this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Reminder

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

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

You too! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Why was The Grayzone depreciated?

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

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

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

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

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

@NBauman:, thank you for your question. The simple answer to "Why was the Grayzone deprecated?" is that the WP:CONSENSUS of the volunteer editors who participated in the relevant discussion decided it should be. As you can read on the information page that explains closing discussions the person who writes the close (in this case, me) is not there to make their own decision about the subject of the discussion. Doing so is referred to around here as a WP:SUPERVOTE and widely perceived as an inappropriate way to close discussions. Instead, the closer evaluates the discussion as a whole and tries to discern whether there is a general agreement and, if so, what has been agreed to. This means that I can't directly answer many of the subsidiary questions you pose to me, such as identifying individual fabricated stories. You will have to read the discussion to see what other editors thought and see if those responses answer your questions. I'm sorry I can't be of more direct help in that regard. If, after reading the discussion through and the links given there and here, you have further questions about how closing discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard works, please do not hesitate to ask me here. If you feel that there are issues that were not addressed in the discussion then you are free to start a new discussion and reference the RfC. Overturning the discussion would require a new RfC but I would advise against that until you get some more feedback. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I read it and I didn't see any consensus. There was no initial discussion of the basis for forming conclusions. There was no citing of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and how they applied to specific stories in The Grayzone. There was some arguing about whether specific stories were factual or not, but they were unresolved. There were many discussions of the political associations of the Grayzone, but I don't think that's relevant here. There were some claims -- that it was simply Blumenthal's personal blog -- that are clearly wrong.

If I were writing a summary, I would say that (for the reasons above) there was no consensus. I can't understand how you came to the opposite conclusion.

Do you just read it and say, "I just feel there's a consensus for option 4," dismissing all the reasons editors gave for the contrary? --Nbauman (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nbauman:, if I had read it and just felt that there was a consensus for option four, I wouldn't have written the closing statement I wrote. Please re-read WP:CONSENSUS, particularly this: ...Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity... nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Disagreements with the result do not mean that there is no consensus, as I previously explained. To be more particular in explaining my evaluation of the discussion, I should first explain that I generally consider RfC's on source deprecation to involve a multiple-step process:

1. Is there a clear indication that one of the options is preferred? If so, close with an explanation of that preference and stop. If not:
2. Is there a greater preference for the "allowed" options (usually options 1 & 2) or the "not allowed" options (usually options 3 & 4)? If no, then close as "no consensus". If yes:
3. Within the two preferred options (i.e., "allowed" vs. "not allowed"), is there a preference for one over the other? If no, then close as "no consensus". If yes, then close with that preferred option.

This evaluation process is shaped by the header text accepted here and first used in the Daily Caller RFC here. In the particular case of Grayzone, the arguments for "allowed" (options 1 or 2) were weak and poorly expressed, depending mostly on false equivalencies, mischaracterizations of other editors' statements, and appeals to authority. The strongest argument was that Grayzone was "valuable" for its "anti-imperialist" point of view, which is not an argument that finds support in the Core Content Policies or sourcing guideline. So (as explained in the close) there was a very clear consensus that Grayzone was not a source characterized by a wide level of acceptability. Reading further, the arguments for options 3 versus 4 were closer in terms of raw numbers but the arguments for option four were stronger both in terms of source evaluation (see, e.g., the comments from DreamLinker, Jamez42, and Zialater) and in terms of policy compliance.

With regard to "dismissing all the reasons editors gave for the contrary?", RSN is not a college debating society and every argument does not need to be rebutted to some abstract standard. RSN is part of an attempt to build an encyclopedia that complies with the Five Pillars. Put another way, it is a place where we try to get on with things, not achieve a perfect result. Wikipedia is a work in progress and decisions made can be reversed if more information becomes available. If you think youhave such information, the please bring it to RSN.

Neither is the closer in the position of a debate judge adjudicating arguments against resolutions and set standards. The arguments that the closer does discard are ones that are described in policy as "irrelevant": ...those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. The arguments for retaining Grayzone as a source were characterized by such irrelevancies, such as those that it has a perspective an editor found useful or those that the primary author of Grayzone is writing about things others won't.

I hope that further explains the close. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Why were you the editor who wrote the summary? Did someone ask you to write it? Or were you just reading the RFCs and volunteering to write the summaries? --Nbauman (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nbauman:, not to answer a question with a question, but why would that possibly matter? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the process that you're going through to come to this conclusion -- and I don't understand it. If I'm in a recreational ball game, the umpire makes a quick decision and it doesn't matter too much whether he's right or wrong -- it's just a game. If I'm in court, both sides will give our position to the judge, and we expect him to explain why he made a thoughtful, documented decision based on the evidence. Is this supposed to be a quick decision or is it a thoughtful, documented decision based on evidence?

(And to move the conversation along quickly, I think the way the RFCs are decided is that any Wikipedia editor can come along and write a summary.) --Nbauman (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nbauman:, neither the ball game nor the court decision analogies are applicable to closes, in my opinion. The former trivializes the discussion and the latter lards far, far too much seriousness into the equation. I have closed over a hundred discussions, many of them contentious, and close discussions when I find them requested at WP:ANRFC if I think I can help bring clarity. I have explained my process at length with multiple references to both the evidence presented and the applicable policies already so I'm not sure how much more information I can provide. It is "supposed to be" a "thoughtful, documented decision" and I have documented it in considerable detail at this point. I'm not trying to be flippant but I honestly don't understand what you don't understand. In cases where mutual lack of understanding prevails, there is often acrimony which I'd obviously like to avoid. Why do you not think I have adequately provided a full explanation of the process I used? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You say there is a consensus for "Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated". This follows from WP:RS which requires publications with "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

There are editors who argue that Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information, and cite examples. But there are also editors who argue that those same examples are not false or fabricated.

For example, the White Helmets. ZiaLater writes: "The man ... now accuses anti-Assad Syrians of belonging to al-Qaeda and has claimed that the White Helmets were affiliated with the Islamist group". Xenagoras writes in rebuttal: "Here is a small analysis by France 24 about the collaboration of the White Helmets with al-Qaeda." Did you score that as consensus? I think it demonstrates lack of consensus. (I don't think that we can or should resolve the question of whether Grayzone is right that the White Helmets are pro-al-Qaeda, but there is clearly no consensus among Wikipedia editors.)

There are other examples, some of which support the accuracy of Greyzone, some of which attack it. One editor says that he misquoted an academic. Another editor cites the accuracy of his Venezuela reporting. Once again, there are editors for and against, but no consensus.

(There are also editors who make indirect ad hominem arguments, like Blumenthal's associations with RT. Xenagoras argues that they have a professional staff which does fact-checking, following WP:RS. I don't know what criteria you're using.)

When I put it all together, I see no consensus. If you see consensus there, then we've failed the test of inter-rater consistency. --Nbauman (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, a closer is explicitly directed to not provide their own opinion on the question of the RfC. Doing so is an invalid supervote. You seem to be determined to obtain my own opinions on whether I feel the characterizations of Grayzone reporting were accurate. This would be providing my opinion on the RfC question. I will not do this. I will say that characterization you are making of some sort of equivalence between pro- and anti- opinions is a false equivalency. It was very clear that the pro- side was both smaller in number and provided little more than personal opinion, which per WP:NHC are disregarded arguments. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think I understand that. I don't care whether or not you believe the Grayzone publishes false information.

The question of the RfC is, "does the Greyzone publishes false or fabricated information?" That's not for you to decide. The question for the closer is, "Is there a consensus that the Greyzone publishes false or fabricated information?"

Take the specific example of whether the Greyzone published false information about the White Helmets. ZiaLater thinks it did. Xenagoras thinks it didn't. Your job is to decide whether there is a consensus. If only 2 editors express an opinion, and they disagree, then your job is to return the answer "No" -- they don't agree, and there is no consensus. Correct? --Nbauman (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect. Such head-counting is specifically enjoined against. Please re-read WP:NHC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand how you went through this discussion step by step before you summarized it all.

When you read the discussion about the White Helmets, did you decide that ZiaLater and Xenagoras disagreed, and therefore, as far as the White Helmets was concerned, there was no consensus?

Or did you decide that ZiaLate's argument was stronger, and Xenagoras' argument was weak, or poorly expressed, or not relevant, and therefore ZiaLate's argment supports the consensus for Option 4: "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated"? --Nbauman (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)]

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

Precious

diligent diplomacy

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

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

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

Lovely, same to you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I created AfD discussion for Publius (publishing system)

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

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Filer Blocked
Filing editor blocked by checkuser
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. One way system (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Firstly, read WP:3RR again because text was removed does not mean it was a revert. Secondly, read the reporting instructions again because you malformed all your links and reported one edit twice. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Afd WP:N argument

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

@A Contemporary Nomad:, as already noted, "the main issue raised in the AfD" is an issue of the correct focus or name of the article. That the Arab states in the Persian Gulf are treated as a grouping by reliable source is amply demonstrated by the references present in the AfD and the article itself. The nomination itself implicitly agrees that there is such a group, just not on the focus or naming issue. That these use different terms to identify this group does not justify deletion. That makes this an invalid AfD. Please read WP:NOTCLEANUP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"the main issue raised in the AfD" is an issue of the correct focus or name of the article. except it isn't, the main issue is the current WP:Synth and potential WP:FORK if the name of the article or it subject changes, which have been discussed in the talk page. I have focused on the article last month as my first project on wikipedia to clean it up and rewrite it but honestly found myself hitting a wall trying to come up with relevant content to rewrite the article, currently the article is for all intent and purposes is empty, as in it doesn't present a fact or a statement that merit it existence, the only thing the introduction state is that 'the ASPG are a group of countries who form the GCC with the exception of Iraq' then the article body is just a collection of country fun-facts summaries: politics, 'peace', and Economy. I have questioned the merit of the article notability and asked in the talk page and the Afd whether anyone could suggest a subject for the article to be based on. The only refutal that I have found (like the one you raised) is that it's WP:N since it's a common subject and then present different subjects that don't relate to each other (which @Goldsztajn acknowledged) and each has an independent article of its own. That's why the WP:N issue is raised not the focus of the article itself which I presume is self evident by now that it doesn't have a focus or a subject. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 22:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

That these use different terms to identify this group does not justify deletion. I think this is a misunderstanding on your part, the issue I raised is that it's not different terms for the same group, but same the same WP:NDESC term 'for different groups: Persian Gulf Residency: Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and the trucial states. GCC: Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Eastern Arabia: GCC + Iraq (the regions that overlook the Persian Gulf). All of those don't share the same group nor a subject...... — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 22:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@A Contemporary Nomad:, I have developed a policy over the years not to debate AfD's. I believe that it is incumbent upon me to explain my reasoning as I have done above and you are perfectly free to disagree. I approach each AfD as an independent case, make my own evaluation, and move on. I do not try to persuade others to my position and I do not engage in attempts by others to change mine. I know that sounds stubborn and no-collegial but I find AfD debates almost never do more than harden positions and produce far too much acrimony. Beside, I'm reaching the age where I can legitimately claim "stubborn old coot" status. More importantly, however, it is not your opinion or my opinion that matters. Whoever closes the AfD will evaluate the arguments presented and make their own decision. It is up to them to decide whether what I have said matches the main issue. I hope that helps. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I'm not here to persuade you to change your position, I was going to comment on the main thread but then thought that it might be redundant since I have already explained twice that the issue of the article notability is that term refers to different subjects, so I have moved my comment here. In the end it's your opinion but I just felt that I have to state that your refutal is misplaced and present why. I do genuinely believe that we all want to do what's good and I truly respect your position but disagree on the best course of action to fix the issue. Take care — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 22:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ann Hathaway infobox photo

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

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

I've temporarily replaced the photo. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, you should read WP:CONSENSUS. Secondly, yes, I do believe that consensus should determine which photo is used. That's how things work here. Thirdly, it was not "based on voting alone", however, since closers are specifically instructed to not treat discussions as votes. Whether you think it should or should not be allowed is immaterial as there was nearly a year for you to make your case to other editors and they did not agree with you. Making changes against consensus is considered tendentious editing, a form of disruption. Editors can and do get blocked for such behavior. Since the new photo is nt one of the rejected ones, I don't think it's necessarily reportable but please do read the links. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any "consensus" is possible when three people comment. I also don't think any consensus on Wikipedia is determined by choosing an image without a discussion about the justification for such a choice. In other words, consensus isn't a vote, and this was clearly a vote. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You need to read the above links and take your concerns back to the talk page. Consensus doesn't have and minimum participation requirements nor does one's opinion give leave to reject consensus. I already said I did not count votes. I don't know what else you expect me to say. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, with all due respect, it's you who needs to read the discussion you closed. Go look at what the users said about the image they chose. To recap, they said their preferred image was of 1) better quality, 2) better resolution, 3) better angle (framing). Now, go actually look at the image they said that about. It's objectively false. The quality is lower, the resolution is lower, and the angle and framing is off. To close such a discussion appropriately, one would need to be aware of what is being discussed, not blindly trust what is being said. Otherwise, you will make bad decisions based on trolls and hoaxers. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of statement in kulala page

Hi,

Hope you doing good.

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

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

I reached you regarding Kulala page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please dont ignore this message like my previous message.

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

Looking forward for your response. Thanks, Tamilan pugal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Present day this community well educated and organised.

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

But that particular sentence potrait them as a poor people.

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

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

I think you are misleading the sentence.

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

First impressions that's it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your suggestions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help to resolve dispute at Talk:SoftSwiss

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

Wrong message is being spread, needs immediate correction

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