Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287

The following pages were recently deleted, would it be possible to get them moved to my user space so I can copy the info into the national team page instead?

• Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup
• Israel at the 1954 FIBA World Championship
• Israel at the 1986 FIBA World Championship
• Israel at the UEFA European Championship
• Israel at the UEFA Women's Championship
• Israel at the EuroBasket
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women
• Israel at the FIFA Women's World Cup
• Israel at the 1970 FIFA World Cup
• Israel at the European Championship of American football
• Israel at the European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the Women's European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the 2012 European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the 2016 European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the World Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the Women's Lacrosse World Cup
• Israel at the IIHF World Championship

Thanks - Galatz^Talk 17:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Galatz, it's done. Let me know when you're done with the pages so I can move them back/re-delete them. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!!! - Galatz^Talk 18:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The election is now open for voters. Voting has now begun for two NPP/NPR coordinators and will remain open until 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. All registered, confirmed editors are welcome to vote. Please vote HERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Could an admin please check

"concern = Advert for unnotable entity". It was eventually a bit of an advert and COI-fest, with no sign of independent sources. 2,867 bytes, 341 significant words which could probably be entirely replaced, if the subject is notable. But you can request its restoration if you want to write a proper referenced article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If you can translate from German, the deleted article shares a lot in common with de:66°North, most of which was trans-wiki'd,[1]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@

Snaevar:@Zzuuzz: If you want me to I can translate some of the article from German into English. (58.164.106.182 (talk

) 00:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

No, I'd not like to ask for restoration of the article. I have dealt with COI articles previously and in those cases I have removed at least 90% of the text. At that rate, it is better to start from scratch. I do not know German, but sure, it would be nice to get an translation from that, plus there is always the Icelandic article that I can translate myself. I am not going to assume however that the sources from the Icelandic wikipedia and the Deutsch (German) one are enough to keep the article.--

talk

) 20:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC

When the time comes, this one really needs an experienced closer (and perhaps more than one, given the controversial nature of the RfC). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. The current hotly contested topic of fakeness of news makes this a political hot potato. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And you know who's taking those tasty hot potatoes out of our children's mouths? Immigrants! I'm outraged too, etc, etc. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Careful there. Outrage causes cancer. I know that this is true because I reads it in The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

But what is this going to do to my house price? ‑ 

Iridescent

18:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The EU, gays and travellers have already done the damage to that. Come on, don't you believe the Mail at all? I'm outraged too. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As I've pointed out at the RFC, the Daily Mail have helpfully made the case for me by putting "Astronauts on board the International Space Station are hiding evidence of aliens" on their website's front page today. (Presumably the aliens are planning to land in YOUR TOWN to steal the jobs of HARD WORKING WHITE PEOPLE.) ‑ 

Iridescent

19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I bet they killed Princess Diana as well. Bastards. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

wow, that's...that's special. I can't say I understand the British print media all that well, but in the U.S. this is the sort of headline we expect from trash tabloids only sold at supermarkets that ere not taken all that seriously by the general public. I sincerely hope that is also the case in the UK. (We save the real garbage for our broadcast and internet media (is that better or worse, I really don't know))

talk

) 07:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a trash tabloid sold at supermarkets... Its also got a successful history of printing duff stories that get picked up by mainstream media (including those in the US). In its own way its very successful. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The trash tabloids sold at US supermarkets called. They demand an apology for being compared to The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would close it but this box on my userpage probably prevents me from doing so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I might be willing to close it (or act as one of several closers), depending on how things look once it's done. Sunrise (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

All joking aside, the 30 days runs out on Monday, 06 February 2017, and at by time we really need an uninvolved closer or closers to evaluate the sometimes subtle arguments and who can deal with the inevitable challenge that will be filed no matter which way the decision goes. Sunrise, who volunteered above, may run into extra opposition because he isn't an administrator. Any other volunteers? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Go on, put my name down against it. I believe I will be unavailable on the 6th but can tackle it on the 7th if no-one else gets there first. I need to get back into the swing of things here, what better way than by tackling a controversial and high-profile RFC? Yunshui ^雲_水 13:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm also willing to close either alone, or (preferably) with a couple of others. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping me if you need a third (fourth? fifth?) opinion/voice on the close. As much as I hate to say it this might actually involve some 'crat-style discussion about which steps to take. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh, if folks don't mind and want it I can bring my own assessment in as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that many of the examples cited are either of "celebrity gossip" for which I find no sources actually reliable, and "headline claims" again for which no source should be asserted. Note that the article with the headline "Is Nasa hiding aliens? Astronaut covers up evidence of mystery flashing lights moving past the space station, UFO hunters claim" is specifically about "wild claims" by "a group of UFO hunters" and is not a claim that NASA is hiding anything at all, and specifically is not the claim made above by a colleague here. The actual article clearly states: At least that's the latest wild claim made by a group of UFO hunters who believe they have spotted strange flashing lights near the ISS. In short, the DM is accurate on the topic. When giving "examples" it behooves us all to use accurate examples, lest Wikipedia be viewed, itself, as the laughingstock. Collect (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Did someone mention hooves?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No source that I know of is actually good for celebrity gossip as I have iterated. The article you link to, in the actual article, states simply: "In a recent post on her app, the reality star revealed her secret for keeping her ever-changing nails strong and healthy: Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream, a product that was originally formulated to repair the hooves of million-dollar thoroughbred racehorses." Which, as far as "celebrity gossip" goes, is extraordinarily non-contentious. The general claim about that cream has even been in The New York Times [2] and thus I fail to see why the DM is different in the case at hand from that esteemed journal. "Well‐Touled Cream They say that the late Elizabeth Arden used to work ‐her eyelash cream into her racehorses’ manes and tails to make them more luxuriant. Now we have a horse and cream story in reverse. It seems that stable grooms used to massage a cream into thoroughbreds’ hooves to keep them from splitting. After a while, women grooms began noticing an ,improvement in their own fingernails, which they attributed to the frequent use of the ungent. So, naturally, someone came along and decided to refine the preparation and package it for humans. Now we have Barielle Nail Strengthener Cream, a pleasant‐feeling concoction which seems to be improving our ragged cuticles. Saks carries it, at $6 and $10." Note that the typos are courtesy of that esteemed journal as well. Collect (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the hot tip, Collect. Now tempted to create Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream. You're right, it's actually quite uncontentious. But I susepect that's the sort of headline that sets some ediotrs' nerves a-jangling, especially those with longer nails. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Iterated and reiterated. I think it's the fact that they buy into the idea that everybody noteworthy is a "celebrity" and is fair game for them to make up "gossip" about that offends many of us, Collect. There are better sources out there and we should always be using them. --John (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose votes

As in RFAs where oppose votes gets heavily discussed, here in this RFC, the oppose voters are subjected to replies, objection and comments. The support votes are not getting too much questioned, why they support ban of Daily Mail. The oppose votes, where editors oppose ban of Daily Mail are getting badgered. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this is due to a couple of reasons. First, many of those in support of a ban are among the most vocal of editors/admins on WP and seem unable to behave in a way that does not lead to the treatment you describe above. Second, very, very few opposers have been able to indicate that the DM is a reliable source, however, opposers believe for their own various reasons that a "ban" is objectionable. This means the "supporters" have nowhere to go in terms of discussion, other than attacking the opposers. There may also be an element of frustration here. If the closure is in favour of a ban, how will this happen? There is currently no blacklist of newspapers and I think forming one would require a change in WP-policy. I'm wondering if the supporters have seen this eventuality and have decided to attack the opposers hoping they will not return to any future debate. For the record, I have not voted either way on this matter. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternative explanation: the supporters, being mainly very experienced Wikipedians, have come to the good-faith conclusion that The Daily Mail is unreliable as a source for anything and that Wikipedia would be greatly improved if a software filter prevented any new attempts to use it as a source. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The oppose includes SlimVirgin, Anne Delong, Boing! said Zebedee, The Four Deuces, Richard Keatinge, Thincat, Softlavender, Lugnuts, Andy Dingley, Jheald, Finnusertop, Ianmacm, Davey2010. All of them are also very experienced Wikipedians. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The results so far.

We are now 7 days away from the normal 30-day RfC closing.

So far it looks like we have 46 support !votes and 24 oppose !votes. (My rough count; a more careful count should be made checking for dupes)

There were 7 !votes in the last 5 days (all suppport) and zero !votes in the last 2 days.

(Crossposted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The results so far). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Closer should also keep in mind that many of the views offered here were more nuanced than reflected by straight-up oppose or support. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have contacted those who volunteered, above, by email, as I think some discussion of this is necessary. However, doing so on-wiki runs the risk of such discussion getting derailed by well-meaning passers-by; I'm therefore proposing to hold a quick email discussion with Primefac, Sunrise, Tazerdadog and Jo-Jo Eumerus and will close the RFC as soon as we come to an agreement. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Email works, so as long as there is not too much traffic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

<gasp> Private discussions on WP?

the other secret cabal the WP cabal secretly works for. In secret, of course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

14:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Just tweet the result, why dontcha? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and an announcement that there is no cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That's funny because I have such pleasant memories of the Cabal. Dumuzid (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• If there is any remote possibility that this publication is going to the blacklisted, I strongly feel this RfC should be listed at Centralized Discussion, and that it should, like the RfC mentioned in a thread below, be closed by a team of three neutral admins. This is a middle-market newspaper, not a tabloid, and notwithstanding its negative politically incorrect frontpage headlines and at times scandal-mongering, it also contains good, standard, valuable journalism, reportage, interviews, and reviews that are exclusives and completely unavailable elsewhere. It is a mixed bag, and should not be painted with a broad brush, even though it is hated in the UK for its misleading front pages. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender Even if a blacklisting was likely (which I don't think is the case) why would an RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard not be sufficient to gauge the consensus of the community? Any consensus at centralized discussion is only likely to gather users who aren't as familiar with the policies on notability as those that visit the reliable sources noticeboard, which is only likely to result in a less useful discourse. What would be the point of searching for more users that are not as familiar or as interested in the issue of the reliability of sources?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Because

WP:RSN is watched by very few editors, whereas the editors of affected articles which cite the Daily Mail for legitimate reasons (reviews, exclusives, interviews, and reliable reportage [non-political, non-science, non-libel] unavailable elsewhere) are unlikely to be watching that board. By and large the board has a core cadre of participants and commentators, and even editors who might at some point happen to query the board only watch it for the time that their discussion is open (as with many dispute-resolution noticeboards). In short, the vast majority of the experienced editors likely to be affected by a blacklist of this publication are more than likely not watching that board. Softlavender (talk

) 09:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually just claim that a RfC with 93 responses didn't have sufficient participation? If you wish to challenge the result, the first step would be to go to the talk pages of the closing admins and try to convince them that they got it wrong for the reasons you list above. I have done this IIRC twice in the ten years I have been editing Wikipedia; one time the admin reconsidered and asked for another admin to close it, the other time the admin quickly convinced me that I was the one who got it wrong. If that doesn't work, I don't think that there is any rule that prevents you from posting a good-faith RfC at Centralized Discussion asking whether to overturn the results of the Daily Mail RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I claim that 93 responses is not enough for a decision of this magnitude. It is more than enough to make many decisions, but this is as extremely broad decision. If the Guardian is to be believed (which it is not) Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source, but even the more nuanced actual position is quite strong. I daresay I am not alone in learning about it after it was finalized.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I second comments by Sphilbrick, I found out about the RSN discussion because my wife read the outcome of the RSN RfC in her Greek news site! I have contempt for the Mail's journalistic norms, but there have been occasions when articles by guest or regular column journalists have been invaluable (as I recall, pieces on US use of 'enhanced interrogation'). A blanket ban is not going to last two minutes. I would always prefer to use a better source and we should enforce that practice, also there are times when the Mail's treatment of a story is itself notable. There are many reasons for treating the Mail with huge scepticism, none for banning it, especially when any claim is attributed to it. Pincrete (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Can we please all sign a

petition somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk

) 22:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It's done. Let the tarring and feathering of myself and the other admins involved in the close begin... Yunshui ^雲_水 13:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Oy. Seems like the email discussion happened while I was off-email - stupid email service. The closure statement matches almost exactly what I would have proposed, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for you to certify the result in the closing statement? We already have at least one person who is talking about challenging the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on the signing. Alas I have mislaid my pitchfork today. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yunshui and Primefac, I'm not sure I agree with the strong wording of your close, particularly the words in bold (bold added): "As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles."

The RfC question allowed for exceptions, as did several of the support responses.

I've summarized the responses at User:SlimVirgin/draft. There is more support for a combination of the qualified-support (11) and oppose positions (27), than there is for unqualified support (47). Some of the supports read like opposes to me. For example, I opposed, but I agree with the qualified supports. So I would say that consensus is more nuanced than your close reflects. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Not to speak for the others, of course, but based on our discussion I would suggest interpreting that statement as a general principle which may have reasonable exceptions to it, i.e. the focus should be more on the first sentence than the second. For myself, I don't think we had enough justification to say that specific exceptions definitively exist other than IAR, but I think it's fairly likely that they do and I don't see the close as cutting off those possibilities. Sunrise (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, I am misunderstanding, SV, but your math seems off? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Alan, yes, thank you! SarahSV ^(talk) 18:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) We used the terms "generally prohibited" and "nor should it be used" specifically because it gave a small amount of wiggle room for IAR/historically reliable usage of the DM to be used. It's not a 100% ban (which we did discuss as a possibility), because that would go against the overall consensus.

As a minor note, I really shouldn't be surprised when five uninvolved editors come together, actually agree on something, and still get roasted for the result. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:CENT, so I wonder whether enough people saw it. SarahSV ^(talk)

18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@SV: I think the other responses below address these issues well. Of course, please feel free to cite my comments here in discussions if it would help. With regards to the primary/secondary distinction, I would say the same idea applies as in my previous comment - that the amount it was addressed in the RfC was low enough that I think the community should certify any proposed exceptions in a separate discussion (and with no prejudice towards starting such a discussion immediately). Sunrise (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, "generally prohibited" reflects consensus, but it's contradicted by "As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." That last part says: "Do not use this as a source", and that will be interpreted strictly by editors who will remove it no matter how justified the use. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

ignore this RfC result. In my opinion, and from what I've seen in the comments from the closers, this is a feature, not a bug.  InsertCleverPhraseHere

  19:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"Prohibited except where commonsense IAR applies; also here are some examples of when that might be" is a very good summation of the intent of the close. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "generally" usually means "always", so from a strict semantics viewpoint the close appears to reflect that the consensus did not call for a no-exceptions ban. I don't see much discussion on primary vs. secondary source in the RfC. I'd also like to register a complaint that procedural issues such as which noticeboard to put the discussion on and whether to list it in CENT should be assessed and processed before and during an RfC not after. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The question of weather to bring it up at CENT wasn't asked until the RfC was closed pending a ruling. See previous section for my opinion on the matter.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's standard practice to add RfCs to CENT if they have the potential to affect every article. I'm not reading the close as acknowledging exceptions. It says don't use it as a source, and "Volunteers are encouraged to ... remove/replace them as appropriate." Not "remove/replace/leave it in place as appropriate". SarahSV ^(talk) 20:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Break 1

Note that this RfC has received media attention so we are all likely under the microscope of journalists at the moment. Careful what ya say eh? ;D  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Three cheers for HBH, or as he's better know these days... Paul Dacre's private dealer. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why the Wikimedia Foundation quickly prepared and sent out a statement to The Guardian. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't like the idea of WMF using our discussions for political advocacy, which is what it feels like they've done here... WJBscribe (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the statement from the WMF was more or less factual, how was it 'political advocacy'?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing better to do, I suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Jbarbara (WMF), WMF communications director. Juliet, can you let us know what happened here? We held an RfC on whether to stop using the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, as a source. The RfC was closed today, and we were discussing whether the close reflected consensus. Within hours of the close, we find that the Wikimedia Foundation has issued a statement about it to The Guardian, so now this feels political. Can you tell us who issued that statement and why? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a discussion on

Iridescent's talk page that may shed light on it. An editor may have contacted the newspaper before the close. Also pinging Hillbillyholiday. SarahSV ^(talk)

00:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The story is a direct result of (and abstracts some of) my correspondence with Mr Jackson of the Guardian which took place immediately after the close. The story was news to Mr Jackson, so I suspect the WMF release was in response and not pre-prepared. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Hillbillyholiday. So you contacted The Guardian before they knew anything about it? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing that, I can only say that Mr Jacskon didn't express any prior knowledge of the situation. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone - The reporter reached out to us on our press queue earlier today ([email protected]). As we always do with reporter inquiries, we responded in a timely manner to meet his deadline and emphasized the community’s role in setting editorial policy. We responded factually about the community processes of RfCs and assessing reliable sources. This was not a proactive effort on our part, but rather part of our normal commitment to responding to reporters factually and quickly.

We also shared a link to the RfC, which he quoted in the article, so we felt that he was aware of the discussion taking place among volunteers. We expect to see a few more requests and will respond with the same language and will continue to point any requests to the RfC and this discussion. If there were things in our statement that seemed problematic, please let us know. Jbarbara (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Juliet, thank you so much for the quick response, and for clarifying that the WMF didn't initiate the press contact. Discussions are ongoing about whether the RfC close reflected consensus, so the story was a little premature. Also, the Daily Mail is by no means the only problematic tabloid source. We should have dealt with them all in the same RfC to avoid this looking so political, but I suppose that ship has sailed. Thanks again for letting us know what happened. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV You're very welcome - thanks for looping me in! Jbarbara (WMF) (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Juliet Is there a link to the full statement? I see what is in the Guardian, but do not know if that is the full statement. We are receiving inquiries at OTRS, and it would be nice to be able to share the official position.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick We have not published our statement anywhere. We are only sharing with reporters when we receive inquiries. Here is the current text we're using: Thanks for reaching out. We’d be happy to share a comment from the Wikimedia Foundation on the recent outcome of a discussion among volunteer editors around the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source on English Wikipedia. One point of clarity -- A number of outlets have called this move a “ban.” This is not a blanket ban, but a general statement from volunteer editors on the reliability of the source for use on English Wikipedia. Also, I should mention that as the nonprofit that supports Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, the Wikimedia Foundation generally does not set editorial policy on Wikipedia. That is up to volunteer editors around the world who contribute to the site. Editors have discussed the reliability of the Daily Mail since at least early 2015. In January 2017, an RfC (Request for Comment) discussion was proposed to evaluate the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source on English Wikipedia. This is one of many community discussions that take place every day about a broad range of issues, including reliable sources. In this case, volunteer editors seem to have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is “generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.” This means that there is a general recommendation according to this discussion that the Daily Mail not be referenced as a "reliable source" on English Wikipedia or used to demonstrate an article subject’s notability. That said, we encourage everyone to read the comments in the RfC itself. You will find considerable discussion on the topic, including views both for and against the proposal. Wikipedia is a living, breathing ecosystem where volunteers regularly discuss and evolve the norms that guide the encyclopedia. Among Wikipedia’s many policies and guidelines, there is even a policy to ignore all rules. It captures the open spirit of the community: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” As a general guide to reliable sources, articles on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Editors assess the reliability of a source at these levels: The piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). They also use a variety of criteria to evaluate reliability within each of these levels. For example, one signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Jbarbara (WMF) (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Break 2

• Comment: The Daily Mail is one of the five major venues for theatre reviews in London (the others being the Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, and The Independent). Their theatre reviewers are excellent (as are their film and television reviewers). We can't just remove all of the reviews from these excellent critics simply because they are in the Daily Mail and we don't like the Daily Mail's politics, any more than we can completely ban Fox News because we don't like their politics. I understand the UK campaign of "Don't Fund Hate" (don't buy products advertised in the Daily Mail or The Sun), but top-notch theatre critics can't generally help which of the five publications they work for, as there are only a few spots to go around. Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You may wish to be a bit more careful. I, for one, know nothing about DMs politics. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Me neither. I'm vaguely aware that the Telegraph is somewhere on the right and the Guardian somewhere on the left but know nothing about the political leanings of other British newspapers. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Iridescent, one thing that puzzles me is that you used the Daily Mail as a source in Hope (painting), one of your FAs (and I objected), yet in the RfC you supported and I opposed, even though I think we both agree. I used it as a primary source in Death of Ian Tomlinson, also an FA, because it was one of the first to publish images of Tomlinson with the police before his death. The situation is nowhere near as simple as the RfC close implies. SarahSV ^(talk)
  00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• OTH - Is that a five editor close? This falls into the trivia question box, but have five editors ever been used before? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the Daily Mail was put as the sole target on the sights in the first place - their reporting style isn't specifically populist or right-wing. It's a British tabloid thing. There are plenty of Labour-supporting tabloids with the same, occasionally sensationalist, brute style and less regard for fact-checking such as Daily Record or the Daily Mirror. The current political climate is said to be as divisive as ever with Trump and Brexit. I think this vote with it's the Guardian piece and reactions is a sign of that and I don't welcome it in Wikipedia. I don't know why the Daily Mail should be treated differently than other tabloids. --Pudeo (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• You could always bring those to discussion and see what happens. Though I suppose the answer is that both of those sources are cited approximately never. There are only two links to the Daily Record on Wikipedia, and only a few dozen to the Daily Mirror. Nothing compared to the ~12,000 links to the Daily Mail. Perhaps this means they are already de facto banned by never being used, or removed whenever they are. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• As someone pointed out in the RfC, Press Complaints Commission records over a ten-year period: Successful complaints against Fleet Street publications: average = 43, Daily Mail = 153.That's why it was a target, and it has absolutely nothing to do with its politics. Yes, there are other very poor sources that are used (Record and Mirror among them), but I sincerely hope RfCs are opened to discuss the possibility of each of these too. If it leads to a raising of the bar on the sources used on WP that can only be a positive step. -
  talk
  ) 08:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah I am probably going to have to take the hit for this one. In the context of the recent Trump-o-geddon story-after-story of depressingness, I sent a message about a week ago to a close (blood) relative who freelances for the Guardian along the lines of 'look on the bright side, wikipedia is probably about to declare the Daily Mail unreliable'.... I got a message this morning saying he had passed it on, so I guess thats why they were ready to move quickly as soon as it closed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• Point of clarification: the closure has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable", but doesn't specifically mention its sister paper The Mail on Sunday which commonly appears on the same website, and is frequently mistaken for the Daily Mail. For example, "Daily Mail names “whistleblower” who told US gov’t that NOAA manipulated climate data | Ars Technica UK refers to a www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article and in the body text correctly notes this is from the UK tabloid Mail on Sunday. An attempt to get this into a BLP has been reverted. In my view, The Mail on Sunday is equally unreliable and its online republication at dailymail.co.uk is covered by this decision. . . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Question: Can one of the admins explain what's the point of having DM "generally prohibited"?
  WP:QUESTIONABLE is already a thing. What's the point of this voting if there's no policy to enforce it, nor it's even mentioned on any of the WP: pages. I found out about this whole ban via the Guardian article, but I doubt editors will remember about this vote in half year time. Idea: There needs to be some framework/policy to list "generally prohibited" (or however you want to call them) websites that wikipedians can refer to & link to during any possible disputes. SkywalkerPL (talk
  ) 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

About the Mail on Sunday, I don't see any differentiation or discussion of that newspaper in the RfC. I am not certain what the issue with banning the use of a source is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The Mail on Sunday was mentioned twice in the RfC by editors saying the proposal was unclear. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• A few comments Please in future could we have wider notification of this kind of discussion? The Mail is, for right or wrong, one of the biggest media organisations in the UK and probably quite high up the list for the English language. What's more, the whole idea of a blanket ban on a certain source is a significant innovation in how we handle sources. Those are both individually big deals - to my mind, an RFC on the relatively out-of-the-way sources noticeboard isn't a big enough forum for this kind of decision. Also it would have been handy for someone to let the WMF and Wikimedia UK know this was coming - so that there could have been discussion about how to handle press inquiries in advance. The Land (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I mentioned that above this section. The good-faith editors most affected by this decision -- e.g. those writing and editing on theatre articles and theatre actors and directors, were not even aware of it. I requested that the discussion at least be posted at Centralized Discussion, but instead it was immediately closed. Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender wrote above at 03:59, 8 February: "If there is any remote possibility that this publication is going to the blacklisted, I strongly feel this RfC should be listed at Centralized Discussion ..". The RfC was closed nine hours later, so most editors who will be affected by this will learn about it via the Guardian, even though whether the close reflects consensus is still being debated. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Following a discussion with Thincat and Yunshui here, I'm wondering whether we should seek consensus to overturn this. The question is what to ask for. Re-open the RfC for seven days and advertise it widely? Start from scratch with a new question? SarahSV ^(talk) 15:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I'd support re-opening it, as a) plenty of editors will have found out about this whole thing from reading the Guardian and b) I don't think the debate had either high enough participation or a strong enough majority to warrant the strongly-worded result. I would also suggest perhaps workshopping some alternative formulations of the result. The Land (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I've checked the history of {{Centralized discussion}} and this significant RfC doesn't appear to have been mentioned on that template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Question as to scope?

Is "generally unreliable" applicable to citing the Daily Mail as a primary source for the content of the DM itself... or for attributed statements of opinions appearing in the DM itself? For example, suppose a noted expert on some subject wrote an opinion piece in the DM relating to some aspect of his/her field of expertise... previous to this RFC, we could cite the opinion piece to support the fact that the opinion had been stated... something along the lines of: "In an op-ed appearing in the Daily Mail on 23 June, 2016, Ima Expert stated his opinion that 'X was Y' <ref DM op-ed where he states x was y>". I assume this would still be allowed, but I would like confirmation. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I support the above; it's disappointing that the editors at

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 14:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@

Super Nintendo Chalmers note that the close specifically indicates that historically the DM may have been more reliable, therefore there is totally a case for ignoring this decision when it comes to very old topics such as that.  InsertCleverPhraseHere

  15:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but only 'ish': there's a lot of sceptical "mays" and "coulds". I hope that editors stand by the wording of these statements, but my concern is that babies are being lost with bathwaters here, as much as I fully support a general rejecting of the contemporary Daily Mail.--

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 21:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, it can be used as a primary source when it has become part of the story. Or when someone has a byline in it and you use it as a source about that person. But the expert writing in her field of expertise: I would say no, in general, but it would depend on context. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah... "it would depend on context" is exactly what I was trying to say. Reliability always depends on context. The same source can be completely unreliable in one context, and completely reliable in another. I think we need to ask the RFC closers to amend their closing statement... to better outline the (limited) circumstances in which the DM (and similar "tabloid" news sources) should be considered reliable. As it stands, editors will be confused as to when it is reliable and when it isn't. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, I agree completely. I asked the closing admin to amend his close, but he declined. See the end of the section directly above this one. It seems we may need to ask that it be overturned, but the question now is what to ask for exactly. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that the scope needs to be interpreted with a healthy dose of common sense. I see the words "generally prohibited" as giving editors some wriggle room for those rare cases where there is truly no source other than the Daily Mail, and it is in a topic area where the Daily Mail does not have a reputation for poor quality (such as politics and current events). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

RfC advertisement: Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#RfC:_use_of_edit_filter_against_unreliable_sources

I opened an RfC about the technical details of the implementation of similar bans for the future. I expect it to pass without much trouble, considering the results of the DM RfC, but you never know. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS applies. "I expect it to pass without much trouble" does not accord with that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

16:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That said, we should probably move this discussion somewhere else, as it's no longer an issue requiring admin intervention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to say that we looked at the wording very carefully in our close. One of the purposes of the wording was to try to give a sense of how easy it should be to use IAR when our close might not make sense in a specific case. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel like most of the contradiction talked about by editors is originating from editors not used to using the

WP:IAR the close makes perfect sense to me and many others, but might not make much sense to someone without the context of having had to use editorial judgement to IAR from time to time.  InsertCleverPhraseHere

  23:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with IAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

We are already getting a lot of editors who are interpreting the close as a complete "ban" on citing the DM. I do understand that this was not the intent of the closers... but that is how it is being interpreted nevertheless. I think we may need to hold a second (follow up) RFC to discuss the contexts and circumstances when the DM (and similar sources) should be considered reliable, and when citing it is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Almost without exception, reliable sources are calling it a ban so who are we to argue? Huffington Post quotes the Dail Mail itself as describing it as a "so-called ban".[3] So all we can be sure of is that it is not a "so-called ban". Thincat (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No need to, shall we say, be sensationalist. "A ban" is always partial, or total, here it would be partial. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel that calling this a "ban" is an oversimplification, but it's a really common way to oversimplify decisions and such misleading coverage happens all the time. I'd like to disagree with Pigsonthewing, RfC !voters have no obligation to end up with a black-and-white aggregate opinion and neither have closers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

And where did I say that they have? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

See, my impression from the comment you wrote here is that the close was "very badly worded". I don't agree as the opinions given were inherently ambiguous and not all on the same page. Hence the seeming contradictions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering if anyone has seen this Reddit post that was on their front page regarding the decision. The actions on ANI can somehow spread like wildfire, depending on the situation (although most appeared to have applauded the decision).

^talk

20:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

there are sufficient problems with this close that a new discussion is needed. I'm not sure how we should go about it. The most conventional method at WP is to add a page of interpretations, which adjusts the over-broad policy to make it correspond with what people generally at WP really want to do. (for example, to say straight out thattheatre and sports are exceptions). That's the way most WP policies have developed over time.

A more direct though equally complicated way is to bring an RfC to review the RfC. In principle, an RfC can do anything.

a third, already mentioned, is to just use IAR.

As for getting the media to understand us, it can't be done. Every significant word in WP guidelines and policy is a term of art, which has no necessary correspondence with the way anyone would use the term in any other context. My personal suggestion is to try rewording things so they will at least be closer, or else coin words like "WPreliablesources" A precedent for this is NOTINDISCRIMINATE. No one could possibly confuse it with English. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there were problems with the close, described above. There is also another issue now. Since reliable sources have written about the ban and cited the closer's comment describing the Daily Mail's "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication," that lets editors directly insert that comment into the article! I have removed such a comment from the lead of the article. This is a really big problem, in that wikipedia editors are creating the news that they then enter into articles! I suggest the closers retract their closing statement at once, and open a new RFC to a much wider audience. Not even 100 editors weighed in, and many votes as described above contained barely any justification. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you feel that the other closers and I misread the consensus of those who participated in the RFC? If so, a closure review per

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is encouraged. I do not suspect there is an appetite for an immediate RFC relitigating the same question as the original. However, a RFC which tries to carve out explicit exceptions to the ban (e.g. historical usage, citing the DM as a primary source, or using the DM for theatre reviews), and/or discussing implementation details may be a good idea. Additionally there may be cause to re-evaluate the decision in a few months, once we have more details on how the ban is working. Tazerdadog (talk

) 07:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the closure was as ill-considered and short sighted as the proposal. No limited consensus gained on a single board should be used to initiate or justify untenable proposals or make major changes to Wikipedia policy, nor does a consensus deciding two plus two must henceforth make five actually make two plus two equal five in the real world. The contradictory and ambiguous wording needed to cover up a basically unworkable proposal was predictable; the subsequent media attention on the banning decision was predictable; the ongoing mission-creep to include more and more media outlets on the banned list was especially predictable (and is perhaps the most dangerous result). The "it's not an actual ban" backtracking is not convincing: the leading proposers wanted a complete ban, and they wanted it to be a hard-wired one, code that would physically prevent ALL Daily Mail citations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue would be that the RfC was not listed on "Centralized discussions". That newsmedia are (sometimes inaccurately) reporting on it is not an issue with the close, and people adding these newsmedia reportings in articles is a different problem altogether. A supplementary RfC to settle the theatre and sports question would be fine, in my opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Moved to

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Requested_move_17_February_2017

Could an admin move the page? Casprings (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done  Sandstein  21:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Editor L'honorable has for quite a while an unblock request standing: User talk:L'honorable#Unblock request. Somebody should take care of that. The Banner talk 09:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm involved, but if I wasn't, I'd have to say that continuing the behavoir that got them blocked isn't an encouraging sign. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Involved as well - seems to revolve mostly around a commons admin with a grudge posting to AN/I. Still don't understand why the user copied their talkpage here, however. SQL^{Query me!} 04:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyone daring to take action? The Banner talk 09:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll unblock if there are no objections. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've unblocked on a

wp:rope basis. PhilKnight (talk

) 23:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is the source that is unreliable. → [4]

Dear Administrator

I have been a Wikipedia editor for at least 10 years. I am a bit surprised about an anonymous editor with divergent IP numbers i.e. 58.164.106.182; 121.214.128.24; 121 214.96.118; 121.214.175.49; 121.214.120.94 to give just a few examples had arbitrarily and rudely deleted items in the Puthandu or Tamil New Year Page. I suspect that this is an act of mischief - not sure why. It is an instance of edit warring, uncivility and perhaps even sockpuppetry.

Here is the background. There were three footnotes introduced by another editor. I am not sure who introduced the footnotes. This anonymous editor then proceeded to delete all three footnotes blaming me for introducing them (which is not correct). I instinctively reverted the deletions as I was not clear as to the reasons for the deletions.

After a to and fro of deletions and reversions, I looked at the three footnotes under question. I agreed with this anonymous editor that two citations (introduced by another editor) were in fact of poor quality. I therefore deferred to him/her and deleted the two footnotes. The third citation appeared rigorous and I retained it. This anonymous editor proceeded once again to delete it. Its a newspaper citation.

Please note that the main text is not under debate. Its a mere footnote that is being debated here. Should it be there or not? I seek your advice.

Meanwhile, please investigate this anonymous editor for destructive editing. Its not helpful. I also am not sure what the motive is. Does it border on vandalism?

I am genuinely puzzled by all this and seek your advice. I will be traveling and there will be a delay in response on my part.

Warm regards

Dipendra2007 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not an act of mischief @Dipendra2007:, my IP address constantly changes and there are two well established Wikipedia users on here who know about my constantly changing IP address as I have been editing Wikipedia for some years now. I can "ping" them to show that I'm telling the truth. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: I only asked you to read the Wikipedia guidelines article, you didn't do that. I'm not sure why you're trying to portray me as the villain here, I'm not. I kindly asked you to read it but you were pretty cold in your response. I needn't have come here if you were coopoerative so please be cooperative, at least here, without trying to paint me in a bad light. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: I have to correct you, I am not edit warring. You are the one that is edit warring. I reverted your edit and left a message on your talk page. The right thing to do would have been to reply to my message without deleting it and reverting my edit. We should have reached a consensus. I reverted your edit based on a Wikipedia guideline, that is not edit warring. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? There's a big flaw in that article and it's not supported by those guidelines. Please read it as you will understand why that source is not at all appropriate for such a topic. (58.164.106.182 (talk

) 02:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Under "News organizations" it says, Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. Hence the reason why I removed that source. Please read the guidelines before reverting my edits and claiming I'm disrupting Wikipedia. (58.164.106.182 (talk

) 02:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

I would also think that IP # 137.147.17.104 may be the same individual. Anyway, he/she has reverted edits thrice in a 24 hour period. This may call for his account to be temporarily blocked. Please look into this. He or she appears very belligerent. He is disruptive. Thank you. Dipendra2007 (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are you doing this @Dipendra2007:? You're the one that actually started this whole thing without reading the document. Did you read any of my messages above your one? (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: Please stop lying. No, 137.147.17.104 (talk · contribs) did not revert three times within 24 hours, why are you making things up? Did you even look at the contribution mad under that IP address? This is not the right way to behave on Wikipedia. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@

Wikipedia:Witchhunt and that is against Wikipedia policies. You're not suppose to treat users like this here on Wikipedia. (58.164.106.182 (talk

) 03:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

• The more you argue among yourselves here the less likely anyone uninvolved will chime in to help... Just sayin' Jbh ^Talk 03:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok I give up. I am about to travel. An editor of 10 years standing is overruled by an anonymous disruptive editor. Wikipedia - go ahead. This is not fair. But I will not be checking my wiki page. Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• (
  WP:RS
  " can be acceptable for the first revert, further reverts should have been followed with a note on the article's talk page explaining in detail why the sources were not reliable. I see that you've brought some reasons up here, but this is not the article's talk page.

   All of the actions that I did above were wrong because they all were in gross violation of our rules and guidelines, such as WP:Disruptive editing, WP:NPA, suckpuppetry and block evasion.

   As for what I will do differently, I already moved couple of steps. Back when I was first blocked in April, I promised @Writ Keeper: not to use WP:IAR and I kept my word. After this block will expire, I will only do constructive edits because after a 2 year block I understood that such behavior was wrong, and if it will happen again, the ArbCom will be the next step. As for racial remarks, it wont happen again. So, if admins will be generous to give me another chance, I will greatly improve myself and the community.--Mishae (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)