Jump to content

User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ANI notice

At Talk:Nicholas Wade; the IP recently disrupting the article with tags has gone on to ANI, but as far as I can see they haven't notified anyone. So, here it is, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tagging_ettiquete. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Wade BLP

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.


From WP:BLP Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Please think again about this revert. This is a group blog, and David Gorski posted without any kind of review or fact-checking. He is a surgical oncologist, not a subject matter expert. fiveby(zero) 13:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Fiveby: This was discussed at RSN previously (look up the archives). Gorski has a reputation exactly for the accuracy of his website (which isn't just a personal blog); and in any case what he is being used to support is not "Wade is a conspiracy theorist" (this is not said anywhere in the Wade article or by Gorski); but that (with attribution) "Wade's arguments are comparable to a conspiracy theory". Conflating criticism of reasoning with criticism of the person who promotes said reasoning is not accurate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
fiveby commented on that most recent thread, but I'm assuming from this interaction they may not be aware that the previous RFC at RSN still stands, since that most recent thread did not overturn it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
(ec)::Well, i was the one that initiated that discussion at RSN. It is a group blog, mentioned multiple times in policies and guidelines as not acceptable for BLPs. According to policy it does not matter whether it's criticism of the person or their reasoning: ...unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Please also review the arguments made in this RSN discussion. If author qualifications are important in that case, why is it ok to then use the speculation of a surgical oncologist? If BioEssays is questionable why not the Science-Based Medicine blog? And all this in a BLP were sourcing requirements are so much more stringent?
It certainly appears that the only reason that source is use is because of those magic words 'conspiracy theory'. fiveby(zero) 15:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The way we assess the expertise of people is how secondary independent sources do or do not use them. Gorski is often cited as an expert on misinformation and conspiracy theories, especially wrt medicine/biology, so we use him in that same way. It appears you started that recent RSN, but that does not grant you any preference in interpreting the outcome. I feel it was quite clearly a consensus in favor of SBM not being an SPS. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
As to why SBM and not BioEssays, the answer is all in the qualifications and expertise as interpreted in the authors. As well as what the source is being presented as. SBM is not presented as a scientific journal, and it is not presented as an end-all source of fact in this instance. It's simply a worthwhile opinion from an expert in the topic. Others have quoted Gorski, and so we will as well. Very few outlets, if anyone, quote Deigin/Segretto's paper as a source on questions of the origin, so we don't either. The few HQRSes that do quote/ref Deigin/Segretto's paper, mainly do so as a refutation. That tells you everything you should need to know about the difference. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Science-Based_Medicine seems like the best way forward. fiveby(zero) 17:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Failing to mention the more recent RfC is a pretty big omission... Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_256#RfC_on_sciencebasedmedicine.org — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources thing

Sources on COVID-19 lab leak page don’t show on mobiles if moved to a subpage. I thought it was the heading tag but apparently it’s the transclusion that messes it up. Can we keep the sources on the main page as such? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Part of the reason I transcluded is I'd like to add those sources to the talk pages of other articles e.g. investigations into the origin of COVID-19. I get your concern, and I just verified that it does not work on the app. But I think the benefits outweigh the costs of being able to transclude like that. One way we can fix this is by making those sections on the page, and then transcluding just the section in those sources subpages. Do you get what I mean? Make it work in the inverse. So it may not show on mobile correctly on the other pages I'm going to transclude the sources, but it will show correctly on the Lab leak page. Does that make sense?— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Another thought: Transclusion seems to work on the regular articles. So maybe the issue is that it's in the header? Given that headers don't show properly. Would it work better if we embedded both that and the current consensus templates in a section at the beginning of these talks? And did away with the section title in the template itself? E.g. we moved the transclusion to two sections with donotarchive notices like "Current consensus" and "Sources" and stopped using the headers in the templates themselves?— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
There's not really a great way to do it unfortunately. I don't really mind the approach taken (your suggestion is also a good one), but would prefer it if they remained visible on mobile talk pages in one form or another. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

RSN discussion

I don't think the question was malformed. I clearly specified "leaving NPOV/NOR/MEDRS considerations beyond the scope", which means the question was whether the source was reputably published. However, if you think a better way for separation of "reputably published" and "reliability of the content" issues is possible, please, propose your wording. I am writing here because the RSN discussion is too long and confusing, and I don't want to make it even more confusing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Overall, I think it's fine. I think we seemingly just disagree at base about how WP:V works, and that's okay. At the end, we still agree about the utility of the source, and that's the actionable part of this. I would just say, even if we are applying WP:V alone, the source still fails due to its other properties (author, journal, editorial rigor, etc) for the expansive claims made within the source itself. That's why I said no there. I am happy to remove the malformed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple move request closures

In many of the move requests you stated that WP:NCNZ was the guideline you used to close the discussions. To clarify; did you consider any Wikipedia policy such as WP:CRITERIA, including WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME? How did you determine that consensus had been reached? Spekkios (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

By assessing the arguments made, strength thereof, and persuasion to affiliated and unaffiliated discussion participants, in line with WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CLOSE. I considered CONCISE and COMMONNAME, indeed the second of these was a large factor as other participants provided instances in which the dual name was placed in common usage. CONCISE was ultimately not as persuasive to discussion participants as these other factors. Though in some of those discussions, CONCISE was actually a toss up, when moving meant a disambiguator could be removed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For taking the time and having the skill to make and well communicate (with a bar chart even!) this fine Requested Move close at Gamergate (ant). Herostratus (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @Herostratus! I find those closes very satisfying, and a close like this that makes everyone as close to happy as possible is one of my favorite things to do. :) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

DRASTIC

Your revert of my edit to DRASTIC added back commentary with an unencyclopedic tone. The sentence in question is a tangent about the lab leak theory, as though whoever added it is writing a features article on this matter and not an encyclopedia entry. If that idea must be expressed it could at the very least be taken out of the lede and given a more encyclopedic tone. 8.33.138.40 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s worded extremely similar to how other articles on Wikipedia describe the state of the science, and how WP:FRINGE tells us to do it. The lead is the proper place for its inclusion according to that guideline. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Describing DRASTIC as a group. Thank you. Figured you might like a heads up. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

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

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

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

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

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

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

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

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

CounterPunch close

Hey, I have a few issues with your close of the CounterPunch discussion at RSN. I don't think it accurately summarizes the discussion balance regarding what proportion of CP's coverage is objectionable; I don't see any rebuttal of my assessment of CP's front page that would establish a consensus that the majority of CP's content is questionable and written by non-experts, and I also think that citing SNOW is inappropriate in this context. Had I come across this discussion without having participated in it, I probably would have closed it as generally unreliable, but not deprecation ("option 3"). I'd ask you to reconsider the close, and I intend to challenge it if the outcome remains unchanged. signed, Rosguill talk 23:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Rosguill: [uninvolved in that debate]: I don't see how this could have been closed as any option but 4 (there certainly isn't a consensus for option 2 or 3; and a closer can't WP:SUPERVOTE [for an option only mentioned by a few participants), much less in a debate like this where one side appears to be better and for more commonly argued than the other); and the difference between a source being "generally unreliable" and "deprecated" is very nearly of solely academic interest (in what few instances would you use an unreliable source where you would not use a deprecated? if it is used as a primary source for something, then that means there should be a secondary actually reliable source somewhere, anyways). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian, closers are allowed to close as a middle ground even if it hadn't explicitly received support, and such compromise closes are not uncommon in my experience. There is a significant difference between generally unreliable and deprecation, because the latter adds an edit filter that the former does not. Moreover, the motivation for use would be on the basis that subject matter experts' works published there are citable as secondary sources, and that a significant portion of its output comprises such content. signed, Rosguill talk 23:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Did anyone in that discussion provide evidence that a significant portion of the content comes from content experts which would be useable in that way? I don't recall. I get your argument @Rosguill. I disagree and believe Option 4 was indeed the consensus, but I'm happy to unclose and leave my explanation as a collapse so somebody else can do it with more cache, like an uninvolved admin. Two independent reviewers coming to the same conclusion would likely help bolster the consensus eval. And if I'm wrong, and they agree with your assessment, that would help me improve my future closes. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I wrote a rough off the cuff analysis which admittedly could have been better researched and written, but it's what I had the capacity to do at the time. IIRC others echoed the point but I don't remember anyone else addressing a survey of recent content. signed, Rosguill talk 00:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I personally think that the close was fine. I don't see any other close than 4. Would we not deprecate The Daily Mail if their opinion pages were to have some SMEs in it? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I didn't participate in that discussion, but I think the consensus is pretty clear and Shibbolethink summarised it well, so I've closed it again with the same wording - David Gerard (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Awesome. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Flag of Afghanistan on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Posner

I started a discussion about Posner's book on the Kennedy conspiracy article talk page.--Virtuus (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Psychometrics

I'm writing because I noticed you reverted an entry of mine on this page citing that it had "too much jargon." I disagree with your edit, although am willing to remove parts that seem too technical for the layman. I disagree with all of it being removed, and to be honest, editing it a collaborative process when it comes to writing. Parts have been taken from different wiki entries that exist at this moment in time, including some information about Stanley Smith Stevens and levels of measurement entries.

Additionally, the previous entry as it was before I edited it had been completely plagiarized from a website unrelated to Wikipedia.

I am always willing to work with others, but I don't agree with striking paragraphs with little to no input.

Thank you. --- Bataromatic (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is appropriate for the article talk page, not my user talk page. Additionally, I have already posted a message there and tagged you. Please reply there. Thanks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the COVID-19 pandemic edit request

Hi Shibbolethink,

Rather than repeatedly setting my edit request to no, I thought I would discuss my requested edit here. I understand not including the url parameter in the citation; I haven't read anything on it's particular improvements (maybe just for redundancy) and it could in fact could be a detriment. I personally like to include it in my citations, just because I like accessing the content through the title. Though considering the pages already established conventions, it's not necessary. An editor may go against the pages conventions, however, when improving the article, which I believe the doi-access parameter is. The assumption when the doi parameter is used is that it lies behind a paywall or registration barrier and therefore when they are free-to-read, editors should mark those sources with the matching access-indicator parameter so that an appropriate icon is included in the rendered citation. Considering that the doi access is free in this case, are there some rules or guidelines I need to be made aware of that influenced your decision to not include the doi-access parameter?

I hope you don't mind me thinking out loud, I just want to learn as much from this situation as I can. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

1) Do not put DNAU templates on other user's talk pages, it's quite rude. 2) I'll answer this if/when I have time. 3) This is an inappropriate place to discuss this, this conversation belongs on the talk page of the article in question. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I responded at talk and edited in the doi-access parameter, FYI. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, for the future, it is far better to respond again to a section and be like "Hey, just wanted to check in and see what you thought about this" rather than putting a DNAU template, which is basically saying "my message is more important than everyone else's" in my view. Same effect, much worse optics.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Well suffice to say I did learn from the situation. I certainly didn't mean to be rude, which is why I left that template. I just saw the other messages disappearing and wanted to make sure that mine didn't leave before being answered. I didn't really know the template so I just copied it from above. I didn't know that that archiving gets pushed back with each reply. If I did, I may have still done the same. The whole point was not to pester you (any more) on your wikibreak, and not rush you into answering. Next time I will know not to, though.
It just feels a bit weird to voice my disagreements about what you said, on the article talk page. Maybe it's because any passing friend has the ability to swoop in with  Not done and change my request to answered, without considering what I said. I wanted a discussion over the issue, not a single line with no mentions to cited policy. This also felt necessary because I was mostly just repeating my earlier point, which, when at the mercy of the extended edit confirmed gang , is like begging for another fat  Not done. Well anyway, thanks for replying. Pabsoluterince (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Typically it's not appropriate to change your request back to "not answered" unless there is a substantial discrepancy in policy. This is probably just decorum, but I wouldn't do that if it were me. It just basically flies in the face of having these edit requests in the first place. You could put a new edit request with a different request that is more tailored, but in general, it is recommended that you gather consensus on the article talk page page prior to making the edit request in the first place. So these situations don't happen. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Would you say it's reasonable to change my request back to 'not answered' if the answerer is wrong? Please excuse me when I ignore your rules of decorum in that case. I don't know where you got that quote from but I think you missed a bit, "consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial". Without really getting into it, I don't think that my request was controversial. Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
It was, and still is. Adding a URL to a reference that has a DOI is a strange request. I would second Shibbolethink's advice: if your future edit requests are declined, the best move is start a non-request discussion section to seek out consensus for the changes. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shibbolethink/Archive_11&oldid=1118875787"