User talk:Red-tailed hawk/Archive 9

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this conduct already a violation?
As you issued this warning, I was curious whether or not you would consider some of the edits made by the user, such as [1 ][2 ][3 ] and general issues of being somewhat aggressive (example) - and the general conduct, particularly on talk pages - to be problematic enough to issue a second warning, or if this is still civil and free of edit warring?

Thank you in advance :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * As for the second part of your question (edit warring), none of the edits you have linked are edit warring, since they all appear to be original talk page comments rather than reverts. The warning that you have mentioned was from a consensus at AE, and it focused on slow-mo edit warring.
 * As for the first part (civility), I would need to think longer and take a closer look, and I don’t anticipate having much time this week to do so.
 * —  Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, don’t worry, there is no urgency! :) FortunateSons (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hullo, rather odd question
Out of curiosity, is it worth RevDel'ing this edit from almost 20 years ago? I feel it is libelous but I dunno. Cheers! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 00:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello. I conferred with a member of the oversight team and we've decided not to apply revision deletion to the edit. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that! Out of curiosity, where does one draw the line with this sort of thing? 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 02:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually upon looking again I had missed the allegation of criminal conduct at the very bottom of the page. I'm going to revdel that now. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
I'm wondering what I've done to provoke the warnings on my talk page? Please note, I am trying to take a wikibreak so you may wish to drop me an email if an urgent reply is required. WCM email 10:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:CLUSTERFUCK" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CLUSTERFUCK&redirect=no Wikipedia:CLUSTERFUCK] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Paul_012 (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed request and being civil
Thank you for the kind reply to Markus Prokott when he requested extended confirmation. Sometimes it feels that some experienced users are a bit blunt towards less experienced users requesting or doing something not perfectly according to guideline. I know the guidelines are all there, but the volume is overwhelming and some of us have not read everything yet. Thank you again. Thermofan (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Admin-shopping
Hi Red-tailed hawk,

I thought you were very fair and even-handed in the way you handled this editwarring dispute yesterday I was involved in.

I just wanted to bring it to your attention that Beccanyr appears unsatisfied with this result and is engaging in admin-shopping by reaching out to another admin they seem friendly with here.

Thanks, Peter L Griffin (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. I don't find that to be admin shopping; the user made a post on a noticeboard, and then reached out to an uninvolved administrator to ask the admin to take a look. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 17:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Red-tailed hawk, I am concerned that appears to be continuing to war toward their preferred version of their page.   and  are separate reverts within 24 hours of one another, at least.  I stopped looking after I found two.  (Tried to report on 3RRN; Twinkle failed me.)  I am moreover concerned about the general pattern that I see as a minimally involved editor: the editing pattern looks like WP:STONEWALLing and WP:Civil POV pushing to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi there Russ,
 * I am aware that Death of Nex Benedict is contentious and that 1RR is in effect, and I have been very carful to not violate that.
 * The first link you share is not a revert, but a normal edit adding contextual information -- "To revert is to undo the action of another editor." Only the second edit is a revert, and one revert is not in violation of 1RR. Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, there is also an exemption for removing unsourced information, and my edit was exactly that -- so it could even be argued that there were zero reverts for 1RR purposes. Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do, however, want to bring notice to violations of 1RR by User:Sawerchessread, who appears to make POV edits by removing reference to water pouring from the lead:
 * , Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The edit summary "removing this is highly contentious" makes it clear that Griffin knew that he was reverting an earlier edit in the 1st revert (precisely, ). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If the first edit is a revert, who am I reverting? Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have gotten extremely busy in my personal life recently, so I write in haste. If an edit returns content to as it was in a previous revision in some non-trivial way (I.e. not fixing a clear typo) then it is a revert. If the meaning fundamentally changes because of an edit, then it is a revert. I don’t have the ability to dig through diffs and assess admin actions at the moment owing to my busy-ness, though any other admin is, and I trust that someone else will take a look at the present report on the AN3 board. —  Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 14:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey @Red-tailed hawk, sorry to be a bother yet again. I seem to have been reported for edit warring on Death of Nex Benedict again by a different user. I've been mindful since last time, thought, and I don't think you'll find that I have -- though the other user has edited in violation of 1RR. Since you handled this last time, I thought you might want to handle this again.
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Peter L Griffin (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Gladys (owl)
I would be interested in your thoughts and comments and page improvements on the Gladys (owl) | Talk:Gladys (owl) page which was proposed for deletion one day after it was created. It is about an escaped Eurasian eagle-owl that later was killed after getting hit by a vehicle. However, this occured in Minnesota, not New York City. Myotus (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello. I don't really have the time to go through the sourcing at the moment. My apologies. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter
We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:


 * with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
 * with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
 * with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
 * with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
 * with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Going about an amendment
My arbitration case felt very stacked against me at the end so I didn't bother with defending myself.

The flour massacre article has become unrecognizable compared to when I last edited it; that of course does not excuse my violation of 1RR. I am simply saying that the dust has settled and that my edit war with BilledMammal was a blip in retrospect. I will admit that I went overboard with reverting Alpoin117, but I still don't think a vandal who insulted me warranted a permanent ban.

All in all I would only like for my suspension to not be indefinite. Half a year would be good enough. I've grown to be less impulsive since this all started, especially for an environment as heated as ARBPIA. I enjoyed adding content on lesser-known events within the topic such as protests and I was even the first person to mention Aaron Bushnell's name on Wikipedia at the article for self-immolation. I'm sorry for this message if I'm not allowed to file for an amendment on people's talk pages. Feel free to suggest editing restrictions that I may undertake in exchange for being able to edit in ARBPIA again, when and if that moment arrives. Salmoonlight (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter
The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:
 * with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
 * with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
 * with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
 * with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

10xTravel Draft Edit
Hi, you left a comment asking if I could explain the 3 sources I think fit the qualifications for the 10xTravel draft (found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:10xTravel). I think sources 3 and 4 (these are from the same ABC News story but with some different info), source 8, and source 10 are most fitting for those qualifications. However I also think the overall grouping of all the sources I've listed add up to a reputable amount/quality of sourcing. If you could re-review this, I would appreciate it. Thank you so much. Editor782 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Red-tailed hawk Sorry to bother you, I just wanted to check on this and see if you had a chance to look at it. Thank you!
 * Editor782 (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Editor782 Red-tailed hawk is a on an extended wiki-break and probably won't reply any time soon. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Philipnelson99 is someone filling in for them or is there another step I should take to continue this process with another user? Thank you for your help! Editor782 (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Editor782 You can resubmit the draft via Articles for Creation again and another AFC reviewer will review it at some point. There should be a big button that says "Resubmit" that you can click. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Help pls
I need help, i don't know where I can get user boxes and/or make my own, so I need help... Lilly is cool (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

The Signpost: 16 May 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Devin gambit has been accepted
 Devin gambit, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Devin_gambit help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! SL93 (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

GIJN and INN members
Hi @Red-tailed hawk, you seem to be the first person to post about GIJN and INN in reference to reliability on the perennial sources noticeboard. Do you think that membership in either organization, given their journalistic standards for their members, is sufficient for a publication to be considered generally reliable? (I started discussions on INN and GIJN talk pages, but have never initiated a discussion at the perennial sources noticeboard) Superb Owl (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:NEWSORG reminds us that while News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, it is also the case that [n]ews reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. A lot of INN members are going to fall into the less-established outlets bucket, and we might want to use caution with some of them. There are also some entities that are a part of the GJIN that are not newsrooms (there are a few media schools and the like, but also some news-adjacent nonprofits like the National Freedom of Information Center that are more focused on providing resources to journalists or engaging in public interest litigation than doing the reporting themselves). As such, it might be a bit of an oversimplification to consider a news group as generally reliably on the sole basis of membership in either organization, particularly so for the Institute for Nonprofit News. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Red-tailed hawk for explaining WP:NEWSORG approach. I just learned Wikipedia uses some third-party resources to determine unreliability with WP:CiteWatch, but it sounds like you do not know of any third-parties that are used to establish general reliability by enforcing, for example, editorial standards to retain membership in a group like INN or GIJN? Superb Owl (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The list that has the closest thing to a community consensus is WP:RSP, which is more or less just a compilation of discussions that occurred on RSN. Things like Citewatch or Headbomb's cite highligher script don't necessarily represent community consensus (and in the case of Citewatch, sometimes flag things as unreliable even after community RfC has concluded otherwise), but they are tools that can be well used when one knows the tools' limitations.
 * To answer more directly: our policies and guidelines don't brainlessly outsource source reliability evaluation to third-parties on Wikipedia. There is the concept of use by others, meaning that how other reliable sources use a particular source can be seen as evidence regarding that source's reliability, but we don't have any particular third-party do the work of conclusively saying which sources are good or bad. Some published lists (like Beall's list) are influential in identifying subpar, but policies and guidelines do not give them preference in and of themselves. As for determining sources that are always good-to-go, we likewise don't rely on third party lists or membership in industry self-regulatory groups (such as the U.K.'s IPSO, which enforces journalistic standards on newspapers with the ability to issue fines for journalistic malpractice) as being definitive in and of itself (i.e. WP:DAILYMAIL).
 * Rather than having based on industry group membership, Wikipedians examine the sources in light of the reliable sources guideline (including the special guidance for biomedical information). When there's disagreement as to a particular source's reliability, talk page discussions regarding source reliability in context take place, and there are also more broad discussions on RSN when those don't resolve. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 18:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)