User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 53

Happy New Year, SilkTork!


Happy New Year! SilkTork, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– Davey 2010 Talk 00:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Different points of view for an edit @ Goth Subculture
Hello SilkTork,

Would it be possible that you take a look at this discussion currently going on here. I have explained in my first post at the top of the section what was the problem. Woovee (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I've left a comment. SilkTork (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Oooh. I had to look that up. It was this minor edit to The Kinks in 2006. The Kinks is an article I later worked on a lot, and am one of the top three contributors (by added content). The article became a Featured Article in 2010, though not nominated by me. SilkTork (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"Tanglefoot bags" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tanglefoot bags. Since you had some involvement with the Tanglefoot bags redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"Looby Loo" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Looby Loo. Since you had some involvement with the Looby Loo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Kingsif (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Cask ale
The article is still very similar to the article you wrote on ratebeer all those years ago. I know you aren't going to start a squabble with yourself over copying and pasting something you wrote, but the site does note "all rights reserved", meaning that the text is not compatible with wikipedia's license. If possible, could you get the ratebeer.com article to change its license to something like cc by 3.0? Sorry for this mess this might cause- copyright laws are stupid like this. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 01:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't own RateBeer, and other editors have found issues with that article since I transferred over my material, so it may be best just to allow the article to be deleted and let someone start over from new if they wish. SilkTork (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've redirected it to Real ale as the nearest appropriate (if not exactly ideal) article. I have also, as an admin on RateBeer, removed the article from there. It is available on my blog: AnyBlogDotCom, which is not a reliable source, but in case anyone did decide to revive or use any of Cask ale with text similar to the original article, I have placed a cc by 3.0 notice on the blog post so there shouldn't be any future concerns that I or anyone else will sue Wikipedia for copyright theft. SilkTork (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks a lot for getting the issue resolved. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 01:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pendyrus Male Choir and Draft:Pendyrus Male Choir
I always appreciate your rational and constructive contributions to debates, as well as your remarkable closes, and as a, I noted another editor message you about another copyright violation issue at Cask ale. So, I thought I'd reach out to you to see if you can action the above-captioned copyright violation report rather than let it languish and risk being deleted after 7 seven days.

The creator of the article created it and even acknowledged his or her connection to the choir with the appropriate COI disclosure on their userpage. So, with that potention connection, there is a strong possibility that he or she would be in a position to license the infringing content to WMF under appropriate license terms, which would require no revision deletion. Failing that, as SmokeyJoe and I noted in the above-captioned MfD, there seems to be a plausibly realistic prospect of meeting our general notability guidelines. So, whether the copyright protected content is kept or redacted, we would still want to rework and refactor the scope of the article independent of the creator. Nevertheless, I see no reason for deletion here, given the creator's good-faith efforts to disclose, without being asked, his or her affiliation.

I've even got the nominator of the MfD on board with either (a) a revision deletion or (b) having said content licensed to WMF.

If you wouldn't mind looking into it, I think we've got the workings of a plausible draft here, if not a main namespace article.

(Sidebar: I would note, too, that an admin and two editors or an editor (me) and two admins have declined speedy deletion on G11 and G12 grounds. One of the admins/editors was, who thanked me for my reply to Whpq at MfD. While a thanks log entry doesn't imply endorsement, it, nonetheless, suggests the editor/admin found my comments to be logical and coherent.)

Thanks, as always,

--Doug Mehus T · C  17:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have looked into this for you, Doug, and have left a comment. Unfortunately I am supporting deletion as there is no history to save given that only one edit was made, and that was simply a copy and paste of the choir's own promotional material from their website, and the editor responsible only made three edits five months ago, all in relation to the choir, and has not edited Wikipedia since. My recommendation to you, if you wish to see an article on the choir, is to do some research to establish notability and then write up the article yourself. Worth noting, that there are a number of Welsh male voice choirs:, and that we have articles on only a few of those: Category:Welsh choirs. So if you wanted something to occupy your time for a while, researching and writing up articles on those choirs which don't yet have an article might be fun! Good luck! SilkTork (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , My concern, though, is SmokeyJoe supported "keep"-ing this draft and said it "appears notable;" therefore, I'm just not seeing what the major reason is to delete this. Why can't we keep the article, suppress the copyright violations, and I will re-write an unsourced Lede, and if it goes unedited for six months, we can delete it? If other editors want to improve the article and it's ultimately successful in migrating to the Main: namespace, the creator of the article should be given credit for creating the artice, with the understanding they not directly edit the article at that point (because of their affiliation). I'm just struggling to rationalize deletion here as there are few reasons for deleting at MfD (other than long abandoned drafts, soapboxing blog posts, or extremely offensive content, among others). Doug Mehus T · C  17:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the MfD page to explain why it is more practical to delete and start again. Essentially there is nothing to save as there was only one edit, and that was a copy and paste of the choir's website. The choir's website is still there, with all of the article and much more! It's easier to start from scratch in situations like this as attempting to edit that material into something acceptable is a frustrating and time-consuming task, and rarely succeeds. But before you attempt to create an article on the choir, I suggest you do enough research to establish notability. I have given contact details of the local library on the MfD page. Good luck! SilkTork (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory about coronavirus being caused by eating bats
Hi SilkTork, I've noticed that on the Bats as Food page, editors are repeatedly adding poorly or inaccurately cited content suggesting that a) bats are a Chinese delicacy and b) bat consumption may have caused the recent coronavirus outbreak. I'm guessing this is largely due to a widely circulated video that's been falsely attributed to "bat soup in Wuhan". Is it possible to put the page under protection of some kind? I'm not an experienced editor and don't know how to handle this. --Arkansass (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Arkansass, thanks for raising this matter. As there are some positive contributions by IP editors, and this is likely to be a temporary disruption, I have placed the article under Pending changes for one week. This means that IPs can still make edits, but they will not be seen by the general public until after the edit(s) have been reviewed and accepted by an admin or reviewer. After one week the article will again become open to all IP edits, and the matter can be reviewed again, but I anticipate that by then the matter will have blown over. SilkTork (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much - I really appreciate your guidance and assistance. --Arkansass (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again SilkTork, the user has added back information that either doesn't reflect the source accurately (stating bats are "regularly eaten" in southern China, but the academic source does not state that anywhere), or citing news from tabloid sources. I tried to fix it (leaving what was verifiably sourced in tact) but my edits were reverted. I don't want to get into an edit war - I'm not sure what to do. --Arkansass (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Arkansass. As protection is now in place, the only users whose edits can go live are those who are both registered and autoconfirmed, so they are somewhat established editors who have some form of commitment to the project as a whole, not just to single-purposely inserting information in one article. As such they can be approached to discuss the matter and are highly likely to respond. Debate over content and/or sources is a useful (sometimes essential) part of Wikipedia: it helps in getting articles right. If there is an edit you disagree with, you can discuss the matter rather than simply revert. People often prefer to revert per WP:BRD, but that was written for a specific situation where there has been no movement on an established article, so it is suggested, as a means of moving forward, to be Bold, and if the bold edit is Reverted that Discussion can then be entered into. I intend to write an alternative: Bold, Discuss, Revert, as I feel people are using BRD to legitimise the Reverting part, when that is not what the intention was. This current situation is not one for Reverting per BRD, but for Discussion per Consensus. If an established editor uses a source that you feel is inappropriate, then start a discussion on the talkpage, pinging that editor so they are aware of the discussion, and put forward your reasons as to why you feel the source is inappropriate. If your explanation is sound and based on policy they should understand your concerns, and not just stop using inappropriate sources on this article, but also on future articles, and may well pass on your advice to other users. If they disagree with you, then use the talkpage to open up the discussion via the options outlined in Dispute resolution, such as bringing in other users. And whatever the consensus is, even if it appears to you to be wrong (even if it actually is wrong), accept it and move on. We now have over 6 million articles, and well over a million of those will be wrong. It is the nature of our structure here that at any given time a large proportion of our articles will be wrong in some way. Better to move along and put your time and effort into fixing what you can, rather than wearing yourself out trying to fix what you can't. Good luck - and keep me informed. SilkTork (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Different views
Thank you for the cordial season's greetings on my talk, and I hope you received mine ;) - I have a disagreement - or lets call it different views - with another user who came to our project page. Please see if you can follow his arguments and explain to me what I don't understand, - if you like. Your reward is a look at the kiss of Justice and Peace ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda. I took a look, but I don't have the time or inclination to get involved in that at all. I have little time and energy to spare for Wikipedia at the moment, so would prefer to use what time and energy I have for doing other things (I have a request to assist in getting The Rolling Stones to FA, and that seems more productive). I will say though, that I'm not comfortable with the notion of urging others to avoid discussion. I am totally and utterly inspired by the Barack Obama quote at the top of this page, and feel that if people followed that, the whole world would be a better, happier, safer, and more productive place. And note that he says "listen", not just assert one's own views. That quote and the one from To Kill a Mockingbird, I find quite wonderful: “If you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you’ll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.” SilkTork (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand very well that you have more urgent things to do. I am all for discussions, but I tell people to avoid discussions such as Mozart. I didn't want to mention a specific discussion because every time I do I am accused of canvassing, but now I have been pinged to it, and obeyed, while I was determined to let 2020 pass without a single entry to an infobox discussion. - You are one of the arbs in the 2013 case which declared the topic officially as a war zone. I am happy that not much is left of the conflict, and past years were rather calm. The only topic that still bothers me (not Mozart) is the unexplained removal of long-standing infoboxes which were added in good faith, - while I understand the different view (and please correct me if that is wrong) as "an infobox added was added warring and can be removed at any time later". I miss the assumption of good faith. - In 2019, only one of the infoboxes I added was reverted (immediately, not seven years later), and it was my mistake: I should have looked at who created the article before expanding, and then would have left it alone, unexpanded, to avoid conflict. I hade a peaceful discussion with the reverter, and ignored the discussion that others had on the article talk, Georg Katzer, the only one now without infobox from this sad list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ... as it happens, I was just reminded (on my talk) of my 2013 statement after the case closed: User talk:Gerda Arendt/Archive 2013 - and smiled. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ... and I, because one side speaks about "key dates", and the other of "summaries of a composer's work". You can go from one of these discussions to the next, and will see that same flaw, - one of the reasons I advise to not waste time there. Trying to live in peace with great editors whom I respect even if I don't understand that misunderstanding of what an infobox should do is the other. - I wonder if a closer of the discussion will see that they don't talk about the same thing. Probably not. Much easier to just look at how many opposes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry SilkTork, forgive me for intruding: Gerda, are you still banging on about this? Seriously, you need to move on. You fraudulently proclaim never to talk about infoboxes, or take part in discussions to do with them, but of late, you seem to have done nothing else.   Cassianto Talk  10:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cassianto, you misunderstand, and you are fast to say "stupid" and "disruptive" and now "fraudulent". I wrote one line on project talk WP:QAI, addressing members and helpers, so people who know the context. You misunderstood - it seems - the line which asked not to interfere with the preferences of others, and to ignore that discussions even take place. I would not have gone to Mozart without a ping. This type of discussions lead to nowhere, as I realised in 2015, Pierre Boulez. In the thread which made me come here for help and mediation, I had a few questions which you left unanswered, especially: "Imagine that everybody, regarding infoboxes, only cared about the articles he or she creates, and leaves those of others alone ... we'd have an outbreak of peace. Perhaps try it?" We could start today. - Everybody watching my contributions knows what I have done, which was in 2019 200+ new articles and reviews, vs. one infobox discussion. I hope that it can stay this way in 2020. - What do you think would make those who oppose infoboxes understand that they oppose something that infoboxs are not even meant to do: a summary? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We're only 32 days into the new year and you've spoken about infoboxes more times than I care to remember. I don't doubt you're a productive content creator, but to say you don't discuss infoboxes, and then to come here to...er...discuss infoboxes, is fraudulent. Infoboxes are good, but not everywhere, a point I have made elsewhere many times before.  Cassianto Talk  11:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I came here because SilkTork was an arb in the 2013 case, and could perhaps explain to me where I don't understand you, and you don't understand me. I can't help this case was about infoboxes, but my problem is the misunderstanding. Verleih uns Frieden gnädiglich (Mendelssohn) is today's article. Give us peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:Tarage's Law. Atsme Talk 📧 14:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Who's mentioned "nazis"? And Infoboxes is what Gerda came here to discuss. Sorry to urinate on your parade.   Cassianto Talk  14:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You just did. See WP:TARAGESLAW2 😂 Atsme  Talk 📧 15:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, and I'm sure it's utterly hilarious to the point of complete asphyxiation, but I'm really not getting it. Don't worry, it's not you, it's me. Clearly, you are more intelligent than I am.  Here's an idea, why don't you stick to making unhelpful and thoroughly uncollaborative edits like this one, and leave the funny stuff to those who know how to pull an audience.   Cassianto Talk  15:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Charming as always. PackMecEng (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

wait
After singing, and writing the article mentioned above, I can only apologize, SilkTork, for occupying your talk. No more for two weeks, as Cass can't take part. Perhaps listen to the soothing peaceful audio in the article, y'all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No worries. As I said above, I'm not much on Wikipedia these days, so am not best placed to help out here. It's not a question of urgency simply of pragmatics. I will, of course, help out on a request if it appears to be something where my intervention may be helpful, and is also likely to be of short duration, or which, to be honest, holds my interest. SilkTork (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Can I interest you in a glimpse at a short composition by Beethoven - 2020 is his year, and 02 02 a fitting date ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Unlikely - my musical tastes tend toward the more modern. I'm currently listening to the sublime "Helpless" on  Déjà Vu while waiting for my wife to finish making lunch, and tinkering with Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. My stay on that article is likely to be very temporary, as after lunch I will probably be listening to something else, and curiously checking details on Wikipedia, and updating stuff as I'm reading. SilkTork (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What's for lunch? I'm making a carbonara, as it goes :)   ——  SN  54129  14:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * enjoy, both --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Veg and tofu with cous cous. SilkTork (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

We have to wait no more, and I resumed the talk on Cassianto's talk, - you are welcome to watch and take part. I am sad that Volker David Kirchner died, - I told Cassianto the same. Better to improve his (or an) article than argue about a box, there or anywhere, - that's my nutshell. It was chilling to find out when expanding Kirchner that among his works were not only a Requiem, but also an opera described as scenic Requiem and a song cycle Media in vita in morte sumus. Today I found a lovely image to add, and a youtube video, arrangements by Mozart of music by Bach, - charming, really! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Cool. I hope you have a productive conversation. SilkTork (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

FAC: Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)
Hi SilkTork. I have just opened a featured-article nomination for Aftermath (Rolling Stones album). I found your name through the edit history of the Rolling Stones article and wanted to let you know, in case you would be interested in offering a review, as the topic appears to be in your area of interest. isento (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think my involvement in that article was a long time ago and very minor, but you are right, I do have an interest in late 20th century popular music, and I do have a healthy respect for the Stones. I'll take a look. SilkTork (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Too much further reading
Template:Too much further reading has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Logan Talk Contributions 05:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

February flowers
A late Valentine for you: a bird that is normally only heard, acting on stage (well, it was the right balcony, to be precise, for most of the time, until she walked with Siegfried, carrying a little backpack) - the last reminiscence of the impossible made possible. - Did you know that one of the nicest infobox discussions (literate, civil, and short!) could be seen for the stage work metioned. Shortly thereafter, the arbitration committee sentenced us participants for battleground ... - where did they look? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Expanding, now that I have to decide whether I can support your candidacy. In 2013, a request for arbitration was made by users who were concerned about reverts of infoboxes. During the case, the aspect that the reverts were the problem seems to have been of little (or no) importance. Can you explain? - I see plenty of rhetoric about how disruptive it is to even think of an infobox (begin an RfC) for certain articles (Kubrick, Mozart ...), but - for the sake of fairness - it should not be overlooked that those, for whom an infobox is the normal way to assist readers who are less prose-oriented, may find the removal of a long-standing infobox disruptive. I put prayer for peace on the Main page, today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If I recall there were proposals to admonish and desysop the admin who was purposely removing infoboxes:, and the admonishment was carried, though the desysop wasn't. I made a comment on that at the time: . I don't think the case was one-sided, though I know you were unhappy with the outcome, and have remained unhappy about it since. My position in that case was that it wasn't the business of ArbCom to decide on infoboxes one way or the other (that is an editorial decision to be made by the community - with the consensus outlined in Manual of Style/Infoboxes). ArbCom's role in that case was to put an end to the disruption. I could see at the time that you were emotional about what was happening, because you went on an infobox crusade. It happens. Stuff matters. We get emotional. I think that those who make the greatest contributions to Wikipedia are those who get the most passionate, and will allow themselves to get carried away - sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. Getting carried away for good leads to Featured Articles. Getting carried away for bad leads to disruption and ArbCom. But there is no moral judgement in ArbCom. Only a search for a way to end the disruption. What I can say is that you are widely liked and respected. I like and respect you. You know that - I'm sure I've told you. As for inboxes. I'm largely indifferent. I recall I wasn't keen on them being placed prominently in the lead when they were first developed. But over time I came to see the value they hold. SilkTork (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do me a favour: don't tell me things about me ;) - such as that I went on an infobox crusade, or that I was unhappy, or that I have remained unhappy. Those are facts which would require a citation in articles ;) - The desysop of Nikkimaria wasn't for reverting infoboxes, but for bringing an incredible complaint to arbitration enforcement, and the sad thing was that it took weeks of arguments on several noticeboards to finally agree that it was incredible. (One of the arbs initially said it was clearly a violation. I told him it was clearly not.) Nikkimaria and I work together, right now on Jessye Norman. Smerus and I work together, and I am open to working with everybody interested without reservations, provided I have the time. - I think I asked a simple question and would like a simple answer: do you understand that the removal of a long-standing infobox can be regarded as disruptive? Example: what if someone removed Handel's, - see right below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right Gerda. I will refrain from making comments about you. To answer your question simply: Yes. SilkTork (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's enough for a suppport. I hope you will be willing to explain that to Cassianto if needed. (I tried several times, but seem to have this language problem.) - 2019 was peaceful (in infobox matters), and I liked that, but 2020 saw already two reverts I disliked. I am willing to let them go, because my time is too precious for infobox-discussions, but a third one will be too much to keep calm. - For amusement: User talk:Gerda Arendt/Archive 2020, - Freude meaning joy, not unhappiness ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Today: Handel's birthday, and another soprano who performed the Forest Bird role. What do you see? - Enjoy your Sunday! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You just left a message on a user page, - intentionally? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it was a mistake - now corrected. Thanks for noticing. SilkTork (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * no problem - today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Race and intelligence DRV
I object to your close at Deletion review/Log/2020 February 12, particularly your finding that Jo-Jo Eumerus should be amongst those re-closing, given that he has already made up his mind on the close. As you clearly noted in your summary, there was a plurality of !voters, including very experienced editors, calling for a simple overturn to "no consensus", and I don't think your DRV close should have deviated from that. Effectively the DRV is a stronger forum looking into the close than any three-person panel could be. I urge you to rethink. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand your thinking Amakuru, and I noted that there were objections to User:Jo-Jo Eumerus in my close; however there were a lot of folks who explicitly asked for Jo-Jo, and as I pointed out, there is no policy based reason to exclude them. My thinking is that Jo-Jo had set in process a close that was interrupted by Spartaz, and that the close Jo-Jo had been working on was one that a number of those ivoting in the DRV explicitly supported, either as endorse, or as overturn. Those supporting Jo-Jo's close include: User:Girth Summit, User:Sirfurboy, User:Joel B. Lewis, User:Dlthewave, User:Levivich, User:El C, User:CaptainEek, User:Ewulp, User:Visviva, User:Miraclepine, User:2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D, User:Ganesha811, User:Waggie - which is 13. I count five objecting to Jo-Jo closing. Given that there is no policy based reason to exclude Jo-Jo, and that consensus is in support of either their close or them being the one, either on their own or as part of a team, to reclose the AfD, I can't see it being acceptable that I should exclude them. SilkTork (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Add in me as an implicit support of Jo-Jo Eumerus to the blue-ribbon committee even though I didn't explicitly express an opinion on the DRV. My comments were only procedural and tangential, but my pinging in you into the discussion, along with the others, were definitely an implied suggestion of potential closers. Sidebar comment I loved your "blue-cheese commission" pseudonym! Doug Mehus  T · C  16:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, SilkTork; probably it goes without saying that I am happy with your close. (Not watching, ping if you need me.) --JBL (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Imagine if you were going to close a discussion, and placed the {closing} tag, and then before you could post your close, someone else closed it, and then we said that you can’t close it because you’d already made up your mind. That would make no sense. Of course you’d have made up your mind, since you were in the process of writing a close when the close was usurped! This is, to me, fundamentally about not "usurping" or stepping over a closing tag. To exclude JJ from the panel because they were the first to start closing makes no sense. Levivich (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * When I called for Jo-Jo and a panel to reclose, I was unaware that he had started drafted anything; however, it isn't surprising that he might have started working on it, given that he had explicitly said that he was going to do so and was indeed interrupted by Spartaz. I don't think that his already having done some work on it ought to be a barrier to his continuing it, even if that work had already drawn him towards one conclusion or another; in other words, I still think that this ought to be overturned and reclosed by a panel, and I see no reason why Jo-Jo shouldn't be part of that panel. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What said. Brilliant, on point, and concise. The fact this had closing applied to it is what it makes it so shocking another administrator still closed the discussion. I would think, seeing that tag, one should give the closer at least an hour to close the discussion, and then follow up on their talk page with something like, "Are you still wanting to close the discussion, or should I remove the closing tag?" Doug Mehus  T · C  16:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Levivich said it well. This is a complicated close, but bias on Jo-Jo's part is not one of the complications. –dlthewave ☎ 17:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that the closure wasn't the best decision, but I don't think we need to start describing it as 'shocking'. It's possible that they simply overlooked the template. Let's just focus on the best way forward. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't intending to describe it shocking in anything but good-faith. It was intended as a harmless adjective, not meant to imply intent in any which way. Hope that clarifies. Doug Mehus T · C  17:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry guys, but I just don't buy this and if you look at the DRV it was an objection raised by others, not just by myself. Effectively Jo-Jo's close, though well-drafted, and no doubt started before the overturned close, represented an opinion that was active at the DRV and formed part of the DRV process. Similarly my opinion, from looking at the debate during the DRV, is that it is a clear no-consensus. I wouldn't now expect to be part of a closing panel myself, despite not taking part in the debate, and I suspect people would strongly object if I put myself forward - on the grounds that I had already formed an opinion on the AFD and stated it at the DRV decision. The same logic applies to Jo-Jo. The post-DRV close is a fresh stage in this process, and anyone who has previously opined on it is now WP:INVOLVED. I'm not particularly happy that this is going to a panel at all, given that the largest part of the !vote share was for overturning to no-consensus. But if it must be a panel, let it be a fair one. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Were opinions at DRV started before Jo-Jo had even realized that the AfD had already been closed by Spartaz? If so, then I think your argument may have merit, but I'm not sure that SilkTork's closing rationale needs to be modified. That may just be a decision on whether Jo-Jo feels the need to be part of the closing panel. I think later on in the DRV discussion, Jo-Jo even suggested the idea of them bowing themselves out. This is, indeed, complicated when we're debating on who should make up the closing panel. Doug Mehus T · C  17:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that my close rationale wasn't clear enough that I did consider the concerns regarding Jo-Jo, and felt that given both the weight of consensus for Jo-Jo's involvement and that per the wording in WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a ... topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that ... topic area ... advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'" that Jo-Jo was not "involved", and so it would be inappropriate for me to in some way ban Jo-Jo from being involved in the close, or for Jo-Jo's already existing (and widely supported) close from being used. I have listened to your concerns, and still do not see how I could then or now make a close which rules out Jo-Jo's involvement. If the others who raised concerns also wish to comment, they can do so - and I realise I omitted their names earlier, they are: User:Literaturegeek, User:2600:1004:B15B:2EA6:B81C:E7DF:7B3C:DB13, and User:Hzh. I counted five earlier, so I appear to have missed someone, or perhaps miscounted/misread initially. SilkTork (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the missing one is . -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think this comment of yours reveals your own bias in this matter. You claim that Jo-Jo’s proposed close analysis as delete was “widely supported” but you do so without mentioning that it was only widely supported by editors who supported deletion of the article — not one keep voter supported it. And this claim that it was “widely supported” ignores the largest consensus in that discussion, that you were meant to neutrally summarise, and that consensus was to overturn to ‘no consensus’. Jo-Jo’s analysis has biased a future panel in that only admins who agree with Jo-Jo will want to join such a panel as no one is eager to join a panel where you know you will have to end up in a disagreement with Jo-Jo and to be fair probably the admins who have volunteered have volunteered because they agree with Jo-Jo and want to do an easy drama free agreement with Jo-Jo. So the whole process is biased now. You are an intelligent guy SilkTork and I know you get what I am saying.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  20:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, how can analysis have "biased a future panel" when Jo-Jo has not shared their close with anyone? We don't even know if Jo-Jo will still be serving on the blue-ribbon committee. I personally have no problem with Jo-Jo serving, per SilkTork's analysis above. The panel doesn't supervote, but rather, they assess the arguments in the original AfD (not even the DRV, which was a procedural diversion), and then discuss whether there was consensus. And, if so, what that consensus was. Doug Mehus  T · C  20:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Doug, Jo-Jo publicly posted their proposed deletion close on the AfD review talk page and then linked to it on the main AfD page. This is the link. So they shared their close publicly with the community. If they had kept their close opinion to themselves then it would not be a problem. They clearly publicly posted it to try and sway people to their angle of thinking, that is advocacy and no admin is going to want to join a panel with Jo-Jo on it knowing they will either have to agree with them or else end up in a stalemate and the stress that causes.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  20:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , How is it "advocacy" though? It's transparent, which, I'd argue in this case, is a good thing. But Jo-Jo posting that draft close, regardless of whether they are on the closing panel or not, is just Jo-Jo sharing their assessment of the consensus, as would happen—without the transparency—between the panel of closing administrators. Each closing administrator, after considering the discussions at the original AfD, would then formulate their own assessment of the consensus and offer counter arguments to certain points in Jo-Jo's assessment of consensus. I'm not following how you view this as any more prejudicial any more than an editor or editors who re-close the original AfD had been following the DRV proceedings. Doug Mehus T · C  20:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW I disagree that only those who supported deleting the article also supported JJ’s draft close. Some (many?) DRV voters did not vote in the AFD at all, I among them. Had I voted in the AFD, I would have voted keep. I think we should have an article on R&I (and it should be retitled "Race and intelligence myth"), but alas, I missed the AFD, and in any event, I still think there’s no reason to exclude JJ from the panel. I may or may not agree with the ultimate panel close — which may be delete, keep, or no consensus - we’ll see. But in these situations we really have to compartmentalize and look at each individual step one at a time. Wanting to keep the article doesn’t mean any delete close is invalid. Having JJ on the panel doesn’t mean a delete close is valid or invalid. JJ and others announced the formation of a closing panel at AN, and placed the closing tag, beginning to close. Then, they were interrupted. The important thing (and the consensus at DRV) is to restore the natural order of things — that is, restore it to the point after the closing tag was placed and before the interruption by Spartaz, and then proceed from there. Next, we let the closing panel close, and see how they come out, and then if someone thinks there’s something wrong with that close, they can take it to DRV again. A laborious process, it’s true, but unfortunately that is the harm that was caused by this poor interruption close, and why closing tags and closing panels should be respected. Levivich (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with that, . Had I !voted in the AfD, I would also likely have voted to keep it, and I support Jo-Jo being included on the closing panel. No concerns whatsoever. It's too bad I missed the AfD because I think the topic is clearly notable. Does it maybe need some cleanup, possibly per WP:NPOV? Maybe, but we don't generally delete things for failing WP:NPOV; that's a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Doug Mehus T · C  21:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Literaturegeek - I have crossed out "widely", I agree that the word is inappropriate. SilkTork (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks SilkTork. :-)-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  20:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Literaturegeek - you may want to reflect on what you have said above. It's possible that you are feeling a bit too emotional on this issue right now, as you are making spurious accusations against respected members of the community. I don't think I was pinged into the DRV because I was seen as someone who would want to do "an easy drama free agreement with Jo-Jo", but rather that I was seen as someone who considered things carefully and honestly and would make a fair decision, explain it, and make myself available for questions and concerns, and adjust my thinking in line with those concerns if appropriate. I would have preferred to be part of the committee, but it was requested I close the DRV, and as no one else was stepping forward to do it, I did it, and now that I have done that I feel it would be inappropriate to list myself as part of the committee. No part of being involved in making these contentious closes is easy or drama free, but those that do them enjoy the challenge and sense of duty. Sometimes the challenge is too much, and some users, such as those who step up to be on ArbCom, can sometimes get burned out by the hostility of those who don't agree and end up retiring from the project. There is no "easy drama free" close of controversial topics. What there can be though, and what I have always aimed for, is a clear rationale so that users can understand and accept the rationale, even if they don't agree with it. I have failed in this instance, as you and Amakuru do not agree with my rationale that there was significant support for Jo-Jo and that Jo-Jo is not policy or morally prevented from taking part in the committee. I acknowledge that failure, and will continue to make myself available to continue to answer your queries. But, please, do not make improper accusations against fellow volunteers. SilkTork (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you forgotten to actually implement the close (by reopening Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination))? * Pppery * it has begun... 22:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I could be wrong, but my understanding from the close is that the decision is being overturned; the AfD is not being relisted or restarted. Rather, the closing panel, which has yet to be constituted, will assess the consensus and re-close it. The amended outcome is uncertain, but could be the same result (with an expanded rationale). Doug Mehus T · C  22:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Either way, this appears to have been dropped. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure that it has. has recused themselves from the blue-ribbon committee because of their involvement in closing the DRV. They're still deciding, at the DRV discussion talk page, whether to have 3 or 5 members on the panel and who will sit on the panel. They want to get it right, so I think they're just being very cautious. Doug Mehus  T · C  22:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks like I was overzealous here, having assumed that something must be wrong because the discussion was happening in a nonstandard place I didn't see. Sorry. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , no worries at all. I figured you mustn't have seen the Wikipedia talk talk page discussion. Doug Mehus T · C  01:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Requesting closure of a RSN discussion
I apologize if I'm asking about this in the wrong place, but I'm unfamiliar with how this type of situation is normally handled.

There has been a long-running dispute at the Race and intelligence article over what sources satisfy the requirements of WP:RS, and the attempts by some editors to remove sources that they felt were unreliable has caused multiple edit wars. The question of whether these sources are reliable was raised at RSN in December, and I think the consensus in that discussion was that they are reliable, but on the article talk page several editors have argued that the earlier discussion did not reach a consensus because it never was formally closed.

In response to the continued disputes over this question, I recently raised the same question at RSN again. I think the discussion there has mostly reached a conclusion, and I would like it to be formally closed. If the AFD for this article is closed as keep, a formal decision about whether or not these sources are reliable will be the only possible way to avoid further edit wars over the same issue. If it is closed as delete, a formal decision will still help to prevent similar edit wars over the remaining sub-articles such as History of the race and intelligence controversy.

I considered making this request at requests for closure, but it typically takes at least a month for requests there to be acted upon, and by that point the RSN discussion will most likely have been automatically moved into the noticeboard archives.

Would you be willing to assess the consensus in the current discussion at RSN, and formally close it with an appropriate summary? Based on the discussion in the section above, you seem to be an admin who's trusted for your ability to assess the consensus in complex discussions, which is what's needed in this case. If possible, I'd like the closure summary to address not only the question of the reliability of the two specific sources mentioned there, but also the broader question of whether the argument being used to reject these and similar sources is supported by policy or whether it is original research. 2600:1004:B15F:33D4:5CDB:1DB5:D3A1:EC86 (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. SilkTork (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. SilkTork (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. 2600:1004:B15C:6BC8:E5F7:F7F0:8799:1BFD (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)