User talk:Polygnotus

^{[dubious – discuss]}^{[citation needed]}^{[further explanation needed]}^{[according to whom?]}^{[clarification needed]}^{[failed verification]}^[how?]^[verify]^[vague]^{[needs update]}^[when?]^[where?]^[which?]^[who?]^[why?]^{[who said this?]}^{[compared to?]}^[specify]^[misquoted]^{[example needed]}

Tech News: 2025-04

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Updates for editors

Administrators can mass-delete multiple pages created by a user or IP address using Extension:Nuke. It previously only allowed deletion of pages created in the last 30 days. It can now delete pages from the last 90 days, provided it is targeting a specific user or IP address. [1]
On wikis that use the Patrolled edits feature, when the rollback feature is used to revert an unpatrolled page revision, that revision will now be marked as "manually patrolled" instead of "autopatrolled", which is more accurate. Some editors that use filters on Recent Changes may need to update their filter settings. [2]
View all 31 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, the Visual Editor's "Insert link" feature did not always suggest existing pages properly when an editor started typing, which has now been fixed.

Updates for technical contributors

The Structured Discussion extension (also known as Flow) is being progressively removed from the wikis. This extension is unmaintained and causes issues. It will be replaced by DiscussionTools, which is used on any regular talk page. The last group of wikis (Catalan Wikiquote, Wikimedia Finland, Goan Konkani Wikipedia, Kabyle Wikipedia, Portuguese Wikibooks, Wikimedia Sweden) will soon be contacted. If you have questions about this process, please ping Trizek (WMF) at your wiki. [3]
The latest quarterly Technical Community Newsletter is now available. This edition includes: updates about services from the Data Platform Engineering teams, information about Codex from the Design System team, and more.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 01:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Hi Polygnotus! Things have ended up a bit heated, which is unfortunate. I think the problem may be that various people have been looking at different things, and the confusion around this is creating issues. So in case explaining my position would help:

I do not think it is a BLP issue to discuss FC. It is not about a person, and simply saying that you think FC is a pseudoscience or (alternatively) has some real value behind it is not a problem at all.
If we know that someone uses FC because we have reliable sources stating this, discussing FC in terms of their use of it is also fine, and not a BLP issue.
If we do not have a reliable source saying that a person uses FC, but we assume they do and therefore say that they did not write what reliable sources say they wrote, it becomes a BLP concern. We are saying something about the person - that they use FC - for which we do not have sources.
If we just outright say that the books which reliable sources state they wrote are faked, then we have a serious BLP concern. We are making a negative statement about the subject without any sources to support it.

The problem in that debate is that we had a lot of #1, which I have no objection to. We had none of #2, because none of the sources we can use said that Kedar used FC, so it wasn't possible for #2 to be relevant. We did have a whole lot of #3, which is a BLP concern, but not enough to get really worried about. And then we have some of #4, which is a clear violation of BLP. My concern was mostly only with #4, not with #1 or even, really, with #3, (although that made me uncomfortable and was an issue, but not enough to feel a major need to address). I think you may have felt that we were complaining about #1 or even #2, but that was not the case. It was with the outright statements "Kedar did not write these books" for which there were no reliable sources to support that were the primary concern.

Anyway, the AFD has ended, as they always do. I suspect this will now move to the article talk page, and perhaps a future AFD, but at least there should be some breathing space. Thank you for taking such a reasoned stance. I think there was confusion about the nature of the concern, but I never thought that anyone involved was doing anything other than what they thought was best for WP. - Bilby (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby: Hiya! I think that the situation is even more complicated than that.

The labels become confusing and (at some point) almost meaningless because some see RPM as a subset of FC, and some use the label "FC" when they are talking about what they perceive to be the problems behind FC, and not FC in itself.

The reality is of course that we do not know, because we cannot know. We only have a few sources to go on. And if we wanted to know we would need to break the WP:OR policy and we lose our role as writers of an encyclopedia and become investigative journalists or detectives, which is not really a job anyone should do without getting paid in my opinion.

Wikipedians have a lot of leeway when talking on talkpages. This is very important because people should be able to freely discuss topics (within normal parameters of course, no four letter words and death threats and all that). Wikipedians really care about their freedom (see for example the response to Asian News International). The freedom to disagree, and even to say things the other finds offensive, is fundamental to not just Wikipedia but %insert boring platitude here%.

The idea that the statement (you wrote), "Kedar did not write these books" is a BLPVIO is false. And the idea that linking to that video is a BLPVIO is also false. Neither breaks the letter or the spirit of BLP. A reliable source has been provided (not sure why people keep ignoring that fact), but even if there wouldn't be a reliable source it would still not be a BLPVIO.

A simplified version is: Never use SPS as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themself (emphasis mine). Linking to a video on an AfD is not using it as a source of material for content in the article.

I spent most of my life working with people 'on the spectrum' (whatever that may mean), I have a bunch of familymembers who are diagnosed (and some who are undiagnosed, but show clear signs). I certainly don't dislike people on the spectrum; I tried marrying one. You seem to be Australian, but if you were local we could go to a pub and I could show you why the sceptics say the things they say. And a goodfaith user saying something they believe to be true is and should never be against the rules on Wikipedia (again, within normal parameters).

But to be honest, the question if those are BLPVIOs (which is something reasonable people can disagree about) is to me far far less important than the idea that we shouldn't accuse longterm goodfaith Wikipedians behind their backs of insulting and degrading someone in a very very vulnerable position. I take such accusations very seriously (see WP:ASPERSIONS). The infighting among some Wikipedians is a far greater threat to the project than any external force, including time, entropy, and the big freeze/rip/crunch/bounce. Polygnotus (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken. Writing "Kedar did not write these books" is a clear BLP violation unless we have reliable sources to support that statement. I fully understand why someone might come to that conclusion. But expressing such a statement (not an opinion) is absolutely a BLP violation, because per BLP we cannot make a contentious statement about a living person without sources. There is no room to move here - if it is contentious (and "he did not write those books" is certainly contentious) we need sources. It is unmistakenly BLPVIO. The video is also an issue, but on a talk page it is less of one, and I would not have raised the issue if that was all that occured.

Yes, I understand that we have leeway. But making an unsourced negative statement about a living person borders on libel, and that is why BLP exists. Historically we have had many issues here, so BLP was developed as a means to ensure that we respect the position we hold as Wikipedians, and understand the effect our edits can have. The last thing we should ever want to do is to cause harm to a living person, and making statements that are potentially untrue about living people is something that we should never willingly do. Which is why we rely so heavily on reliable sources - the assumption is that those sources (by dint of being reliable) have a process which ensures that the statements they make are true, or at least as close to true as they can confirm, and we rely on them to have conducted due diligence

Nothing was done behind anyone's backs. A concern was raised in the appropriate forum (BLPN) and it was discussed there. Nothing was done off-wiki and everything was in the open. It was not a case of WP:ASPERSIONS - there were clearly cases where people made unsourced negative statements, and addressing those statements is exactly what BLP requires us to do. BLP is one of the few policies that requires us to act, as it has clear statements as to what we, as editors, must do when faced with BLP violations. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby: If you ever visit Europe, post a message on my talkpage and we can visit my local pub. I can help you write a sentence using RPM in a language you don't even speak. The source was already provided. It is not the sceptics, but the people who use FC and RPM who harm people in very vulnerable positions; including their families. See for example Tell Them You Love Me and List of abuse allegations made through facilitated communication. Note that those people falsely accused of BLPVIOs did not know the discussion was going on, and they weren't told, that is what I mean with "behind their backs". It feels rather ableist to find the idea that someone can't write insulting/degrading, does it not? I often wish I couldn't read.

I enjoy traveling to countries where I am completely unable to read the local language. Polygnotus (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed the source. What was the source that stated that Kendar used FC? Or, more specifically, that he did not write the books?

I have enjoyed visting Europe in the past. I had a wonderful trip to Vienna which I will always remember. The WMF funded it, which was great, and my partner was able to join me. I wish I knew more than about three words of German, but the history of the city was awe inspiring. (Australia also has an immense history, but you need to step outside of the cities to get a grasp of it). More recently I spent time in Delft, which is now my second favourite place to live (I am always going to be biased towards my home town), and if someone was dumb enough to offer me a job at the university there I would have my bags packed within an hour. These days, though, the focus of the uni is on China. I'm not complaining - I was in Xi'an last year, and get to be there again in May, and the people I met were some of the best I have ever worked with (plus I have a new appreciation for baiiju, which may well be my second favourite drink) - but I feel more of a cultural connection with Europe. Any places in Europe you particularly recommend? The trick is to find a conference in a city you want to visit, have a paper accepted, and then to convince the uni that you need a couple of days either side. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See here. It's Kedar (not Kendar) btw. If I remember correctly the source that Kedar used FC (or rather that his mom used it at some point) was his mom. They then moved on to RPM (which some consider to be a subset and others consider to be closely related). As you can imagine the sceptics have the same (or very similar) criticisms of both FC and RPM. I do not have access to the book; do you?

While I do not believe in RPM/FC, the idea that all severely autistic people (as Ido's mom calls them[4]) are incapable of understanding language is most likely a bridge too far. To be honest, I don't even believe that autism is a useful diagnosis at this point because it is pretty meaningless when there are so many who could be called autistic.

It really depends on what you are looking for. For relaxation I like Portugal, for experiencing something new I recommend Georgia (and eastern Europe in general), for trekking Denmark. I love apfelstrudel. I haven't been to China (yet) but I really enjoyed the documentary series Conquering Southern China and Conquering Northern China. A couple of days either side won't be enough for a country that big! Polygnotus (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source. It states that Kedar is described as not using FC, but that there is no evidence to say that he can write without a facilitor being in cueing range. This is a long way short of saying that he is using FC and that he did not write the books attributed to him. Nevertheless, it is at least supportive of #2 - he may be using FC, and FC is a problem. I would not have seen a discussion on those terms as a BLP concern. It is not supportive of #4 - outright statements that he did not write the books - and that was where my concern lay. - Bilby (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the most reliable source for the claim that he did not write the book is the book itself. I do not have access to it, but according to that IPv6 the person who wrote it (whoever they may be) wrote that it was written using RPM. And we know that RPM is the voice of the facilitator. And since Kedar is not his own facilitator... Polygnotus (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, at best taht supports teh claim that he used RPM. You are once again assuming that this means he did not write it. Neither of us knows if he wrote it or not, and neither of us has a source to state that he did not write it. We cannot state that he did not write it without a source anywhere on Wikipedia. - Bilby (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to disagree with the scientific consensus on this point. And many reputable organizations in the field have stated that they oppose RPM because it is the voice of the facilitator. If you believe that you are right, and the scientific consensus and those organizations are wrong, please prove it and you will be lauded as a hero and many people's life will improve because of you. Polygnotus (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that states Ido Kedar did not write the books? Not that he has used RPM, or that some people belive that RPM does not work, or that his mother sits with him? The answer, at this point, is no. Do we have multiple sources that state that he types independently? The answer to that is yes. We do not make negative statements about living people without a source. We can make statements about RPM. We can consider that it is possible that there is a faciliator who may have an impact on his writing. But we cannot state that the book which he is said to have written are faked and were written by someone else without a source, and if we do we violate BLP. There are gray areas in BLP, points where the policy is unclear, but this is not one of them. - Bilby (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that such a source is required is incorrect. The idea that it is a negative statement is also incorrect. You keep using the word "faked" but I don't think the sceptics accuse anyone of actually intentionally faking anything (but you can ask them if you disagree). If you believe that you are right, and the scientific consensus and those organizations are wrong, please prove it and you will be lauded as a hero and many people's life will improve because of you. You did not respond to this part. Polygnotus (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to respond to that part. The question is really simple - do you have a source that states that Ido Kedar did not write the books that he has his name on? Do you have a soruce that states that Ido Kedar does not write independently? If you have neither of those things, you can not express them as matters of fact, as Ido Kedar is a living person. BLP is not a forgiving policy. You need sources to make contentious statements about living people. - Bilby (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the BLP policy as well as you think you do. Did I make the claim that Ido Kedar did not write the books that he has his name on? Did I make the claim that Ido Kedar does not write independently? Note that the {{tq}} template is for quoting people and renders text in green. Are you demanding sources for claims I did not make? If you want to prove the scientific consensus and the organizations that work in that field wrong you can borrow 2 of my cameras. Polygnotus (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Perhaps the most reliable source for the claim that he did not write the book is the book itself." As the book does not say that he did not write it, and you did not provide anything saying otherwise, yes, you did seem to "make the claim that Ido Kedar did not write the books that he has his name on". But I was not addressing your statements so much as the issue at hand, which is what this was about - irrespective of whether or not people believe that RPM is unreliable, and irrespective of whether or not Kedar used RPM in whole or part, it remains a BLP violation to state that he did not write the books without a source to support the claim, and in the AFD that is what multiple commentators wrote. I do not have an opinion about the reliability or otherwise of RPM, but that is not relevant to the actual problem. - Bilby (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly I disagree. Note that the best evidence we have for the claim that Arnold Schwarzenegger can give birth is Junior (1994 film) (obviously). But that is a long way short of saying that Arnold Schwarzenegger can give birth. I do not have an opinion about the reliability or otherwise of RPM I would recommend doing some research on FC and RPM. Even just 10 minutes on Google. But be careful, after you do your opinion may be a "BLP violation" according to some. Polygnotus (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see a real BLP violation, look at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bessel_van_der_Kolk and this editwar. Polygnotus (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it worrying that you keep saying that looking into RDP will prove that Kedar cannot write. For it to prove something, we need to know that a) RDP cannot ever work, and b) Kedar writes exclusively using RDP. What we have is a) that there is a lack of evidence that RDP works, and b) there is no claim that Kedar exclusively uses RDP. What we also have are reliable sources that claim he writes independently, and no reliable source that says, with certainty, that he does not. Therefore, saying that he could not have written the books, and is not able to communicate, is a violation of BLP. Anything else is tangential, and not related to the primary concern.

I understand that you do not see things the same way. This is a concern, but hopefully nothing will come of it. Nevertheless, I do ask that you be careful in following BLP, especially in talk pages when contentious material is being discussed. - Bilby (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RDP is the remote desktop protocol. Polygnotus (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. RPM. - Bilby (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, my opinion often changes after I do a bit of research on a topic. Many things are not as they seem. When I dive in headfirst without much familiarity with or understanding of the concepts involved, it can be fun, but it is not always very productive. Anyway, would you like to join me on a quest to improve the article Virginia Christian? It is not a BLP. Polygnotus (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was probably the saddest edit I've made on Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe you prefer Pilot deviation? Polygnotus (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newly created redirect for Ana Orsini

Following the very recent closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Orsini as delete, the page creator has recreated the page as a redirect. Since this redirect proposal was considered and rejected during the AfD, I have opened a deletion discussion for the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_23#Ana_Orsini. I am notifying you along with all prior participants in the deletion discussion. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ido Kedar AfD

I am fairly certain that an AfD will run again in the not too distant future, but I think it would be useful in the meantime to gauge consensus over the possibilities of such an article hosted at WP. I note that you did not opine on the discussion. What do you think should be done? Should Wikipedia remove the article? Is it possible to write one that won't be shameful? jps (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: I have to sleep on this. I think this is part of a wider problem. Polygnotus (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: I can't protect people when I am too involved in the discussion myself, or at least that would weaken my position. I wish this problem was limited to this one article. But look at Luis Elizondo, and look at Carlos Hathcock. Sometimes, journalists and "journalists" simply write down what someone says, and its not really intended to reflect reality as a whole; just a reflection of their POV. And often people just talk nonsense. How do we deal with the fact that sometimes all, or a large majority of, sources that mention a particular topic are full of shit? The easiest option is to not care, and contribute to the spreading of misinformation. Perhaps the best option is to refuse to cover certain topics. But how can we explain that to a community which contains people who are reflexive contrarians (like myself), and are unwilling to spend effort to try to understand what is being explained to them (unlike myself)? Polygnotus (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are at the mercy of community consensus, so I try to make the best argument and move forward. I am more-or-less a WP:DELETIONIST because of the deference I pay to both consensus and the acknowledgement that this crowd-sourced encyclopedia has no vetting process for determining expertise on any subject which basically prevents any coherent editorial policy from emerging. To me, that leaves editorial discretion to be at the level of inclusion/exclusion. All else being equal, exclusion is preferable to containing material that is obscurely referenced and obviously problematic because it is WP:SENSATIONAL and not reliable. jps (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the community is at the mercy of my consensus.

Polygnotus (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'd !vote for that. But I am still curious, what do you think Wikipedia should do with the article on Kedar? jps (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2025-05

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Weekly highlight

Patrollers and admins - what information or context about edits or users could help you to make patroller or admin decisions more quickly or easily? The Wikimedia Foundation wants to hear from you to help guide its upcoming annual plan. Please consider sharing your thoughts on this and 13 other questions to shape the technical direction for next year.

Updates for editors

iOS Wikipedia App users worldwide can now access a personalized Year in Review feature, which provides insights based on their reading and editing history on Wikipedia. This project is part of a broader effort to help welcome new readers as they discover and interact with encyclopedic content.
Edit patrollers now have a new feature available that can highlight potentially problematic new pages. When a page is created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted, a tag ('Recreated') will now be added, which users can filter for in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. [5]
Later this week, there will be a new warning for editors if they attempt to create a redirect that links to another redirect (a double redirect). The feature will recommend that they link directly to the second redirect's target page. Thanks to the user SomeRandomDeveloper for this improvement. [6]
Wikimedia wikis allow WebAuthn-based second factor checks (such as hardware tokens) during login, but the feature is fragile and has very few users. The MediaWiki Platform team is temporarily disabling adding new WebAuthn keys, to avoid interfering with the rollout of SUL3 (single user login version 3). Existing keys are unaffected. [7]
View all 30 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

For developers that use the MediaWiki History dumps: The Data Platform Engineering team has added a couple of new fields to these dumps, to support the Temporary Accounts initiative. If you maintain software that reads those dumps, please review your code and the updated documentation, since the order of the fields in the row will change. There will also be one field rename: in the mediawiki_user_history dump, the anonymous field will be renamed to is_anonymous. The changes will take effect with the next release of the dumps in February. [8]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 22:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

75 years

I don't remember the incident, but looking at the details, it was probably a different way of imposing what's functionally an indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Congratulations on your record Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unusually_long_user_blocks. Polygnotus (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]