Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6

Carl Benjamin news item

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus in favor of describing Carl Benjamin as an "anti-feminist YouTuber". While the numbers are clearly one-sided, closers of discussions are reminded by policy that consensus is not merely an exercise in counting noses. In this case, however, those making !votes in favor of "anti-feminist YouTuber" have based their arguments in the reliable sourcing and verifiablity policies while the arguments against are a mixture of ad hominem statements and personal preference. Consensus does not require unanimity nor does it require that every argument be answered by those making their statements. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

---

This edit of yours makes the sentence ungrammatical, contains useless hyperlinks (there's no need for either KCL or libertarianism to be hyperlinked, they aren't making the news) and irrelevant information that is not in keeping with either the essence of what the article reports (the vast majority of which focuses on Carl Benjamin and not Dr Yaron Brook) or NPOV policy (the anti-feminist, anti-progressive descriptions/assertions are borderline BLP violations; it is best to go with the description of him that is in the title of the article as that is the most neutral description his views); you will also note the double standards that characterize the motivation behind your edits: you are keen to explicate the political ideologies of Benjamin and Brook while you also (deliberately) fail to mention the political ideology of the group (let alone the group itself) that reportedly (through a tweet from the group's twitter account) no platformed the event. I also state for the record that you are in contravention of WP:BRD as you (not me) are supposed be initiating this discussion since I reverted the information that you included, and I also note the battlegrounding pattern of editing that you similarly exhibited here and here. Do not edit war any further until a consensus has been reached with regards to the wording of this news item. Wingwraith (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The only relevant suggestion i can usefully reply on now is the allegation of using non-grammar. For the record: I never claimed to be a native English speaker. Wakari07 (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Oh yes, on content, do you want me to add that the masked protesters are described as activists? If you think that's added value to the article, why don't you add that by yourself? Wakari07 (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No what I need from you is a point-by-point response to all of the issues that I raised against your edit in the OP. Wingwraith (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• On the content, I fully concur with PeterTheFourth's supporting edit comment that "'Controversial' is kind of a weasel word, prefer previous more specific wording". On the form, OP is not credible when using the WP:WIKIHOUNDING argument while performing what i guess is a 18th revert. Wakari07 (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverting for the 20th time suggests that Wingwraith is unable to accept consensus here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Now is the litmus! Wakari07 (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is false as your (and PeterTheFourth's) history of edit-warring on similar articles which involve people with a relationship (real or alleged) with the alt-right and the fact that both of you reverted the text BEFORE either of you provided an explanation on the talkpage (let alone an explanation which addressed the substance of my OP) is evidence that neither of you are impartial observers to this dispute; I further note that your description of me in your comment here as a "weasel-word edit-warrior" is evidence that you are not discussing this issue with me in good faith; as it would be useless to discuss this issue with you (and the other involved parties) here under these conditions, I will be asking for administrative intervention and accordingly escalate this dispute to the ANI. Wingwraith (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Your claim that "the consensus is false" is nonsense. Nobody has to be "impartial" here, and indeed, you are certainly not "impartial" either. We all edit cognizant of our own personal biases and opinions. That said, "controversial" is clearly a weasel word and it is more appropriate and descriptive to describe him as reliable sources do. That you do not agree with those reliable sources is neither here nor there. You are not entitled to disregard an emerging consensus here because you don't like the people who are discussing the issue. If you wish to obtain a broader swath of opinions, you're welcome to open a request for comment on this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a weasel word because THAT IS HOW THE GODDAMN ARTICLE THAT THE NEWS ITEM IS CITED TO DESCRIBES HIM and no we don't reach consensus by relying on users like yourself who refuse to compromise and edit war at every available opportunity. In any case we are already debating this on the ANI so stop wasting time by posting here what you could post there. Wingwraith (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you meant to say there somewhere with your last sentence. Note that this should not be discussed at ANI. It's not an ANI issue other than whether to block anyone here or impose some other editing restriction. (Well also whether to protect the page, but that's done.) Also I suggest you cool it on claims like 'edit war at every available opportunity'. I don't know what problems NBSB may or may not have but they only made one revert to the portal pages since January or earlier. And you made at least 4 in about 27 hours here. And in the 5th March page, 3 in less than 10 minutes, about 14 in under 2h30 minutes, another 5 in just under 2 hours with less than 24 hours between all these; with apparently no edits that weren't reverts. So it's like a Vantablack 2.0 pot calling the kettle black. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it was a grammatical mistake on my part and no I stand by my assertion that NorthBySouthBaranof edit wars at every available opportunity, just look at that user's editing history - edit warring on 2 pages (Dinesh D'Souza and Carl Benjamin) involving 2 separate editors (Vcuttolo and Kleuske) in the span of one day (11 March 2018). Combine that kind of conduct with (as I noted on the ANI) this kind of complaint and it's clear that you are dealing with an editor who doesn't compromise, doesn't learn and just doesn't care...and thus edit wars at every available opportunity. You are correct in noting the edit warring that I engaged in, but notice how my actions there ironically prove why I'm a better editor than NorthBySouthBaranof: it involved just the same person, I initiated the dispute resolution by taking it to the talkpage even though that wasn't my responsibility, I stated my compromise position early on and I had the good sense to defer the power of adjudication on the dispute to a third party/administrator in the face of clear filibustering action by Wakari07. Now contrast that with how NorthBySouthBaranof handles his content dispute on the Carl Benjamin page: no attempt to stop and discuss his/her plan to reinsert a type of edit (an attack description of a living person in the first sentence of that person's article's lead paragraph) on the talkpage (which has already been described on the talkpage as problematic and indeed reverted on the actual page by other editors) before making that type of edit on the article, no attempt to compromise in his/her dispute with Kleuske on the talkpage instead it's just a regurgitation of the initial argument, and no attempt to even check what the sources say. Again, proof that the user doesn't compromise, doesn't learn and just doesn't care. That's why I brought this dispute to the ANI: what is needed is the involvement of somebody who has the powers to enforce the rules (particularly those concerning the enforcement of consensus opinions) against editors (like NorthBySouthBaranof) with an established history of disruptive and battlegrounding editing when it comes to content disputes like this one.

In light of the above and my proposal here, the best solution is for myself, Wakari07 and Icarosaurvus to resolve this content dispute as we did here, with the added benefit of administrative monitoring here by Nil Einne to guard against disruptive editing from certain editors. The three of us were able to successfully resolve the dispute there (and that was without administrative involvement) so there's even more reason to expect that we would also be able to resolve this dispute successfully as there is administrative involvement here. I'll start the content dispute resolution process off: @Icarosaurvus: what are your opinions on the OP? Wingwraith (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to just magically decide that someone who opposes you can no longer participate in a discussion because you don't like them. That's not how any of this works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Stop wasting everybody else's time and just admit it already: you could give a flying fuck about getting this content dispute resolved. All that you care about is how best to attack anybody and anything who/that you hate which is why you are doing everything that you can to railroad this discussion; luckily for us though there is already an administrator here who can kill those delaying tactics outright. I said it then and I say it again you're not here to contribute, just look at how you handle your disagreements on this article and articles like it: instant reverts, no/meaningless discussions, groundless accusations on multiple articles, involving different editors and across days, months, years. Everybody can see it and even you don't deny it. Leave us alone already, we were doing just fine until you came along. Wingwraith (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus: ignore the filibustering attempt, can we get your opinions on the OP? Wingwraith (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to decide that I'm not here to contribute, and vulgar rants don't constitute source-based arguments. The New York Times says Benjamin "criticizes feminism and identity politics" - a fine source to support the statement that Benjamin is anti-feminist. Do you have any sources which say he isn't anti-feminist? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia- the encyclopedia that (nearly) anyone can edit. There's no reason to exclude someone entirely (me or NBSB) just because you take umbrage at their position. That won't fly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to decide who gets to contribute (that's the admin's job) on the basis of how I see "your positions," I am arguing that your contributions should be discredited (or at the least sidelined) on the basis of what you both have done. Deny it all you want but the facts don't lie: both of you reverted the text to Wakari07's version BEFORE either of you even provided an explanation on the talkpage, and now that both of you have finally contributed to this debate, neither of you care to address a single argument that is in my OP. What the hell kind of an editor who edits constructively on Wikipedia would edit like that? And it's the same pattern of disruptive editing that you two reproduce on other articles like this one: instant revert, no talkpage discussion, then more instant reverts, followed by more absence of talkpage discussion, and then (if we are lucky) a talkpage discussion that goes nowhere as you just litter it with garbage arguments. Multiple articles, involving different editors and across days, months, years. That's why it makes sense for me to say that neither of you are here to contribute: because that's what your actions prove. Also NorthBySouthBaranof you don't even know what you are writing about, nobody cares about what the NYT thinks about "Youtube right-wing channels" all that we care about is this telegraph article, the least that you can do is read the source for the news item.

Anyway the two of you can play this filibustering game by pulling out the victim card for as long as you like, but at the end of the day the content dispute has to be resolved and we'll need someone with a proven record of providing balanced and impartial third opinions to kick start the discussion. So @Icarosaurvus: can we get your opinions on the OP? Wingwraith (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have been pinged so many times here; please note I've other obligations besides Wikipedia. When there are multiple editors, one must attempt to reach consensus with all of them; failing this, the majority opinion generally rules. This may often not lead to the result one wishes, but such is the nature of scholarship, and of Wikipedia. Further, for Wikipedia in general, and for the Current Events Page, in particular, we must follow the source; we do not editorialize, though we may cut things to be more concise. Icarosaurvus (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Nobody cares what the NYT thinks — if you'd prefer, the very Telegraph article you're so attached to says it too: Benjamin, who uses the pseudonym Sargon of Akkad for his YouTube channel, is known for his anti-feminist and anti-progressive views. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The article also describes him in its article as just a controversial Youtuber without the anti-feminist and anti-progressive part (Violence breaks out as protesters storm King’s College London event featuring controversial YouTuber). Also notice how you don't address any of the other points that I raised in the OP. Wingwraith (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the news item involving Carl Benjamin describe him as a "controversial Youtuber", a "controversial anti-feminist Youtuber" or an "anti-feminist Youtuber"? (note that all three descriptions of Benjamin can be found in the news article to which the extant news item is sourced.) Wingwraith (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Anti-feminist YouTuber (edit: or anti-feminism YouTuber). Most, if not all, anti-feminist YouTubers are controversial. The fact that he's controversial can be figured out by context. ^Falling_Gravity 22:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: Can you also comment on the other points that I raised in the OP for the section above? Wingwraith (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems like his stance against feminism is a WP:DEFINING aspect of his notability. On second thought, maybe anti-feminism YouTuber would be more accurate, even if it doesn't roll off the tongue that easily. To use an analogous example, if someone is against science, we wouldn't call them "anti-scientist" but "anti-science". ^Falling_Gravity 16:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Anti-feminist YouTuber as per FallingGravity. Saying that something or someone is "controversial" is not generally descriptive, because it doesn't tell us anything about the actual controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The RfC isn't really for you, anybody who has read the above would've already known that that is your position. Wingwraith (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to tell me that I can't participate in an RfC. Any editor in good standing may participate in forming the consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The RfC isn't really for you is one of the most ~ignorant~ and insulting things i ever read on Wikipedia. Wakari07 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No-one can take away your right to speak here, NorthBySouth. No one but the admins can take away your right to vote as any other qualified non-blocked editor. Wakari07 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Anti-feminist Youtuber No reason to temper our language when doing so would go against our source's grain. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Anti-feminist Youtuber Raw information is our source's grain. Agree with Peter and NorthBySouth. Wakari07 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Anti-feminist YouTuber If you're anti-anything, you're controversial. And the T in Tube is as big as the Y in You. Without both, nobody would've heard of him (nor a lot of people). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Anti-feminist YouTuber Being labeled "controversial" is sort of poisoning the well, and has an increasingly negative connotation. Also explicitly violates the Manual of Style: see MOS:LABEL. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Anti-Feminist YouTuberYeah, I agree with you. It takes a lot to get labeled as controversial on Wikipedia, and we should be careful not to possibly poison peoples perspectives before they read the article. ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

In light of the above, I propose the following wording for this news item; @FallingGravity:, @Icarosaurvus:, @InedibleHulk:, @Mr. Guye:, @ThadeusOfNazereth: and @Wakari07: the proposal is open for comment.

Anti-fascist protesters disrupt an event that is organized by the King's College Libertarian Society which features the anti-feminist Youtuber Carl Benjamin, reportedly causing injuries to security guards and property damage. (The Telegraph)

Contributors will note that the anti-fascist and reportedly parts of the proposed news item wording originally came from ^Falling_Gravity([1]) and Wakari07 ([2]) respectively. Wingwraith (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the original wording: Violence breaks out as protesters storm an event organized by the King's College London Libertarian Society which featured Yaron Brook (Ayn Rand Institute) and the antifeminist YouTuber Sargon of Akkad. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect, this is the original wording, which is closer to my proposed wording and both of which are superior to your proposed wording: they are more neutral (contrary to the focus of the article they don't underplay the violence angle of the incident/reportage on the incident) and they have less useless (why do we care about Yaron Brook?) and vague (they tell us who exactly the protesters are) information in it. Wingwraith (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Change "Youtuber" to "YouTuber" and I'm behind you 110% (currently standing at 14%). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A quick comment: The currently selected Telegraph source doesn't even suggest the 'antifascist' bit. Wakari07 (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Based on what The Telegraph writes: "masked activists", "dressed in black", "burst into the room", "with a loud bang", other activists simultaneousy chanted, "unfurled a banner and began shouting into a megaphone which a fellow audience member attempted to grab, provoking an violent altercation." They "reportedly assaulted security guards". The activists were further described by the Telegraph as: "students seeking to 'no platform' individuals or groups", "campaigners using aggressive tactics to shut down talks and intimidate audience members". On their claim: "The action was claimed by the North London Antifa Twitter account as a successful alt-right talk shutdown." Wakari07 (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The article does that it is why it mentioned that tweet from the North London Antifa group. In any case what is your proposal? Wingwraith (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

In any case, I don't understand your first sentence, directly above here. So it would be pointless for me to try to provide an answer to your second sentence. Can you please clarify what you want from me? Thank you. Wakari07 (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wakari07: I need your proposal for the wording. Wingwraith (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the wording as it stands now. It's up to you to make an adequately sourced proposal if you want to see it changed. Who's wasting whose time here? Wakari07 (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You're the one who is wasting time here because you need to explain why it is that you support the current wording, just saying that you support it with no explanation (let alone a rebuttal to my reply to PeterTheFourth) is not good enough. Wingwraith (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Stop beating a dead horse. People have already explained why your proposal stinks. It is not supported, you need to make a solid argument for the change and get people to agree. I suggest a new section instead of this RfC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect, you explained nothing you stated your preference and then failed to respond to my criticism (i.e. my argument for the change) of your comment. For the record that is typical of the disruptive way that you edit: filibuster with a garbage argument purely because the numbers are on your side. Wingwraith (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment

In light of the above which wording for the Carl Benjamin news item should be used: option #1 or option #2? Wingwraith (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 11 March 2018

Please add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the protection template, since eg Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates is in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates -- John of Reading (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Already done by Swarm. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)