Talk:Operation Anubis

Name?

Operation Anubis = Catalonia Crisis? This seems to be two very different things. One is the name of a police operation, the other the whole political situation. I've rewritten the first two sentences to make this clear. Allt the best.--Paracel63 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Status

Considering that the polls have closed and the preliminary results published, I do not think that it would be accurate to characterize Anubis as "ongoing". However, I'm at a loss to say how it would be best be characterized. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 01:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The police operation is still ongoing amid the civil unrest, I wonder if that is still part of 'operation 'anubis' Murchison-Eye (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

According to Ada Colau, the mayor of Barcelona, there were multiple credible reports of sexual assault by Spanish police officers against voters. One woman who was filmed having her fingers bent backwards and broken one by one by a police officer, says he also fondled her breasts, although that part appears not to have been caught on camera. [1] 24.50.161.64 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Injured

There are no conflicting figures on injured. Its retarded to show conflicting claims. There were 893 who were attended in situ for various reasons (including anxiety attacks) and out of those 400 and something had to visit hospital or an abulatorio. Let's keep things real guys. Article looks silly, its Europe with official figures available not the Syrian Civil War.Gaditano23 (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but nobody beliefs the claim that morre than 400 police officers where injured. It's fake news from the Spanish government. They changed their version from 43 to more than 400 when they saw the international impact of what they did. --Gerhidt (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Rubber bullets

This edit added a content not supported by the source (bold text): "In Barcelona's Eixample district, Spanish National Police in Barcelona during the referendum using rubber bullets, which have been illegal in Catalonia since 2014."

Rubber bullets are not "illegal or banned in Catalonia". They are only forbidden for use by the Mossos d'Esquadra (replaced by foam bullets). Other security corps can use them. See: https://www.diagonalperiodico.net/libertades/22740-sevan-pelotas-goma-llegan-balas-foam.html

In addition, rubber bullets were only used in one incident: “Officers have used batons and - in one incident in Barcelona - rubber bullets to remove people from polling stations across the region, with separate footage showing police seizing ballot boxes and smashing their way in to polling centres.” I adjusted with this ref, already present. [2] [3] --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 16:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Content restored

I restored this content. It is necessary to understand and put into context the content that follows it. Perhaps we can summarize it. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Very clear violation of WP:UNDUE and the sources behind it are WP:BIASED. This content is about an unnamed woman with no relation to the referendum or to the operation. She is neither a Catalan nor Spanish official. For more information on why statements such as that - even when sourced - do not belong here, see WP:NOTWHOSWHO. For what reason would Wikipedia need an entire paragraph dedicated to attacking her reputation stemming from a hyperbolic expression of injury other than pushing a narrative? Please read WP:PLUG's section on scandal-mongering. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where we neutrally summarize significant aspects of relevant topics, and based on its guidelines this doesn't warrant a mention on the article, much less a lengthy paragraph. The version you tried adding on 11th October (ID 804957774) also has multiple clear violations of WP:EDITORIALIZING with its use of negative transitional phrases. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, but if you would like, you can put this on WikiNews instead; these projects have different standards and the added content evidently disregards Wikipedia's guidelines and per the described policies is unacceptable here. Perhaps the clearest example is Wikipedia's guideline on opinion pieces found at WP:NOTOPINION which stresses the importance of neutrality, especially on current and controversial events like this, regardless of how passionately one may want to express their point of view. The content you would like to add does not have an WP:IMPARTIAL tone by any means, and it is on subjects as controversial as this that we must give only due weight. I feel that it would be beneficial to read WP:WFE; it is an essay rather than a policy, but it has relevance here. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Content from Catalan independence referendum, 2017

Crystallizedcarbon, Calthinus I made some initial adjustments on Operation Anubis#1 October section, from the content approved on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017#Request for Comment (User:Calthinus/Violence and injuries rewrite), but we must continue reviewing. You can probably help. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 04:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel that this is a misunderstanding of the RfC process. Please note that adding a reply to the request for comments does not approve it for the article. The approval of such things comes when the request has been formally closed and a consensus has been met. As of now, the RfC remains open for active discussion and the consensus has not been determined. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Questioning the whole entry

Does the scope of the so-called "operation Anubis" extent further than the events of 20-22 September 2017 (enforcement of the rulings of the Court of Instruction #13 of Barcelona and notable consequences, that is: the mob demonstration in front of the bulding against the GC and a succint mention to the role and ulterior indiction of high-profile individuals of the Mossos, Òmnium Cultural and ANC)? If not (which is my current understanding) this article is just convoluted WP:SYNTH (starting with the first line of the entry) and relevant content should be added to 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis. I mean, 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis is the place where 1) the rulings of the Court of Instruction #13 and the mob demonstration around the GC, 2) the calling of a referendum and the passing of the "Lei de Transitorietat" in September 6-7 by the Catalan Parliament, 3) the raids in presses by the GC searching for ballots 4) the rulings of the Constitutional Court, 5) the rulings of the Higher Justice Court of Catalonia about the 1-0, 6) the massive deployement in Catalonia of anti-riot units by the Ministry of the Interior, 6) the police charges at the 1-0, et al.., makes sense instead of a mix of some of them in a strange entry under the name of "Operation Anubis", which to my humble understanding only covers 1) (despite the "source" (a translation of a mere "twitter post" apparently stating otherwise).--Asqueladd (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You are right Asqueladd. The operation was limited to the actions of the Civil Guard to comply with the orders of the trial court number 13 of Barcelona [4] [5] So we must keep information about 20 September, although probably we can also mantain 21 September.

I moved the rest to a draft, to move from there the reliable content where you indicate. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 01:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: @BallenaBlanca:. By 22 September I mean when Josep Lluís Salvadó was released from detention.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

While I am not opposed to ensuring that statements say directly what their sources said rather than producing synthesized amalgamations, it is not inaccurate to list 1 October. The Guarda Civil was enforcing orders on 1 October, and there's far more sources than twitter posts to reliably describe that. Understandably, much information could be replicated on the articles regarding the referendum and the subsequent constitutional crisis, but it would not be accurate to limit this article to 20 September and dismissive wording such as "so called" is not in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines on words to watch. The current format referring to it as a police operation lasting before and during the referendum is correct. The article's wording said "by the government of Spain" and the citation used specifically said "The Spanish Interior Ministry." That is not an example of synthesis. SYNTH is not an advocacy tool and it can only be invoked when there is a real example of synthesis. SYNTH is when an editor adds a conclusion citing multiple sources not explicitly stated by any one of the sources. The first line of this article had direct support from the first line of the cited article. That is not synthesis. To label this article's existence as an example of "convoluted synthesis" is not only not neutral, but objectively incorrect. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: At the 1-O, the deployed (by the Ministry if the Interior) units of GC and CNP were indeed enforcing orders coming from the High Court of Justice of Catalonia on behalf of the sentence of the Constitutional Court. Not the so-called Operation Anubis because that operation was "instructed" by the Court number 13 of Barcelona (and took place on 20-S/21-S, with releases from detention on 21-S/22-S) as result of a criminal lawsuit presented by Vox (as particular). The first line is SYNTH because the Operation Anubis did not happen at the 1-O, nor it relates to the Government of Spain, nor the lodged police officers in the "Piolín" were part of it, even if a tweet states otherwise.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

PD: Regarding the "words to watch", that's fine for the article mainspace, but I will editorialize my own comments in talk pages as I wish, if you don't mind.

The Spanish Interior Ministry is directly related to the government of Spain. That is exactly what the sources said, which is exactly what the article said. That is not an example of SYNTH, and if you continue to insist that it is I highly encourage you to read WP:SYNTH again. The changes in the last day massively violate our rules on neutrality as I've noticed that virtually every instance of information unsupportive of the Spanish government has been removed leaving only instances of how the Catalan demonstrators "destroyed" property. This disregard for policy is unacceptable on Wikipedia. The significant reduction of the article to only including 20 September and eliminating all statements that appear to "support" Catalan activists or appear to "condemn" the operation is a rather obvious example of WP:ADVOCACY and if this persists we may need to take this to the Arbitration Committee. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

BrendonTheWizard. Making a point here is becoming excruciatingly tedious. The point going over your head (again and again and again and...) is that the Operation Anubis took place on 20-S/21-S and the Ministry of the Interior was not significantly involved in the direction of such (judicial) operation. Currently the only source linking the name "operation anubis" to the Piolin boat and (presumably) further policial developments (1.O et al) is a translation of a "mock tweet". I won't comment on your nasty violation of WP:AGF.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Once again, synthesis is when the article's content is an amalgamation from sources without the content actually being said by any of the sources. That includes the reference to the Spanish Government on 1 October, and that is the specific instance that you marked as synthesis. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Asqueladd, you are right. Taking into account your comments and this other of BrendonTheWizard, I have rewritten the first few lines and limited the page to 20-22 September. The rest of the information (in the draft) can be incorporated to 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis. I hope you agree. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: While I think infobox templates are not the way to go for this kind of context, I've pulled some changes in order to improve accuracy.[6]--Asqueladd (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Now I think "substantially damaged" is somewhat weasel. I will correct myself.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! I do not know if it is correct or not to keep an infobox in this page. If you consider, I have no problem removing it. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 01:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: I think there is still much work to do. I would structure the sections of the article as it follows: 1 (Background) 2 (main section about the operation proper and the demonstration), 3 (the aftermath, split in turn into 3a: progressive release of the 14 detainees; and 3b: the "criminal investigation" on Josep Lluís Trapero, the 'Jordis' and Teresa Laplana because of their role regarding the 20-S event. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Asqueladd, I agree.

BrendonTheWizard it seems that you are not taking into account our explanations and opinions, the sources and our desire to cooperate to locate the information in the right pages: here the one that corresponds here and the rest, once reviewed, where appropiate. I agree to request a mediation. (By the way, I do not understand why you interleave the messages instead of putting them to the bottom. You are making the conversation more difficult.) --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If I am not adequately taking into account what you are saying I request further elaboration so I may correct my actions, but to my understanding this subsection regards what is believed to by a violation of WP:SYNTH when there does not seem to be one. As for your curiosity behind why I am not putting all messages at the bottom, I put them at the bottom of the reply chains, not at the bottom of the talk section itself. That is a longstanding standard on talk pages as it shows which messages you are replying to based on indentation. New replies at the bottom would restart the indentation. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on dates

The consensus is for:

• Support to Operation Anubis is limited to the raids of September, so does not include the actions of referendum of 1 October. Start working from this version.

Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Controversy: the dates covered by the Operation Anubis. Asqueladd and I, based on sources like this one, understand that it is the operation of September 20 and that, at most, we could include until September 22. See the conversation above. Users implicated: user:Asqueladd, user:BrendonTheWizard and myself. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying that according to sources, Operation Anubis occurred strictly on 20 September and not on 1 October. From what I've found, sources say the opposite. For example, here is an article from the non-governmental UNPO explicitly stating and by name that Operation Anubis occurred on 1 October. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well with all my respect, that page is wrong, that is a foreign organization and seems to be not well informed. A small sample of sources that reflect that the operation Anubis was the police operation of 20 of September: [7] [8] [9] [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] See also the Spanish version --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That is an impressive amount of sources, but going through them one by one yielded disappointing results.

• "El verdadero significado de Anubis, el dios del operativo de la Guardia Civil" Included no mentions of dates, the month of September, or the month of October. Has no relevance to this discussion.
• "Quiénes son las personas detenidas en la 'Operación Anubis' contra la Generalitat" Published before October 1, makes reference only to preparations of 1 October.
• "'Operación Anubis': diez millones de papeletas y golpe a los cerebros del 1-O" Published before October 1, referred to it as "the operation of 1-O" in the second paragraph. If anything, that opposes the claim that it did not occur on 1 October.

If you are to add a large handful of articles at once, please be able to ensure that they actually do support your claim. I'd also prefer that if the discussion regards whether or not this operation occurred on 1 October that sources weren't published before the date in question. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems a problem of your understanding of Spanish. Please be able to ensure that you actually understand what you read before you say the sources do not support.

• "El verdadero significado de Anubis, el dios del operativo de la Guardia Civil" 21/09/2017 "Los nombres de los operaciones policiales no suelen escogerse al azar, y el que ha elegido la Guardia Civil para denominar los registros y detenciones practicadas ayer " (= 20/09/2017) para frenar el referéndum de Catalunya no ha pasado para nada desapercebido: Anubis to denominate the searching and detentions practiced yesterday (= 20/09/2017)
• "Quiénes son las personas detenidas en la 'Operación Anubis' contra la Generalitat" 22/09/2017 (Friday) "Quiénes son las personas detenidas en la 'Operación Anubis' (...) Tres de los 14 detenidos en la operación policial del miércoles" arrested in police operation (= Operation Anubis) of Wednesday (= 20/09/2017)
• "'Operación Anubis': diez millones de papeletas y golpe a los cerebros del 1-O" 21/09/2017 "Tras más de cuatro meses de metódica preparación, el Ministerio del Interior, en coordinación con el juez de Barcelona Juan Antonio Ramírez Sunyer, dio ayer (= 20/09/2017) finalmente luz verde al inicio de la 'fase crítica' de su despliegue para cortocircuitar el referéndum: la 'operación Anubis' (dios de la muerte de los antiguos egipcios)." --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 23:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

To state that there were arrests on Wednesday, 20 September and that detentions occurred on 20 September would only have relevance in this discussion if we were talking about whether or not it happened on 20 September. Nobody is denying that it did. However, as I've already said, sources to support a claim that it did not happen on 1 October should not be published before 1 October. If they were published after the height of the conflict in September, this would be an example of news reporting on it as it starts. However, as I've shown previously, I was able to find articles published after 1 October commenting on Operation Anubis as an event that continued to occur on 1 October. This is not countered by news reports from September. For that reason, I again request that if you are to cite something that it does in fact support your claim that this event did not occur on 1 October. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

BrendonTheWizard, you are using the wrong reasoning. The sources are from September because they are the dates of the Anubis operation, as it is stated in the sources. It is not mentioned in October events because it was already over. It is not for me to prove, it is you who have to bring us reliable sources that specify that the acts subsequent to the days 20 and 21 of September corresponded to the Operation Anubis.

But anyway, we have for example this source of 16 October 2017 La juez considera que movilizaron a las masas el 20 y 21 de septiembre para impedir que se llevara a cabo la Operación Anubis contra la organización del referéndum ilegal del 1 de octubre. Note: The Operation Anubis was a police operation by the Civil Guard, following orders of the trial court number 13 of Barcelona, with the aim to dismantle the framework of the Catalan independence referendum of 1 October 2017, requisitioning ballots, envelopes, urns and making arrests (refs for this here). --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 09:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This source from UNPO that you provided is not a reliable source for this subject: it says that Operation Anubis took place on just one day, 1 October 2017 ("especially the Operation Anubis, which was carried out on 1 October 2017."), which is a clear error, we see the references that talk of September. UNPO confounds that the aim of the Operation Anubis was to dismantle the referendum of 1 October with the dates on which it (Operation Anubis) actually took place. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, this reference is even worse than I previously thought!! Makes the mistake of talking about a single day (October 1), but also does so based on a statement from "Breton people" (without taking into account that "Breton people" are not only talking about events of 1 October, double mistake from UNPO); "Breton people" talks about Operation Anubis backed by Source 1 ("All this make this Operation Anubis (1) a blatant snub to the expression of democracy."), which is not visible on this page of UNPO. But UNPO facilitates the link to the original document "in the name of Breton people" ("Read the full statement here: AgenceBretagnePress"), which is this.

Let's see what is the reference 1: oh, surprise, is the own English Wikipedia!!! "(1) Operation Anubis: (voir le site) on wikipedia, English text. More developped and for each day from September 21st to October 1st than the page in French. But see the detailed list of the persons arrested on the French page: (voir le site) (note by the translator)".

Wikipedia can not be used to reference Wikipedia, which is what we would do if we gave credit to that reference from UNPO. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 14:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I will try to make my points clearer this time:

1. This is basically the "Operation Anubis" in a nutshell: The operation Anubis was a policial operation directed by Judge Juan Antonio Ramírez (judge from the Court of Instruction no. 13 of Barcelona) SOURCE that raided several buildings of the Catalan Government on 20-S/-21S and made 14 arrests, including high-rank officers of the catalan government. The operation doesn't even have a clear connection to the General Prosecutor, and it originally came from a lawsuit presented by Vox SOURCE. The 14 detainees were released on 21-S/22-S and indicted with several criminal charges.
2. Additionally.SOURCE These are the events that took place during the Anubis Operation and their consequences: During the Operation Anubis (20-S) a massive demonstration in front of the Headquarters of the Department of Economy of the Government of Catalonia in the Rambla de Catalunya in response to a Civil Guard Unit (judicial police taking part in the Operation Anubis) entering the building took place. The damages sustained by the 3 Civil Guard Nissan Patrol happened in that demonstration SOURCE. Two days later, on 22 September, 2 leaders of the demonstration (Jordi Cuixart and Jordi Sànchez) were filed with a lawsuit (by the prosecutor of the Audiencia Nacional SOURCE) with a charge of sedition because of their role during the Operation Anubis. 2 regional police officers (Mayor Trapero and Intendant Laplana) were also indicted with a crime of sedition (SOURCE) due to an alleged passivity at helping the 10 Civil Guard agents and the Judicial Secretary at the Economy headquarters of the Catalan Government. On 25 September the lawsuit was accepted by the Audiencia Nacional judge Carmen Lamela and the Jordis became formally indicted (not as part of the Operation Anubis instruction, but because of their role during the Operation Anubis police operation). Now they are in preventive detention in Soto del Real. Alternatively Laplana and Trapero have their passports retired (again, indicted not as part of the Operation Anubis instruction, but because of their role during the Operation Anubis police operation).
3. The strange —not consumated because of the court order never arriving— failed raid in the CUP headquarters by a CNP unit on 20-S may also belong to the "operation Anubis", but it may also need to be sourced as such.
4. The rest of the entry is just a relation of Spanish National Police and Civil Guard interventions in Catalonia (including the infamous police charges on the 1-O). Of course worthy of a place in Wikipedia (for example, in the article about the Spanish Constitutional Crisis or in the entry about the 2017 Catalan independence referendum), but not as part of the "Operation Anubis".
5. Hence, I think the version where we can continue improving the entry from should the one restricted to the events related to the Operation Anubis (f.e: this one) instead of a clunky attempt at WP:OR-forking the Spanish Constitutional Crisis (such as this one)--Asqueladd (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Asqueladd, this version is a good starting point to finish improving the page. The version that BrendonTheWizard is defending is a WP:COAT and based on errors of interpretation, probably due to language barriers as we have seen. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This reference of 18 October 2017 is one of those that best explain what Operation Anubis was: "a raid against the organizers of the illegal independence referendum of October 1 ... on September 20 and 21" (and nothing more). "They are accused of directing and spurring on crowds to stage street protests on September 20 and 21 in a bid – that ultimately failed – to stop Operation Anubis, a raid against the organizers of the illegal independence referendum of October 1"

I think there can be no doubt that the page should be trimmed because the current version is a WP:COAT. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 18:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I restored the proposed version to continue improving it. I added the reference of El País [17]. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 15:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

While I do not intend to revert the edit, please note that per guidelines on requests for comments you should have waited. Per WP:ANRFC we should remember that the default length of a formal RFC discussion is 30 days, but if discussion is lacking then the preferred minimum is one week to allow other editors the option of responding (as of now the only participants in the public RFC are the same people that feuded to start it, so we have yet to receive any third opinions). We don't have a WP:SNOW consensus at the moment, so per WP:RFCEND we should allow enough time for a consensus to emerge and when ready we should request admin closure. Moving on from the premature action, I take issue with your cited rationale. The previous version was not a coat article; a police operation launched with the goal of preventing the referendum should include information on the active efforts to prevent the referendum. Initial reports happening directly after the launch of Operation Anubis, many of which were cited by you, explicitly said that this was in fact a police operation with the goal of preventing the referendum. That is the extent of what your cited sources can say about the relation of Operation Anubis to the 1O events because they were published before 1O, but unambiguously referred to its purpose as preventing the 1O vote using the Guarda Civil. To include sections on how the Guarda Civil approached the 1O vote is by absolutely no means an example of a coat, and later sections of the COAT essay made that clear. To reiterate, I do not intend to revert at the moment (though per Wikipedia's guidelines I should; you can't act on the RFC asserting it has been approved when the RFC is stll active), but if this RFC does not close with a consensus to support trimming the article I will revert it to the former version. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not closing the RFC. I am proposing to start improving the page from a specific version and I support the changes proposed by Asqueladd and modify the structure. We are currently three users in the discussion and two of us think it is the right one for this goal. There were other police actions "to stop the referendum", such as those of October 1, but did not correspond to Operation Anubis. According to the references, it is an obvious topic. You have not been able to provide any reference that shows otherwise (I will not repeat everything that Asqueladd and I have explained above). Extending Operation Anubis beyond what sources explicitly say is original work.

I do not have much experience in RCFs. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

• We can make edits, which are checked and improved by the other users and we continue talking here. In my opinion, it is also obvious that it is better to start from a smaller version and, if verifiable references are provided, expanding it; is better to be conservative to avoid misinterpretation in the meantime (look what happened with UNPO, for example...).
• Consensus is not synonymous with unanimity, but with majority.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Although there seems to be a slight language barrier as some of what you said did not seem to match what I was expressing, I will try to reiterate here -

• I did not say that you were closing the RFC, but rather that the RFC is not closed and therefore we should not yet change the article based off of this talk discussion until it is.
• While this RFC being opened was a proposal to start using a specific version, this action should have been performed after the RFC is formally closed, not during its activity. This is because the RFC is part of the dispute resolution process and its purpose is to gather a consensus determined by a third party (that third party being someone not involved in or related to the RFC discussion, in many cases an administrator).
• Consensus is neither synonymous with unanimity nor majority. Wikipedia is not a vote, so neither simply majority nor plurality are directly related to the outcome. The opening RFC statement should ideally be a simple and brief question with few (usually two) sensible outcomes (such as people starting their !votes with Support or Oppose). The outside party closing the RFC eliminates statements based on arguments in relation to Wikipedia guidelines, not based on the majority. In this case, we could assume your position to be Support for including the events of September but not October, and we could refer to my position as Oppose for preferring that it also includes the operation of 1O.
• An unclosed RFC that loosely or strongly favors a change must still necessitate that the consensus is determined as what makes these discussions different is that they're added to a category of RFC discussions making it possible to find them, so the consensus can change rapidly. An example would be a current discussion to rename the article "Typhoon Lan (2017)" to "Typhoon Lan" - most of the votes are currently in favor, but no editors should go through with the change until that has been confirmed by closure. In certain instances, there may be a strong support for "oppose" one day and a shift towards "support" several days later, so changing an article mid-discussion to reflect the "oppose" !votes in that scenario wouldn't be ideal. This could instead change the outcome to "No Consensus" in which the state of the article would be as it was before the talk page was started, necessitating that a different approach would likely be necessary. For example, there was initially a strong support to delete the article "Alt Left" until many users made the argument that it passed notability guidelines; there was no consensus, and a new discussion was started to merge the article which ended up having a "support" consensus. In this instance, there's only between 2 and 3 !votes; you and I have expressed our previous rationales, and while I'm assuming that Asqueladd also supports your proposal, his post was a comment and a clarification rather than a !vote or a rationale/argument.

BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Let's wait. Restored previous version [18] --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 14:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

Let's ask the question:

Support to Operation Anubis is limited to the raids of September, so does not include the actions of referendum of 1 October. Start working from this version.

Oppose. Work from the current version. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 16:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. As I have shown above, the references are very clear and there is no doubt [19] [20][21] --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 16:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Per sources. Operation Anubis is the name of a particular policial operation; not the name of "all the things Spanish State Police Forces have been doing lately in Catalonia". Avoid turning Wikipedia into a cog of circular referencing.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with the arguments made by Asqueladd.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2017 (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.

POV image

Do we have any more neutral images for the main infobox? ^{[Username Needed]} 10:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The main issue about the current infobox image is that the 1-O police charges do not pertain to the Operation Anubis as explained above.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Changed [22] while the RFC is resolved. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 15:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Judicial investigation

The number 198 (I've just changed) in the judicial investigation is absolutely made up. The source that points that states "Judge counts 218 wounded in the police charges in Barcelona on 1-O". That's not the only problem: this counting was only made in 30 voting stations inside Barcelona, as the source clearly points out. --Macesito (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Let's leave the total figures for Catalonia. Best. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 22:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Reversion

I restored the previous version [23], after this reversion [24]. See this discussion [25] --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Moved to talk

@Aljullu: Please, can you extract the text where this reference supports the sentences it accompanies "calling off the protest on top of a vandalised Civil Guard vehicle" and "Footage from that day, however, contradicts the version of the judge and shows that Jordi Cuixart and Jordi Sànchez climbed on top of the cars to call off the protests."? It is not open access. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: sure! The relevant paragraph is "They were accused of inciting protest against police, who were searching for ballot boxes and voting slips to be used in the referendum. But footage of the event clearly shows Cuixart and Sanchez urging the crowd to disband." In case you don't have direct access to the article, you can try searching for that sentence in Google and it will return the article from The Times. In social networks, you can also find pictures of that article from the printed version of the newspaper [26].

Btw, reverted some of your last edits which I think are clearly breaking WP:NPOV and seem to ignore the references linked in this article. This are the changes I reverted:

• preventing the exit of the Civil Guard agents

Several sources clearly say there was a human corridor all day long that was used to go inside or outside of the building.

• They smashed up several vehicles of the Civil Guard and left some agents trapped all night inside the building.

Several sources state that journalists climbed on top of the car before demonstrators. Indeed, those sources provide footage from that.

• Even though the police operations were not notified in advance to the autonomous police force of Catalonia

You have removed this sentence which I think might explain why demonstrators arrived to the building before the Catalan police could do anything.

• made 6 calls [...] which were ignored

Several reliable and recent sources contradict that.

• The solution to leave through the roof of the neighbouring building was proposed by Mossos after the court clerk rejected to use the human corridor created by the police.

Any reason why you think that's not relevant?

• calling off the protest

Again, dozens of sources, Catalan, Spanish and internal ones, many including footage, prove they were calling off the protest. Can you please explain why you removed that from the article? Please, keep in mind WP:BLP when you are posting somebody commited a crime in Wikipedia even when reliable sources contradict your statements.

I want to make it clear I'm not hard-reverting your edit. I added back some changes you did I think are not breaking WP:NPOV and are well referenced. But some of your edits seem to be clearly against WP rules. However, feel free to continue the discussion here if you don't agree. --Aljullu (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)