Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:03, 2 February 2016

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Shortcuts

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 33 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 27 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

(Initiated 94 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
(Initiated 92 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
(Initiated 91 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 44 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 43 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 33 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 32 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 30 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 27 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 26 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

(Initiated 25 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	1	31	32
TfD	0	4	4
MfD	0	5	5
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	0	89	89
AfD	0	2	2

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 249 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 72 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 69 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 67 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 57 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

RFC review request: Request for Comment: Country of Origin

Location:Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable_sources (medicine)/Archive 19#Request for Comment: Country of Origin

Specific question asked:

"Should we change MEDRS, which currently reads:
Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.
to
Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions.
This proposal is to address only the addition of high-quality sources into the guideline

Concerns over the closing of this RFC have halted its implementation. The question is specific to only High-quality sources.

Discussion

Endorse The RFC was specifically about High quality sources and this was spelled out in the RFC question. The question had a very narrow focus. The closer rightfully discounted comments that were about low quality sources as off topic. AlbinoFerret 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is nonsense; who defines what a high or low-quality source is? There is no clear-cut process that is accepted by all, and actually the entire reason for the guideline. What if you define it depending on "personal" reasons — then you nullify the entire clause? The RfC concerns sources on Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 07:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline already gives reasons not to reject "high quality" sources for reasons like funding so that argument fails. But this is not a place to reargue the merits of the RFC. 13:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
No, but it is important to note the actual coverage of the RfC, which is all sources that would go on Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 15:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sources, only high quality ones. Your statement is one of the reasons I endorse this close. The RFC was a very narrow focused one and the off topic responses were obviously discounted, and your repeating them here doesnt invalidate the close. AlbinoFerret 15:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of inclined to go with "this is nonsense", but because Albino has misquoted the guideline again, and therefore his objection is irrelevant (NB not wrong, just irrelevant). A high-quality type of study is not the same thing as a high-quality source. A systematic review is a very high-quality type of study, but it can be a remarkably low-quality source for any given statement. For example, a systematic analysis of whichever studies I have photocopies of in my filing cabinet would be a high-quality type of study and a low-quality source.
The fact that the closer made the same mistake, not to mention also introducing ideas never mentioned in the discussion at all, are both reasons to overturn it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if it is "type" or "source", I used source because thats what they are, sources. We are still talking about high quality, and simply because a high quality type or source is from a specific country is no reason to disqualify it. That premise, that just because something is from a specific country it fails, is troubling regardless of what criteria you are looking at. In any event this is off topic for a review as it is just re-arguing the RFC. AlbinoFerret 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Type of study" and "source" really are very importantly different concepts!

A meta-analysis is a type of study. They are often done well, but they can be done very, very poorly. All meta-analyses are high-quality "types of studies"; some meta-analyses are impossibly bad "sources".
A good textbook is a source. It is not any kind of scientific study at all. That doesn't mean that the textbook is a low-quality source. It just means that this particular type of source doesn't fall on the levels of evidence scales. A good textbook can be the best source for many medicine-related statements.

The disputed sentence is part of an entire section ("Assess evidence quality") on how to tell which type of study is better evidence than another. A type of study is all about scientific levels of evidence. It's not "simply high quality" or the entirety of whether a particular source can support a particular statement; it's very specifically about "high-quality types of studies" (emphasis in the original). A specific source (=a specific publication) can be a very high-quality source despite containing no scientific evidence at all. Similarly, a source could use a very good type of study – something that rates high in levels of evidence – while still being a very bad source indeed. To determine whether a source is a good one, you need to look at more factors than merely the levels of evidence (="type of study"). "Assess evidence quality" is only one of six major factors that MEDRS encourages editors to consider, (mostly) in addition to the five major factors that RS recommends for all subjects (see WP:NOTGOODSOURCE for a brief list). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, that argument failed in the RfC because editors were objecting to certain Cochrane Reviews simply because they had Chinese authors, and since Cochrane Reviews are prestigious reviews of reviews and meta-analyses, that means they are both the "highest quality source" as well as "highest quality study type". For the purposes of the RfC, there wasn't a difference, and editors who objected because of problems with lower quality references (type or source) missed the point and their votes were tossed aside. Objections were raised on the basis of potentially biased low quality Chinese published primary research (RCT's), which wasn't ever the point. Those are low quality sources and study-type . Naturally, the editors raising these objections weren't happy when their off-topic arguments were counted as such. LesVegas (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing You missed my point in again trying to explain type and source again. The point being that regardless if you are looking at type or source, country of origin as a basis for exclusion is troubling. AlbinoFerret 14:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that if you're bringing this here at this point, you should present the entire context, such as the two subsequent RfCs about the same question. Sunrise (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather start at the beginning and discuss one RFC at a time as it may not be necessary to review them all. The next RFC was closed no consensus and as a NAC I agree with that closing, but if someone disagrees with that close they are welcome to start a review for it. Though I dont know why a review for a no consensus close is necessary. There appears to be a current RFC that has recently started that I just became aware of today, but we are far from the close (about 3 weeks) of that RFC for a review, if it is necessary. AlbinoFerret 02:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be clear that whether the other RfCs should be reviewed is not the point. The point is that you selectively omitted context in a way that favors your preferred outcome. With regard to the current RfC, if you're implying that you didn't perform due diligence by reading the talk page before coming here, then I don't think that helps you. And perhaps you forgot, but you did not "just become aware of" the current RfC, because you commented in it. Sunrise (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to related discussions:

Cunard (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? was on a different topic and section of MEDRS. AlbinoFerret 14:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Questions_about_RFC_closure_-_Country_of_origin. The closer wrote "Opinion in discussion appears evenly divided between Support for either 1, or 3, or 5 with No Consensus. In addition it is #3 which is the most contested. A new RfC which would rephrase the material as something like a choice between some version of #1 and some version of #5 would likely lead to an outcome." Fountains-of-Paris" The more recent RfC overrides the previous RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QG your comment is about the second RFC, and a no consensus closing does not override a previous RFC. AlbinoFerret 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. You did not mention the other RfCs when you began this discussion. Do you stand by that decision. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I do as posted above this is a discussion on one RFC, all the rest is off topic. AlbinoFerret 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a third RfC that rejects the use of country of origin. See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#RfC:_How_to_Implement_the_Country_of_Origin_Closing. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close. The closer neglected to take into consideration comments made by others.

Revert 5. The closer was trying to force changes in.

It is suspicious the close was on 18 October 2015 and months later it is brought up here. The other RfCs show a clear consensus to not include the language that is against MEDRS to use low quality bias sources. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the second editor to perfectly explain why the close should be endorsed. The RFC question was not about Low quality sources but high quality ones. Anyone replying with a low quality source comment was off topic. Also thank you for pointing out that the RFC was ignored and the only reason it was not implemented was edit warring, hence the need for this review. AlbinoFerret 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using low quality bias sources is against MEDRS. Confirmed bias sources are not high quality sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC question specifically was talking about a section in MEDRS dealing with High quality sources and never mentioned low quality sources. Regardless of low quality sources, can you address why the close was wrong when closing on High quality sources without going off topic into low quality ones and rearguing the RFC? AlbinoFerret 17:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS should not be used as a platform to include bias sources in articles. A high-quality is not from a country of origin that is known to be bias. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that reasoning seems to exclude an entire nation's population for extraneous considerations relating to QuackGuru's subjective notions about nationality that should have no quarter here. (But the grammar problems make it less than perfectly clear.) @Kingpin13:: Do you think it's OK to advocate we reject all studies from a country even though surely some studies from all countries exhibit some bias, and no country is a source for nothing but biased studies? You've blocked users for overt bigotry before, Kingpin13. Where's the line? --Elvey^(t•c) 00:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I have never edited anywhere near this issue. A well intentioned but inexperienced closer got in the middle of an attempt to rewrite policy to win a content dispute, they gave a consensus contrary to a roughly two-thirds majority (which included some of our most respected editors[1]), and the close explanation effectively affirmed the majority concerns. The close had the good intention of saying people shouldn't baselessly reject reliable sources, but the proposed policy change is pointless once it's re-written to explain that closing intent. The community is now engaged in a clusterfuck of additional RFC's trying to respect that awkward close - by rewriting it in a way that almost no one is going to consider a meaningful improvement. This should not have gotten a consensus against the majority, not unless it's an experienced closer who knows how to send an against-majority close on a constructive course. Alsee (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this appeal is going ahead, I'll copy my comment from the long discussion at WT:MEDRS about the original close: "I don't think there's a rule about NACs while under sanctions, but I'd consider it a bad idea myself due to the necessary level of community trust. In this case there are actually connections with the RfC - Elvey's topic ban followed some highly acrimonious interactions with User:Jytdog (one of the editors !voting Oppose), and the t-ban was supported by several other editors who also !voted Oppose here. I read the close as likely being an attempted supervote, especially after their subsequent actions - joining the edit warring over the RfC result, telling editors questioning the close to "drop the stick" and other less complimentary things, and ultimately trying to archive this discussion. But either way, the close unfortunately perpetuated the dispute rather than resolving it." To clarify the first part, Elvey is under a topic ban from COI broadly construed and the closure could easily be interpreted as a violation of that as well, because conflicted sources were one of the points under discussion. Sunrise (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I find interesting is that Albino Ferret, who agreed with the close, is actually the editor endorsing its review. That shows character. Every editor opposing it, including those here, were well aware they could have Elvey's close reviewed at this administrator's noticeboard. I, other editors and even an administrator reminded everyone opposed to the close about this review process several times. But the editors who disagreed with the close resorted to edit warring to keep the change off instead of having it formally reviewed. LesVegas (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't actually surprising at all. The closing statement was so far from the actual consensus that editors have refused to allow its few supporters – namely, you and AlbinoFerret – to implement the alleged consensus. Getting Elvey's closing statement affirmed here is the only possible way to get MEDRS amended to permit you to cite studies Chinese journals that have been identified, in academic studies, as being biased due to government pressure to only publish results that support the political party line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of facts I need to correct. First, there have been many supporters beyond Albino Ferret and myself. In the original RfC there were 7 for the change and several more editors have come along since and voiced their support. Even DocJames said the sources in question (Cochrane Reviews with Chinese authors) were undoubtedly of the highest quality. And this isn't about the Chinese published journals you speak about and never has been, although even in the worst case scenario evidence shows that they are still more reliable than much research with industry funding, and we already prohibit rejection of these sources based on funding. That was a point that nobody refuted in the RfC and one that the closer commented on. The final tally was 9 opposed to 7 support (if you read Herbxue's in the misplaced section below), but all but 1 of those 9 votes opposed were votes that failed to stay on topic and didn't stay relevant to the actual question asked in the RfC. As Albino Ferret (who has closed many RfC's) said, an experienced closer would throw these out. The 1 vote opposed that did have a partially relevant point was Richard Keatinge's, and this point was rightfully mentioned in and became part of the close. LesVegas (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, MEDRS does not insist that editors use research paid through industry funding. What it does say is that you can't toss out sources with a higher levels of evidence because of your personal objections (i.e., something not widely supported in academic literature) to the funding source in favor of lower levels of evidence. You may not substitute a cherry-picked primary source for a widely respected meta-analysis merely because you believe that the author is a surgeon and is therefore gets paid to prove that surgery works (=real example, and the one that prompted the addition of that line to the guideline). That canard has indeed been refuted, by me at least twice.

If you're interested in financial conflicts, then you'll want to read the section of MEDRS at WP:MEDINDY.

I agree that you and AlbinoFerret are not the only editors to have supported this change. AFAICT, you two are the only ones who continue to push for its inclusion against the actual consensus there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I'm afraid this really isn't the forum to discuss this. We've already gone round and round about industry funded primary research making its way into higher levels of evidence many times, which was always the point. So I'll have to politely decline discussing this further here so as to not overburden potential reviewers with in-depth side arguments we have already gone back and forth on many times. LesVegas (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I am glad to see this here. The closer, Elvey, has a block log as long as my arm. The latest restriction (not in the log) was a community imposed TBAN from COI matters, imposed here on August 7 2015, due to disruptive behaviors, mostly directed at me, over COI matters. I am strongly identified with WP:MED around here, and I was dismayed to see Elvey close the subject RfC just a couple months after that TBAN was imposed. He doesn't ususally close RfCs, and in my opinion this was yet more disruptive behavior, clearly going against the established WP:MED editors who were uniformly opposed to the motion, and supporting the alt-med editors who were arguing on its behalf. (The origin of the RfC was the desire of advocates of acupuncture to use sources from China that present acupuncture in a favorable light, when there is a boatload of evidence that these studies are poorly done and controlled; these editors have continued even here to make the inflammatory argument that the exclusion is due to racism or bias, when the problems are well established in the literature as I pointed out in my !vote here) Elvey himself made ~~that~~the "bigotry" argument just now in this dif with edit note: "Nationalist bigotry?"

I'll add here that Elvey ignored the COI TBAN and is on the verge of getting a 3-month block for doing so per This ANI thread, with an additional TBAN for SPI matters added (per Vanjagenije's comment to him here.)

And I'll close by saying that in my view the close did not reflect the policy-based arguments that were given, and again in my view it was just disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC) (redacted for clarity per markup Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. The problem lies in part with the way the sentence is written (my bold):

"Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions."

If it said "do not reject a high-quality study" because of country of origin, that would make sense – if it's a high-quality secondary source we should use it no matter what country it stems from. But what is a "high-quality type of study"? A secondary source (e.g. a meta-analysis) is not ipso facto high quality. So that implies that, when choosing a low-quality study (but a supposedly high-quality type), we can't factor in where it comes from, and that makes no sense.

It would be better to say something like: "Do not reject a high-quality source simply because you do not like its inclusion criteria, references, funding, country of origin or conclusions." Discussion can then focus on quality, rather than origin. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are trying to use MEDRS to include low-quality sources in articles from a country of origin that is known to be bias and of low quality and pass it off as a high-quality source. QuackGuru (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs please, showing where my close is being used logically by at least 2 editors to support that. I ~~bet~~ guarantee you can't find any because it doesn't justify that. I don't believe I wrote it in a way that would allow it to be used to do so. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, yes, but I think the change of wording will help. It now says: "Do not reject a source that is compliant with this guideline because of personal objections to inclusion criteria, references, funding sources or conclusions." If you add "country of origin," it won't cause so much harm now, because it is only talking about high-quality sources, rather than implying that any secondary source (e.g. meta analysis) is high quality, and that therefore any meta analysis is fine by definition. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV I think the wording of your actual edit is very well crafted. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the close. The RFC was based on a false premise - that nationality was being capriciously used to reject sources (the main issue is pro-acupuncture editors who dislike the well-documented fact that Chinese studies on acupuncture effectiveness are unreliable due to systemic bias; the changed wording does not affect this due to the reference to quality). Practice will not change. Chinese-authored and published studies on acupuncture remain suspect, North Korean studies promting "brand new" ideas originating in North Korea remain suspect, and in both cases we have reliable independent sources to show that they are unlikely to meet quality thresholds due to systemic bias. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note. There is consensus to overturn the close but it is being forced in against consensus. An admin should consider a topic ban for User:LesVegas. On User:LesVegas' user page it says "I've been a resident for the past decade and have also lived in China for 2 years." User:LesVegas has lived in China and the user wants to include Chinese journals in articles.QuackGuru (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you disruptively revert the action of an administrator who reviewed the RfC and I am the one who needs to be topic banned simply because I've lived in China? Hahaha. LesVegas (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boghog is not an admin and the edit was not the specific text from the close. See WP:CLOSE. Are you providing COI information on your user page regarding China? QuackGuru (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break QuackGuru, you know all too well Jamesday was the administrator I was talking about. You complained about his edit, the one you reverted, in the talk section on MEDRS. Your pretend ignorance is even worse than it was back when I had to deal with you regularly. LesVegas (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you or anyone one else continues to push this nonsense then I think ArbCom is around the corner. QuackGuru (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi admins, just want to note that Jamesday's creative but out-of-process approach below, has not helped settle things but instead has become the subject of edit warring in the guideline and further dispute on the article Talk page. The need remains for an in-process decision whether to uphold or overturn the close that is the subject of this thread, so that we can take it from there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A decision of sorts from a previously uninvolved administrator

As an editor and administrator who started here some twelve years ago and who has not previously been involved in these discussions I have reviewed this discussion and the past RfCs on the country subject and have come to the following conclusions:

there can be legitimate reasons to reject the use of sources from a country but it is unlikely that all sources on all subjects will be unreliable.
the underlying cause of dispute is trying to find an all or nothing wording when in fact in most cases there will be no concern but in some there will be grounds for legitimate concern.
the requirement to reject based on country of origin must be made for the narrowest reasonable range of fields and based on established consensus.
if required, consensus should be sought on what the narrowest reasonable range of fields is.

As a result I have partially overturned and partially accepted the various RfCs and added this text:

"Country of origin is sometimes given as a reason to reject a source. That is not generally appropriate but there are clear cases where it can be an issue. For example, studies of the effect of diet could well have been an issue during the Soviet-era famine in Ukraine and today it is legitimate to wonder whether studies relating to this issue from North Korea might not be entirely neutral or fully authoritative, both because the subjects are politically sensitive and might lead to political interference in scientific research. If you believe that a country is not a good source, before rejecting studies based on that origin you must:

seek consensus that for the area of knowledge involved, that country should not be regarded as a suitable source.
try to avoid an all studies from the country decision, even a country with poor standards and much political interference may have some good sources.
after consensus is obtained, place that list in a suitable meta page location so that all of the restrictions are known and can be subject to revisiting as required."

Naturally, I expect consensus-seeking on where such a list should be placed, if consensus is that an item needs to be placed on such a list.

As with many disputes here, this is not a black or white decision but rather one with many different shades and it is desirable to consider specific cases, not reject outright or accept outright black or white.

Please move on from the is it or isn't it a factor and on to trying to establish consensus on specific areas where specific countries as sources are concerns. If you think you can provide suitable references for rejecting everything from a country go for it and see whether you can establish that as consensus. I expect that you will have a far higher prospect of success if you seek a narrower consensus than that but if you want to try it you might be able to succeed.

In essence, this is a recognition that it may be necessary and beneficial for the community to recognise that certain sources - publications or individuals or institutions, perhaps, not just countries - might be unreliable in certain areas and to move towards a process whereby the community might formalise such a list after discussion of each case.

Do you disagree? If so, please explain here why you do not believe that it is possible or desirable for consensus to be sought that a particular source is in effect to be regarded as not of high quality in a particular area based on country of origin. Since consensus-seeking is how we decide most things, expect that to be a high bar to pass but if you think you can get others to accept it, no harm in trying. Jamesday (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamesday. First, thanks for trying to take action and I understand the sense of what you wrote and the effort to solve the problem. However, there are a few problems with this.

First, it is out of process. An RfC was held and closed, and the close is being challenged. The only real options here are to uphold it, or overturn it. I reckon you could do a new close, but that would have to comply with WP:CLOSE, which leads to...
Secondly, it seems to me that you don't have the right to craft a solution not discussed in the RfC itself or the discussion and impose it. In my view nobody does - not in a close (or re-close) and not as you have done here. Your proposal can be put in an RfC to see if it will fly, of course.

Therefore would you please withdraw your statement, or re-frame it? And I do thank you again for the BOLD effort. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this as NOTBURO and IAR. Strictly speaking, James can't do this, but if it sticks it will resolve a large part of the main problem. There are changes I'd like to see, but since the text (as I understand it) isn't being presented as a consensus result I think that can be done through the usual process, preferably after a short break to let tensions reduce. Sunrise (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he actually implemented it in MEDRS, in this dif, as though it is authoritative. I appreciate the BOLDness but it is not a solution that can stick, and the manner in which it was done is going to cause more trouble. In contentious things like this, we need good process. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong - I think the best decision would have been to simply close this as overturn. This action adds unnecessary complications to the issue, but I think that opposing it is likely to cause more confusion than not. I don't expect this to stick permanently, and I don't think it's authoritative or intended as such. The advantage I see is to finally end the discussion about the original close and the associated drama, including making the current RfC obsolete, so we can restart from the current (speculative) revision. Since this discussion isn't closed yet, hopefully it will just be recognized as a consensus to overturn. In the absence of that, I think the best outcome is to leave the text in for a few weeks, and then start editing to bring it in line with consensus - and I find that acceptable, if not optimal. Sunrise (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all contributors. As the various processes are going nowhere at immense length, a little boldness may well be in order. I do suggest that Jamesday's specific examples are inappropriately speculative - I would hope for RS rather than supposition. As one example, you might like to consider Controlled Clinical Trials. 1998 Apr;19(2):159-66. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R. (China, Japan, Taiwan, Russia are mentioned.) I also suggest that all of the new texts proposed are at best examples of bloat, and that a better way of dealing with the problem is to take what RS say, and write the article properly. For example, a section on trials might appropriately start with the point that RS find them to be based on invalid work, and then outline what they say. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Keatinge's objection seems to be based on an 18 year old publication involving primary studies, not systematic reviews or meta-analyses, likely not published in reputable journals, likely not high-quality, and none of those sources would ever see the light of day onto Wikipedia for about 10-15 other reasons in MEDRS . Country of origin need not even be one of those reasons. China is a completely different country than it was 18 years ago, by the way. Following Jamesday's reasoning that "country of origin" is a valid reason to reject a source only in the narrowest of instances, objectors have shown evidence that we should reject primary studies on acupuncture published in China 18 years ago. And I agree that we should. But frankly, we don't even need to reject sources like that on where they originate; they fail the MEDRS barometer in many other ways. I know there may be other studies out there looking at the possibility of publication bias that are newer, but these also involve primary studies with no evidence any attention was paid to quality. Hence, the RfC was always about "high quality" research. It goes beyong Chinese studies on acupuncture, by the way. Jamesday noted country of origin to have been an issue in his 12 yr editing career; I have also dealt with (the very same) editors rejecting Russian research on GMO's because of its country of origin. Fortunately, some of these editors are now topic banned from the GMO subject, but they are not banned from rejecting sources elsewhere based on country of origin. This needs to change. Rejecting a source should be limited to source quality, journal integrity, if it's primary research, etc, ie if it's low quality based on its merits outlined in MEDRS. Industry funded studies have also shown the same (or worse) issues objectors note with Chinese sources on acupuncture, and we don't reject sources based on "funding source" (noted by Elvey in the close) and yet some editors act like the world will end if they can't reject a source based on where it's published or what country its authors are from. We can treat sources from other countries just like we have been treating industry funded research for years: reject it because it's a primary study, reject it because it's published in a disreputable journal, but not because it's funded by Pfizer or Coca Cola. The world will go on and keep spinning, I promise. LesVegas (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LesVegas. This does make your position slightly clearer. I'm sorry, but to outlaw the obvious and valid conclusions of highly significant RS such as BMJ. 1999 Jul 17; 319(7203): 160–161. Review of randomised controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine. Jin-Ling Tang, Si-Yan Zhan, and Edzard Ernst is, frankly, not compatible with writing a good article. The acupuncture article needs a lot of rewriting to give a coherent presentation - at present there is no coherent story, it's "balanced" between desperately selected pro and anti assertions and the overall result is a mess. I hope we can spend our time building an encyclopedia, starting with a well-written, comprehensive, NPOV article on acupuncture. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too, Richard. Did you notice your new link was 1) from 1999 and 2) was also involving RCT's (primary studies)? I appreciate the intention to hope for good quality sources on our articles. I just want to mention again that those specific objections are based on terrible research we'd reject for several other reasons, other than country of origin. And I should mention that the BMJ is routinely rejected as a source on the acupuncture article (but only when it shows positive findings). Not saying it's unreliable, I think the BMJ is highly reliable, just saying others on the page feel otherwise. I do very much agree with you that the acupuncture article is terribly imbalanced. The story and history of it do take a backseat to "pro" and "anti" arguments and conflicting minutiae in a wide variety (but not the widest variety) of evidence. My entire efforts were aimed at widening the variety. Perhaps there are better ways, though. By the way, initially, when I read the decision (or proposal?) by Jamesday, I was glad to finally see some resolution. Now I'm starting to wonder if it doesn't open up a path to even more conflicts and arguments, when we need to all be focusing on "building an encyclopedia" anyway? While I agree that things need to be done by consensus, I guess I'm skeptical if that will ever happen in the case these sources, or if we need to find some better way in which we can all agree on how to improve articles like this. LesVegas (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been far too much time wasted in attempts to ignore the well-supported fact that some academic jurisdictions show systematic and extreme bias on some subjects. (What on earth do you mean by "terrible research?) We should use this fact to improve the article. To make useful progress with your argument you would need to present RS that convincingly state that the relevant academic jurisdictions are now free from bias in these subjects. I will be very surprised if you can present any such RS (but do give it a try, I might well change my opinion). In the meantime, some bold rewriting may be a more constructive use of everyone's time. We might even come up with a consensus on a good article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By terrible research, I'm talking about the RCT's themselves. By MEDRS standards, they're very old and they're primary studies and probably not from reliable journals either. We wouldn't use them anyway. I'm actually agreeing with you it's better to focus on working towards consensus on improving articles like Acupuncture. LesVegas (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks again. Are we coming to a consensus that RS can be used to identify a large group of studies as very dubious? And, while I'm at it, that the results of those dubious studies are not improved by being included in further reviews? If so, we may make some serious progress. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe we can agree on the ends, maybe we always have, but I always believed (and still do) that rejecting high level research on the grounds of low level research possibly having publication bias, is wrong. I am more inclined to believe we should reject it on those grounds in the case of industry funding, for which there is a slew of well regarded, respectably published, and current reviews which show unreliability of trials in those cases, and yet we are specifically prohibited from doing so by MEDRS, so I always believed "country of origin" wasn't a valid reason, in and of itself, to reject research on that basis alone. I still don't. But, yeah, I will concede there's probably a lot of crap that got published in China. But I think MEDRS already keeps that off our encyclopedia anyway. I have always said it was never my intention to have low-quality, low-level research on this encyclopedia or on the acupuncture article. Nobody believed that, and because nobody AGF, we're here. At any rate, I think we both probably have the same goals, maybe just different ways of getting there, so perhaps we should discuss how to go about achieving better consensus on the means and methods instead? LesVegas (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concern here is that people are trying to rewrite a guideline to prevent us taking account of the verified fact that there is systemic bias in some jurisdictions. This will introduce an inevitable tension between WP:V, WP:RS and a subject-specific guideline which is being attacked by people who wish the evidence were not developing as it is. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We may however be getting somewhere. LesVegas, forgive me for pressing a point, but would you agree that aggregated / reviewed / meta-analyzed publications that are based on probably-invalid primary studies share the invalidity of their primary studies? The idea that invalid studies can be aggregated into valid ones strikes me as simple nonsense, not even rising to the level of a fallacy. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I would be willing to agree entirely to the idea that invalid primary studies would make for bad outcomes in meta-analyses or systematic reviews that did not take their invalidity into account. But that's, as I said, an idea, and the reality we're dealing with is a bit more complicated. Here's why:

1. We don't actually have any sources saying, definitively, publication bias is the reason Chinese, Russian, Taiwanese, etc studies in a review published in 1998 had statistically significant positive outcomes. 100 percent positive outcomes do sound very suspicious, I agree wholeheartedly. But it's important to remember that there may, indeed, be other reasons. One might very well be the political and cultural environment in the China back then. While that's used as an argument to oppose inclusion, it can work the other way too. The government of China, in an effort to validate acupuncture, might very well have only funded studies on things like back pain, frozen shoulder, migraine headaches, and so on, because they knew acupuncture worked for these conditions. They might not have funded studies to see if acupuncture worked for, say, Alzheimer's or Crohn's Colitis or ventricular tachycardia, because it would have been a waste of their money. So that could be a factor for extremely high positive results. It's actually somewhat likely that was the case because they, comparatively, weren't even doing many studies back then and were still relatively new to modern research methods, i.e., so you don't want to waste your money on negative findings anyway.
2. But let's say for the sake of argument that all of the studies in the Vickers review are crap. While the study you and Guy refer to was published 18 years ago, the primary studies Vickers uses for his findings goes back all the way to 1966! Trying to invalidate published meta-analyses in 2016 based on primary research conducted 50 years ago is a very problematic argument.
3. There's no evidence the primary studies from 1966 to 1995 have been aggregated into meta-analyses in 2016. If they did, they should probably not be considered high quality sources for using such old, stale research anyway. Even if they were high-quality-type studies (meta-analyses, reviews), they wouldn't be high quality, and would and should be invalidated for those reasons.
4. Final point: yes, I'm sure there have been garbage Chinese studies published at various times throughout history. I'm also sure some garbage studies are still published in China, although I'm also sure it's less than it once was. But I'm also sure garbage sources are published in the West. Invalid primary studies conducted by industries that promote their products are already protected in MEDRS. We cannot reject high quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses based on funding sources, even if "invalid" primary research composes these higher quality-type sources. Even if that were the right thing to do, it would be highly impractical to go through every single study and determine if it's tainted or not. So what do we do? Hold bad Western studies in high regard and piss on bad Chinese studies, and pretend there's no hypocrisy? NPOV states we have to be consistent, and there's no better place to do it than in our guidelines.

You might not agree with everything I said, but at least you know why I believe as I do. That said, here's what we can probably agree on: I would prefer to not see low-quality Chinese research that comes to wild conclusions on the acupuncture article, so I think that's our likely starting point in a compromise. But for the reasons I outlined above, I'm not really budging on the "country of origin" issue, and I many other editors feel strongly on that point too. So I think we'll need an out-of-the-box solution to achieve an end we both would like to see. It's probably not the right forum for that, here, but I do have something in mind that you'd probably agree with. I'll ping you about it later. LesVegas (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Leaving aside the related, but separate issue of funding sources, I repeat that when RS tell us that an identifiable group of studies is so biased as to be invalid, we should use this, and when this is uncontested (sorry, but your speculations above aren't really helpful) we should use it to frame our discussion of the studies in question. I don't doubt your good faith, but your arguments are clutches at nonexistent straws. I hope that you can maintain enough detachment to help give the article its desperately needed rewrite. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring after uninvolved admin action

Sadly the page had a slow edit warring to reverse the actions in the sections above. I requested page protection, but its only for 3 days. An uninvolved admin should look into this and perhaps formally close this section, and if the result is to reopen, close he RFC again. AlbinoFerret 01:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long term abuse

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long_term_abuse

– Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Motion: Future Perfect at Sunrise case request, integrated version I think we should start thinking about whether TW and the standard UI can be tweaked to provide a "long term abuse" flag, to help build best practice into everyday actions. For example, patrollers may be dimply aware of LTA and may revert edits linked to same (as was the case with Grawp and Willy On Wheels years back), but our structures mean that centralised data collection is difficult. I am not thinking of anything massive here, just a checkbox "possible long term abuse" or some such which flags all parties to step back and cross-check. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably be better at WP:AN. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle feature requests belong here (and you need GitHub account). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 15:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy: I definitely agree that this should be reposted/moved to WP:AN where Admins can discuss it in more detail. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, I think this is a good idea regardless of the fate of that particular motion. WT:TWINKLE is another good place for suggestions on-wiki. Having a consistent way of labeling actions as LTA reverts would also help in data collection about how much abuse comes from a particular case and how much time and effort is being spent dealing with it. I imagine it'd be more persuasive to show good data about a problem if/when we have to ask the WMF for assistance dealing with it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have LTA and had for years, the problem is 1) It is basically moribund, no one clerks it or does anything to new requests to update or add new cases and 2) It is not prominently linked from anywhere nor frequently referred to. I'm not sure if 1) is a cause of or an effect of 2) but those are major issues. I've noted twice in as many months on this very board that Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Pending approval has not had any action on it in quite some time, some pending requests have been around for many months with no one approving or declining addition to the main list. I've not worked on that particular task in the past, and it isn't really in my skill set, but there are users who ARE good at clerking similar boards (like SPA or ARBCOM) and it would just require people with that skill set for taking up the ball and running with it. I think it SHOULD be a working process that allows us to refer others to problem cases, and where we can keep historical data on problematic trolls and other badly disruptive users so patterns and the like can be more easily recognizable. The process exists, we just need a dedicated group of users who are willing to maintain it. Since no one is, it has basically died, but not for lack of usefulness, just for lack of anyone doing anything to keep it useful. --Jayron32 00:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to spend some time to publish some of those LTA reports; are there any instructions anywhere that I can follow on what needs to be done? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- A lot of LTA these days is dealt with via SPI. That being said, LTA is pretty damn moribund. NativeForeigner ^Talk 16:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's still useful, mostly for the subtle vandalism that requires an explanation – for example, "Oh, that's the cause-of-death vandal. Yes, his edits sometimes look constructive, but if you examine them closely, they're hoaxes." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree. Was just making two separate factual observations, I wasn't implying causation one way or the other. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I would certainly consider a case on this if one arose. I was outvoted on whether to hold such a case in the matter mentioned here, but I cannot predict what I would have in the end said if we had held such a case. There are in such matters difficult factors of balance. There is in most instances a difference between the magnitude of the latest precipitating event and the general history, and I can see no fixed rule for making such decisions. The role of admin action and arb com is to prevent disruption, not punish past disruption. We always need to predict and there is no way to do this securely except in the most obvious instances. It will always be a matter of personal judgment, which means that in almost all instance there will be profound disagreement. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC tagging by bot, and all of my changes after review being undone-request for admin oversight

Recently the Non-free_Scout_logo_nocontent tag was TFDd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_6#Template:Non-free_Scout_logo_nocontent) and replaced by User:Primefac as "replacing template use per TFD outcome using AWB". On his talkpage, Primefac was notified by User:Marchjuly that the images should be judged on a case-by-case basis, "many of the "Non-free Scout logo nocontent" tags were added a long time ago and either simply ignored by the uploader (and tus the problem remains) or never removed when the problem was fixed. I think many of the images you have tagged do have non-free use rationales; the question is whether they are valid nfurs.". The deprecated Non-free_Scout_logo_nocontent tags were bot-mass-replaced without review, vide https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Primefac&offset=&limit=500&target=Primefac for January 21, 2016, too many to diff-list here.

Yesterday I went down the list and added appropriate text to several dozen of these images in article space.

In several others I found that the old Non-free_Scout_logo_nocontent tag had not been removed even after the issue had been corrected years earlier; the tag should have been removed years ago as each issue was addressed. User:Gadget850, who placed the tags 4 years ago, retired in July 2015. It's easy to tag-and-forget, we've all done it.

In yet others I found there was no justifiable reason for the image, so I did not remove the NFCC tag. I proceeded to work on all these images.

Later yesterday, marchjuly undid all my edits, claiming "Re-added template. An administrator will remove it after assessing it". I have seen how the regular image-issue admins deal with images, almost always favoring deletion.

Again today, marchjuly just follows behind me and undoes all my edits without concern for their merit, or following to see where the images actually link.

I am asking for an impartial administrator to look at each of these images in turn. The only way I think these can be reviewed impartially is by an admin who does not frequently get involved in image deletions. Case-by-case may take longer, but it is much more honest than a steamroll mass deletion. There is no reason for them all to be deleted because they all have the same, often inaccurate tag.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged so I'll respond. It appears that as result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 6#Template:Non-free Scout logo nocontent, files which had been tagged with the deprecated {{Non-free Scout logo nocontent}} were being re-tagged with {{di-fails NFCC}} by Primefac. I have quite a number of files on my watchlist, so when I noticed a few of these changes I posted at User talk:Primefac#Non-free files related to scouting/guilding and asked about it. I then added more of the files which were tagged to my watchlist so that I could go back a take a closer look. I saw Kintetsubuffalo removing the "di" templates often with the edit sum "old tag had improperly been left on" or "appropriate text commentary added". While it's true the templates were added by a bot, the non-free concerns in many of the files were not and have not been resolved. The template instructions also say "Note that if you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image. You can also place comments on the image talk page." which I assumed means that only an administrator should remove them and that Kintetsubuffalo doing so was premature. So, I re-added the templates and then began posting comments on file talk pages, such as File talk:Druze Scout Association.png#Non-free usage, File talk:Scouts Polynesiens.svg#Non-free usage in Conseil du Scoutisme polynésien, File talk:Iraq Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Council 1980s.png#Non-free usage in "Iraq Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Council" and "Rub el Hizb", File talk:Catholic Scout Association in Israel.png#Non-free usage in Arab and Druze Scouts Movement or File talk:Scouting in Saint Martin-Sint Maarten.png#Non-free usage, explaining my take on the non-free usage of the image. My intent was to get to all of the files which were tagged and post similar messages on their talk pages. In the same manner, any editor including Kintetsubuffalo could also post on a file's talk page and comment on the file's non-free usage. My understanding of the template is that the administrator who eventually reviews the file will look at the talk page for comments and then decide what to do. If re-adding the tags was inappropriate on my part, then it was a mistake made in good faith and I apologize to Kintetsubuffalo and anyone else involved. I am assuming that the administrators know to look at the talk page and decide or suggest that further discussion is needed via WP:FFD. If it's more appropriate, however, to nominate them now for FFD instead of waiting for the speedy to be resolved, then I will go back and self-revert and add {{Ffd}} instead. I just want to add that I did not remove any of the images which were tagged by Primefac, I simply re-added "di" tags which I felt were inappropriately removed. The only scouting logo I have removed today was here per WP:NFCCE because it lacked the non-free use rationale required per WP:NFCC#10c and was being used in a gallery which is typically not allowed per WP:NFG because such usage is considered to be decorative and fail WP:NFCC#8.

As for Again today, marchjuly just follows behind me and undoes all my edits without concern for their merit, or following to see where the images actually link, I think that might be in reference to this edit where I did revert Kintetsubuffalo, but only because they reverted here which actually re-added the incorrect article to the non-free use rationale and was unnecessary since Salavat had already fixed the problem here. I've tried to explain this at User talk:Kintetsubuffalo#File:Movimiento Scout Católico.svg so hopefully that particular edit is no longer an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you've specifically directed the admins and interested parties to look at the talk page, there is no evidence to suggest that they do indeed look at the talkpages, and I have been involved in enough of these deletions over 10 years to see that.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template clearly says "Administrators: Check the image talk page for comments before deleting this file." I am not aware of any way to specifically direct an administrator's attention to the file's talk page other than by posting on the talk page itself. If a file is deleted in error, then it's undeletion can be requested via WP:REFUND, can't it? A post may also be made on the deleting admin's user talk page asking for clarification and whether they checked the file's talk page before deleting it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some variant of {{Hang on}} seems to be needed here, like how {{Di-replaceable fair use}} has instructions to apply {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed}}. (Template:Hang on immediately categorizes pages it's on into CAT:CSD, so it's probably not a good idea to use it directly.)

Speaking solely for myself, though I don't usually monitor CAT:DFUI, I do do a fair amount of work in the other nonfree image deletion categories. I don't notice comments on file talk pages until after deleting their files mainly because they're essentially never relevant - out of the tens of thousands of images I deleted last year, I remember exactly one having a comment that wasn't either a Wikiproject banner or vandalism. —Cryptic 08:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK Cryptic. Is there another way to direct an admin to check the talk page before deleting the image since there seems to be no "hang on" for this situation? Can you just post something on the main file's page? For example, something like the following:

Administrators: Please check the file's talk page because comments regarding its non-free usage have been posted there.

Otherwise, I don't know how to tell an admin to look check a file's talk page any better than what the template currently says. Even if it's common practice for admins to not check file talk pages before deletion (thus making any talk page post basically pointless), there's still the "Note that if you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image." Isn't that still more appropriate than simply removing the template before it has been reviewed by an admin? Once again, I only re-added the templates because I thought that they could only be removed by an admin after they had verified whether there was a problem with the file's non-free use. If anyone can remove them, then I will self-revert and nominate those files which I feel do not satisfy the NFCC for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Would that be an acceptable way to try and resolve this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|Please see the talk page and this}} at the very top would be more likely to be seen, and I don't think anyone who wants these images deleted would object to them moving to WP:FFD; but neither of those methods are going to fulfill Kintetsubuffalo's (entirely reasonable) request for an admin who doesn't normally work in image deletion to look at these. —Cryptic 09:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-added the same templates that were removed. Your suggestion of "di-replaceable fair use disputed" seems workable, but that's mainly used for NFCC#1 issues, isn't it? As for a non-image admin looking at files, that's fine because I only re-added the templates so that the files could be reviewed by any admin. But, that review would be because the files are tagged for speedy deletion. Even if they do not meet the conditions for speedy, that does not preclude them being nominated for discussion at FFD, does it? I mean articles which are inappropriately tagged/declined for speedy or are de-prodded can still be brought to AfD, can't they? Doesn't the same also apply to files? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold per Cryptic's above suggestion and went ahead and added {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} to all of the file's where I re-added {{di-fails NFCC}} tags. This is hopefully acceptable to Kintetsubuffalo since it will be pretty hard for any reviewing administrator not to see the new template. I believe I got all of the files I re-tagged, but please let me know if I missed any and I will add the template asap. Or, another editor can add it if they want. I did not re-re-add a "di-fails NFCC" tag to File:Scouts du Burkina Faso.png even though I still think there are still some outstanding NFCC issues which need to be resolved. I will discuss those at WP:FFD. I will also start a discussion at WT:NFC to and ask that the wording of templates such as "di-fails NFCC" cannot be clarified a bit to avoid any confusion and also make mention of "di-replaceable fair use disputed" or a similar template for those contesting such nominations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MarchjulyFWIW, I appreciate your efforts to go back and add the clearer tag. We're still at cross-purposes, but that was big of you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think we've disagreed about stuff in the past and probably will do so again about something else in the future, but I also think we are both here to try and improve Wikipedia and are acting in good faith. As I said in my above post, if I missed a file or two, or if there are other files which were tagged, then feel free to add Cryptic's suggestion to the file's page right below the "di-fails NFCC" template. The only thing you need to remember to do is to remove the "tlp|" from {{tlp|Di-replaceable fair use disputed|Please see the talk page and [[WP:AN#NFCC tagging by bot, and all of my changes after review being undone-request for admin oversight]]}} so that the template is not treated as a wikilink. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this tempest in a teapot can't be resolved. I support Kintetsubuffalo in his effort to fix the images and their templates. --evrik ^(talk) 03:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago, users added {{Non-free Scout logo nocontent}} to file information pages, confirmin that the files violated WP:NFCC#8. The only thing which happened in 2016 was that the syntax was changed: one template saying that the files violate WP:NFCC#8 was replaced by another template saying that the same files violate WP:NFCC#8. If a file no longer violates WP:NFCC#8, or if the original template was misapplied, then I assume that the admin who evaluates the tags will remove the tag and possibly remove the file from some pages but keep it on pages where its use is appropriate.

This matter also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Tidying up "di-XXXX" templates for non-free use. I left a comment on that page about talk pages and templates for disputing tags. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note that I'm about to go through all 163 files which are up for deletion as of today in Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 21 January 2016. Thought I'd point out that I am aware of this discussion. — ξ ^xplicit 02:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted 147 images. As expected, most did in fact blatantly violated WP:NFCC; I tagged seven talk pages with {{G8-exempt}} as some sort of discussion transpired, which I felt was reasonable to archive. I removed the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag from remaining the 16 images, as there was reasonable cause for a full discussion at WP:FFD. — ξ ^xplicit 04:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an appropriate action. Please restore the images. --evrik ^(talk) 21:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How was it not? These images were tagged with {{Non-free Scout logo nocontent}} for violating WP:NFCC for years, something User:Kintetsubuffalo agreed with when expressed that he wouldn't argue for the retention of 80% of the images [2]. Even then, I didn't delete over a dozen because they required more discussion at WP:FFD. As I mentioned before, these images blatantly violated policy and User:Marchjuly, at times backed by User:Stefan2, adequately provided reasoning in several talk pages like they did on File talk:GirlGuiding New Zealand 2007-2008.png. I fail to see what part of any of this was not the appropriate action. You may not agree with the policy, but that's another matter entirely. — ξ ^xplicit 04:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate because you went ahead and acted unilaterally. I was going to ask for a list so we could review the images. I saw a bunch of on my watchlist get deleted I had no idea were up for discussion, much less deletion. Citing Stefan2 does nothing to bolster your case as he is an avid deletionist, no impartiality there ... Please restore the images so we can go through them and see if they can get fixed ... or have someone impartial review them. This is what was asked for in the first place. --evrik ^(talk) 23:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if I had kept them all, would that not have made me an avid inclusionist? Or do these underhanded attacks only apply when things don't swing a preferred way? I don't see how you were unaware of these images being up for deletion, as you had commented on this discussion 48 hours before I became aware of it, with a link provided by Kintetsubuffalo himself from the very beginning to the list by means of Primefac's contributions that showed all the images that were tagged before they were deleted. I came into this situation knowing nothing about it, pursued no specific outcome, and still declined to delete 16 of them. If my actions are the result of not being impartial, feel free to report by conduct at WP:ANI. — ξ ^xplicit 03:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive RFC needs closing

Biscuittin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently unhappy with the tone of the article on Climate change denial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), because he thinks we do not give enough weight to the denialist viewpoint. This has resulted in a long series of conversations at various venues, which have as usual supported the scientific consensus view. Since Biscuittin seems unwilling to accept the answer no, I proposed that he take one of two courses: walk away, or start, and abide by the outcome of, an RFC. Sadly his attempt at an RFC is simply to rehash the same nonspecific and unactionable WP:IDONTLIKEIT. See Talk:Climate change denial § RfC: This article is unencyclopedic and does not comply with NPOV. I think this RFC needs closing as obviously unactionable and Biscuittin needs counselling on how to start an RFC that can actually yield any kind of result. Either than or the whole thing needs to go to WP:AE, since people are losing patience with the constant demands to be "fair" to climate change denialists. 10:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Guy (Help!)

Addendum: some bizarre choices of location for canvassing.

WikiProject meteorology, arguably valid

WikiProject earth science, arguably valid

WikiProject cosmology, WTF?

WikiProject solar system ditto

WikiProject physics srsly? And twice?

WikiProject chemistry also twice

WikiProject plants also [3] twice

WikiProject animals

WikiProject geology

WikiProject soil.

I think this looks like disruption and a case of WP:RGW. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the RfC heading to Talk:Climate_change_denial#RfC:_Is_this_article_encyclopedic_and_does_it_comply_with_NPOV? and struck out part of the RfC to accommodate objections from other editors. I have not been canvassing, I have just followed the advice at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC. I have posted news of the RfC on several Wikiproject science talk pages because I want to get comments from a broad range of editors with an interest in science. So far, the same small group of people have been making the same assertions over and over again so it would be useful to have a wider range of contributors and this is the reason for the RfC. Any disruption has not been caused by me but by a small group of editors who want to maintain the article as it is, in spite of its unencyclopedic tone and failure to comply with WP:NPOV. Biscuittin (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors appear to be trying to prevent me from publicising this RfC. [4] [5] Biscuittin (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Guy. And this isn't the first waste-of-time from this editor. This is within the area of climate change; what about some sanctions? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that it was Guy who suggested that I start an RfC. [6] Biscuittin (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a trap? Suggest I start an RfC and then sanction me for following the suggestion? Biscuittin (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a trap, but you treated it as if it was: rampant canvassing in completely inappropriate venues for an RFC that is of no use whatsoever other than as a venue for you to continue making vague and nonspecific demands to change the article because reasons. RFCs are supposed to be specific and actionable. The only likely action from yours is a trip to WP:AE. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@William M. Connolley: The user was alerted in December. If you believe sanctions under ARBCOMCC should be applied, WP:AE is the appropriate venue. --Izno (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hogbin

Also see Proposed topic ban of Martin Hogbin, December 2014

Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The user consistently makes disruptive edits and his contribution to Wikipedia on the talk pages of the applicable articles is normally nothing constructive but him unreasonably claiming everything is too promotional. If you search for the word "promotional" within his edits, you'll see a large amount of those cases. One of the last incidents involved him trying to completely remove the occupations of those on the list of vegans, where his actions had already led to a large portion of the useful information being removed, such as the band names for musicians that aren't known for their solo work.
He has been warned yet continued to make numerous disruptive edits ([7][8][9]). Not only that, but he appears to be extremely biased when it comes to editing articles about animal rights and such, which falls under the definition of "Bias-based" from WP:COMPETENCE. An admin already put a link to that page on Martin's talk page. --Rose (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even after I started this discussion and Martin was made aware of it, he continued being disruptive and made an edit asking to "find [him] some reliable sources" to support the commodity status of animals. As Sammy mentions below, this subject was discussed at length and put to rest back in June-July and Martin was among the people involved; as SarahSV summarized back then: "Martin, you've been offered sources, from the United Nations to commodity markets to academic sources, including several in the article. The onus is on you now to provide sources to support what you're saying.". The bottom line is that this is exactly the pattern of his behavior that almost everyone talked about below. --Rose (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing actionable here My interactions with Martin may be found primarily at Talk:Carnism (where I was usually agreeing with him) and Talk:Veganism (where I sometimes was). He is not exceptionally good at building consensus in controversial areas, but I don't think there's any fair case to be made that he edits in bad faith. He is consistently civil, even when others are less so (e.g. User talk:Martin Hogbin#Final warning). His contributions are almost always from the same POV, "disagreeing with editors who are promoting a green political agenda" [10], but they are generally reasonable. He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points (are livestock "commodities"?, etc), but that's no grounds for admin action.

Do I think it would usually be easier to reach consensus without his input? Regrettably, yes. Does that imply the articles would be better without him? Not at all. FourViolas (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that at one point he expressed the view that there should be no positive information about veganism in that article. That was the definition of neutrality to him. Just because some of his (reverted) edits lead to people paying more attention to some sentences doesn't mean that he's the reason it happens. It's just like some inexperienced vandal putting insults on a page about someone, another user reverting those yet noticing some other issues while doing so and making changes to improve the article. Should we thank the vandal for that and take no action? I don't think so. The problem with Martin is even worse as he's not new here so he deliberately makes those disruptive edits and starts practically pointless conversations repeating the same words ("too promotional") over and over again for months if not years now. --Rose (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to add to the above and respond to you saying "He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points, but that's no grounds for admin action."; I disagree with that. His behavior forces other editors to dedicate a lot of their time just to try to make a case to him because otherwise he would (as the past has shown) make the same kind of unacceptable edits that would have to stay in the article. After days of multiple users proving something to him, as it was in the discussion about whether animals are treated as commodities, he may lay low but then he comes back and brings up the same subjects. This is the very definition of disruptive editing. --Rose (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think FourViolas, as usual, is exceptionally patient. Martin has a long history of strong views on green topics broadly construed, dating back years (see e.g. his global warming skepticism [11],[12],[13]) and several editors have mentioned his disruption on articles such as BP. He argues at tremendous length and frequently raises the same issue over and over. Notably, I have almost never seen him support his views with sources of any kind. To mention just one recent example pertinent to veganism, he attempted to present the fact that animals are commodities as a "vegan opinion" here, and then argued this at length at Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals. Despite being offered high quality non-vegan sources showing that animals are regarded as commodities, including with the specific phrase "commodity status" which he insisted on, he maintained that there was something implicit in "commodity" which implied that animals are mistreated, or treated exactly the same as inanimate objects. As always, he never provided a source for the idea that the word has this connotation, or that this was intended. When an editor arrived who wanted the UK-based Vegan Society's definition, "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals", to be given priority in the lede, Martin endorsed this - blatantly contradicting his view that the lede should not contain vegan "opinions" as noted by SlimVirgin. He then suggested several sources which he presumably knew could not be used - several primary sources from other vegan societies [14] and a couple dictionary definitions [15] including a disparaging joke from Urban Dictionary. This is literally the only time I have ever witnessed him cite a reference for anything. And this is just one of many episodes - generally speaking, he argues at tremendous length without familiarizing himself with the topic or supporting his views. As in this comment where (in the course of dredging up another discussion which had gone on ad nauseam) he suggests that other editors "could find (an RS) somewhere to support what (my acquaintances) say", he does not seriously engage with the project, and makes never-ending demands on other editors' time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There isn't a competence or civility issue IMO. My interactions with Martin Hogbin are limited to articles involving veganism and I do not regard him as having a destructive influence on these articles, even in cases where I disagree with him (and there have been several occasions over the last couple of years). In regards to him removing the occupations from the image captions at List of vegans I actually disagreed with this action but I found it well-intentioned and he did not edit-war when challenged. Animal rights are an emotive issue at the best of times and there will always be regular disputes on these articles. I would be more concerned if these articles were exclusively edited by editors all of the same mindset. The example raised above about "whether animals are treated as commodities" is a good example of this: some editors—I being one of them—expressed some concerns about what we felt was "broad" language used to define "Veganism" in the lead of the article. Some editors may have disagreed with those concerns, or even consider then unfounded—and it's perfectly fine to adopt a different position in a debate—but ultimately disagreement is not disruption. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly fine for sure but this isn't about him simply disagreeing with some editors. Pretty much all the editors that have made comments in the Final warning section on his page have different views within the so-called "green" subjects but currently nobody's trying to say they take it over the top and act in a manner that is very disruptive. --Rose (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are long-term and wide-ranging, not only to do with environmental issues. Martin arrives at articles about which he has strong views but no knowledge, and proceeds to equate his personal opinions with NPOV. He often appears not to have read the key sources even when someone else has typed up what they say; or he misinterprets them or suggests inappropriate sources and edits; and he misunderstands policy. This continues for months or even years. It stymies article development because editors spend so much time dealing with it, and people become unwilling to develop the article because new material will give him more ammunition.
For an example, see Talk:Battle of Britain, where in June 2015 Martin wants to add some counterfactual history, [16] having already suggested it at great length in 2014. [17] See Trekphiler's responses, e.g. "More to the point, this has been already (fairly exhaustively) hashed out, yet Martin Hogbin refuses to let it die," and "Have you just ignored everything I've written on this subject?" and "the dead horse comes to life again." Those exchanges illustrate the problem well (WP:TENDENTIOUS, particularly WP:REHASH). Pinging Binksternet and Coretheapple, who I believe have also encountered it. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My own interactions with Martin Hogbin have been limited to the Battle of Britain page. I can't say if it rises to the level of disruptive, but I sense a strong strain of refusal to acknowledge views other than his own. I'm not immune to strong views, nor really inclined to change them, so I appreciate it's not exactly easy; I get the sense it approaches willful ignorance, a "don't confuse me with evidence" attitude. That said, I should say I've seen his edits on other pages, & they don't seem contentious or controversial; it may be this only arises with "pet projects". That may be trouble enough... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate action needed. I sincerely appreciate the opinion of FourViolas up above. Since he has rarely encountered Mr. Hogbin, I suspect his opinion is typical for those not familiar with the long-term problem. However, for those of us who are aware of this problem, particularly editors who focus on content building like SlimVirgin, it is frustrating that Mr. Hogbin has spent 57% of his contributions,[18] the majority of his long Wikipedia career, using talk pages to push unusual, often contradictory POV that keeps editors running around in circles wasting time. It is difficult to determine if he is consciously doing this on purpose or if there is something else at work. Although I have encountered him in many places, it was my experience with him on March Against Monsanto (especially on the talk page, likely archived now) that led me to believe we have a serious problem. I would like to first propose limits on his talk page interaction. For example, "Martin Hogbin is limited to one talk page comment per day per article." That would go a long way towards mitigating the immediate issue. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the ping. I agree with Viriditas above in all respects, based upon experiences at Talk:BP. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I worked with Martin on the BP article. He seems like a very nice person but as an editor he was the type that constantly made me feel like I wanted to tear my hair out. Same issues as discussed above. Gandydancer (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you still have some hair left Gandydancer. We have to accept that people may have fundamentally different opinions on a subject. The way to deal with that in WP is by civil discussion. I can assure you that I understand how frustrating it can be when someone else does not seem to understand what is perfectly obvious to you but there is never any need to resort to personal attacks, insults, or threats like some editors (not you) are doing here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, the problem isn't that you have an opinion. The problem is that you are engaging in explicit civil POV pushing and ignoring talk page discussion by keeping a discussion open in perpetuity and constantly changing the framework of the discussion to allow it to continue indefinitely until you get your way. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen diffs of bad behavior on talk pages. I also don't understand people's wishes to limit other's participation on talk page of all the places. In addition I also don't understand accusations of POV pushing because whenever someone accuses of that I guarantee you they push their own POV all the time. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered Martin Hogbin in a few places covering topics such as probability, mathematical physics, Midway, and a third opinion response. He devotes a lot of energy to his positions, but that can be good or bad. I agree with some of his positions, disagree with some others, and am out of my depth in still others. I don't see anything outrageous in the diffs above, and the talk page dialog does not appear disruptive. He can be pointed, intense, and demanding, but it takes two to tango on a talk page. If someone responds to Martin, then he will respond. If the other person stops responding, then Martin will stop responding. It might be annoying, but trying to revisit a topic 6 months later does not seem outrageous. Martin can be difficult and he can be wrong, but I don't see the behavior here being actionable. Glrx (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many months ago, I interacted with Martin Hogbin, around British articles. I found him to be quite pleasant & easy to collaborate with. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Martin Hogbin

I am involved in a content dispute in the Veganism article with the editors who are making this unpleaseant personal attack on me. Unlike some here, who have resorted to persistent personal attacks, my contibutions there have conformed to the normal standards of discussion and will continue to do so. Through civil discussion we are now beginning to make some progress on that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section where you said "now we seem to be working better together" and that you're now referring to didn't even involve any contributions by you. The only comment you made there was irrelevant and didn't lead to any progress in that regard whatsoever. --Rose (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. It actually begged the suggestion that people were working better together because of your your lack of participation, rather than in spite of it... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support the suggestion to begin with restricting/curtailing Martin Hogbin's article talk page privileges. It appears he has good intentions but his behavior is disruptive to the project. IjonTichy (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This now seems to have turned into a vendetta against me by every user that I have ever disgreed with. My editing and talk page comments are based on the fundamental principles that: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, editors should treat each other with respect and civility, and that what we write in article should be supported by reliable sources rather than an expression of our personal opinions. I believe that disputes are better resolved by civil discussion than by edit warring, threats or personal attacks. That is what I am doing and it is what will continue to do. We either stick to the original principles of Wikipedia or we give in to mob rule. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, you have repeatedly and quite openly expressed a POV bordering on an agenda, and you've repeatedly misused the article talk page to push your agenda. By limiting your participation on article talk pages to one comment a day, we can begin to restore normalcy and consensus building. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"There has been considerable support for this article being a lipogram, not just from JJB. I think you should assume some good faith on his part. Just that he wants one thing and you want another is not a fair fair reason to assume bad faith on hos part. So, why should this article not be a lipogram? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) ". You kids are adorbs.Dan Murphy (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Break

De-archived January 28. Martin Hogbin continues to be a disruptive presence. He comports himself in an overtly polite manner while manipulating the system to disruptively push his idiosyncratic points of view, which have ranged from climate change skepticism to counterfactual history to the opinion alluded to by Dan Murphy above - I didn't know the half of it. In present case of veganism, where for the past six months he has been pushing the idea that calling animals "commodities" is rhetoric - in defiance of all sources - he refuses to drop the stick. He has been soapboxing about the issue on other pages, for example here and here, in the hope of persuading other editors to support him in the ongoing RfC. Notice how in the second diff he even discourages the other editor from taking the issue to the appropriate talk page. He also abusively AfD'd commodity status of animals, offering nothing that approaches a valid deletion reason. And he has now gone back to fighting over a related issue with the lede sentence which was raised and resolved six months ago:[19]. Individually, his actions may seem minor or harmless - collectively, they form a campaign. Too many editors have sunk too much time into dealing with this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that when I write "manipulating the system" I am referring to his way of using multiple fora over the long term, avoiding overt rule-breaking behavior, and appealing to others who may be sympathetic because they don't know the context of the problem. There is an essay on this: WP:Civil POV pushing. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the same position as Martin Hogbin. I am constantly being accused of POV-pushing by people who want to push their own POV. Biscuittin (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment/request@User talk:Sammy1339 Sammy, please can I respectfully suggest that you drop the references to other editors being "overly polite" or WP:Civil POV pushing. I am also on the receiving end of such name calling (not from you, of course) and it is really unpleasant and inflammatory. When has it ever been a crime to remain civil? Please take this message in the way it is intended.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DrChrissy: I can understand how this essay can be misused, and that is probably why it is not policy. From what I've seen I think the accusations against you are without merit. However, the contents of this essay describe Martin's behavior almost to a T. The crime isn't remaining civil - the purpose of mentioning civility is to alert people to the fact that his politesse is superficial. It is impossible for me to imagine that all his endless needling objections are genuine. I don't claim to know why he's doing it - to be generous to him, maybe there's no ulterior motive and he simply enjoys arguing for its own sake. However it's not constructive and he is pushing particular (and often peculiar) points of view for months and years on end. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy - thanks for the reply. I think your much greater long-term experience of editing in this area makes you much more qualified to comment on this than myself.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear at Veganism that Martin's aim is to disrupt. Just one example: he complained that the first sentence seemed to describe only one form of veganism. Sammy noticed that someone had removed the word both: that veganism is "both the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals." So Sammy restored the word both. Martin removed it again, [20] even though it solved the issue he had raised.
So now we may have to devote weeks to discussing that single word with him. When that ends, he'll start another about an equally minor or obvious issue. It has been going on now for over a year. He is the 4th highest commentator on talk, with 234 edits since October 2014. The three editors with more talk-page edits than him – Kellen (390), myself (295) and Viriditas (272) – have all been editing the page since 2007. [21]
I would mind less if he were reading the literature and bringing himself up to speed. But there is no sign of his having read any of the sources, even when people type up what they say on talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth reading this AN/I from December 2014: Proposed topic ban of Martin Hogbin. He decided that "Scottish" is not a nationality, and would not let it go. There was extreme repetition, forum shopping, RfCs, canvassing, etc. The proposal for a topic ban failed, but it was exactly the problem described above. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is canvassing again here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

In line with the suggestion above, I propose that Martin Hogbin's talk page interactions be limited. I suggest a limit of 20 40 talk page edits in any 30 day period, with no more than 5 allowed per day. Pinging previous participants: Rose, 4V, Betty Logan, SlimVirgin, Binksternet, Coretheapple, Trekphiler, Viriditas, Gandydancer, Mr. Magoo and McBarker, GoodDay, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, IjonTichyIjonTichy, Dan Murphy.

Support. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I acknowledge that I might be biased here. In the past at WP:UKNAT, I collaborated & got along well with Martin Hogbin. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 20 talk page edits in a month is lunacy. Limiting his talk page participation also still doesn't seem to make sense. I've seen nothing to indicate bad behavior or spam on talk pages. I think he has simply dared to talk in a bad Wikipedia neighborhood and now they are trying to ban his right to free speech. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20 per month may be too strict. This was meant to be similar to Viriditas's suggestion of one per day, except I allowed multiple per day because I thought that it would be awkward for him to keep people waiting. Since no one has supported yet, I'm taking the liberty of changing the proposal to 40. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even 40's too little and I now visited the talk page and I saw that he's absolutely right. There is a group of editors trying to force their view that all vegans reject pet ownership, even though all sources state that it's simply rejection of animal products and not pet ownership. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name does exactly what it says on the tin. :-) Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I regret that this must be as frustrating for User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker as it is for us. His involvement is an example of the general problem where good-faith editors get drawn into Martin's trumped-up controversies, which not only wastes a tremendous amount of time but also feeds the problem by giving others the impression that there must be substance to the debate. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time anyone's told me I've got good faith; I might put that on a placard. My pessimism often leads me to trouble. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Considering that Martin is aware of this discussion and other discussions on the matter of his disruptive behavior, and that it doesn't stop him from acting exactly as described here, digging out the same, long buried issues, anything that puts a limit on this should be beneficial for Wikipedia. It should allow editors to continue improving veganism and other pages instead of having to get involved in pointless discussions for months. --Rose (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This happens at a wide range of articles. He sees his opinion as ipso facto neutral, won't read the sources, which means he often misunderstands the issues, and is willing to make the same point repeatedly for many months. A talk-page post limit will help. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and note that he appears likely to be correct on many of the "issues" some are upset about above. For example - it is am individual "person" who may be vegan - their "group association" of whatever nature has nothing to do with veganism unless the article on that group makes such an association for that group. Collect (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Martin Hogbin's Civil POV pushing is disruptive. IjonTichy (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this has the potential to reduce drama. Several of his recent statements seem to me to be advocating a POV antithetical to Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality, this may be down to ambiguity or careless use of words, I think this limit should result in a clearer impression of what he actually means, and possibly therefore a clearer view of whether he is in fact advocating, e.g., climate change denial - something no Wikipedia editor should be doing by this stage. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The more I deal with these people attacking Martin Hogbin the more I believe in his innocence. They removed 4 of my sources for the definition of veganism by general veganism organizations for being "unreliable" but when I removed 6 of theirs which had nothing to even do with veganism but with animal rights with one more that talked about making clothing or commodities out of animals and not the property status they have, of course I got reverted and by none other than the sysop (one can only wonder how the person has gotten the rights even after having a history of blocks). --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at your diffs in both the context of the page history in which your edits occurred and in the context of the talk page discusson(s) where consensus has been reached. In so doing, I discovered that you appear to be intentionally disrupting the article and proxying for Mr. Hogbin, ignoring the consensus on the talk page as well as the sources, and engaging in IDHT behavior and pot-stirring. What appears to have been a simple case of Hobgin's obsession with Veganism is now turning into a focused assault on the subject, with the help of canvassing and tag teaming. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus reached? What? There is no concensus with 10 voting NO and 11 voting YES; and you yourself have voted against Martin and thus are obviously biased in the matter. This matter is also unrelated to the vote of the RfC matter because the text in question wasn't changed in any direction. Only sources were being added and removed. In addition I have posted numerous examples of why they're wrong and they haven't responded to those bits even though they've clearly seen them. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support due to the latest shenanigans by Mr. Magoo. Hogbin has taken this from simple POV pushing to another level, from simple disruption to outright canvassing and campaigning. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't kid yourself. You had most likely simply forgotten to vote before now. Above this section you had called for "immediate action needed" against Martin and wanted a limit of one talk edit per day. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I don't think Mr. Magoo has malign intentions. He's just badly uninformed:[22]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that is what all our sources except for one radical vegan, a ~~veganarchist~~ abolitionist states. Francione is on the fringe, an extremist. If you are about the commodity status then you are not only a vegan but a ~~veganarchist~~ abolitionist. We have the ~~Veganarchism~~ Abolitionism (animal rights) article for that. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your wrong opinions about a content dispute on the article talk page. This page is for discussing how to limit and end the recursive Hogbin problem, which continues to muck up the gears of consensus and perpetuate its disruption through canvassing and wikilawyering. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Notwithstanding this dismaying AFD, I believe Martin is sincerely trying to improve content in these areas. However, I think it would be much easier to reach agreement on his (often quite subjective) concerns if he made his points more directly, with RS to back them up instead of walls of opinion-based rhetoric. It seems plausible that this proposal could promote that end. FourViolas (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Martin Hogbin

This is another personal attack from the same group of people. I freely admit that I disagree with the editors above who want my editing curtailed but I am not a lone tendentious editor. if you look at the RfC at veganism, you will see that I have considerable support. Even when I try to get wider community opinion by rigorously following the procedure suggested in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC I am accused of canvassing. Please do go to the RfC and give your opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate the name of an editor (or admin) who will guide the discussion towards closure. Some of us have other things to do rather than discuss the same thing over and over again. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential argument about treatment of Mr. Magoo and McBarker.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I agree after now getting personally attacked myself. Anyone who disagrees at the talk page there will be hurt. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been getting a bit of a bashing on the talk page too. This could become a case for Arbcom soon. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: I am sorry that you felt that this was a personal attack. I am doing my best to accommodate your concerns, such as they are. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Just look at this edit by Viriditas. He tried removing a large section — which points out the fact that "commodity" has a single source whose author in other context states the exact opposite — most likely because he has some sort of personal motivations I've described. In addition this kind of removal of the other's opinion can be called nothing but a straight-up attack. And in addition your edit was heavy distortion of what I had written and it was in response to the very section Viriditas tried removing. Your only retort against my pointing out the bad sources was to personally attack me as well. That is how it is there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I noticed that Viriditas has written on your talk — which I just now visited to talk myself — that apparently the first section I had made on the talk is to "gambit to flood the talk page with meaningless, trivial questions". He called for "What is needed in this situation is to tightly control and structure the discussion page through archiving, collapsing, and movement to user talk pages." What that is, is just silencing the opposition. This is worthy of a block from editing the talk page! --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I reverted that edit of his within one minute, but he was reasonably arguing that the relevant section was a distraction and should be refactored. Although I believe that you, personally, do not have bad intentions, everything else he wrote on my talk page is true. This line of discussion is not relevant toMartin Hogbin, so if you want to continue it, we should do so elsewhere. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He stated he was going to move it to MY talk page (in addition he never did). My talk page is obviously and plainly not the place for that conversation. And the only reason I posted this here was because in your opinion that diff you posted was the sole personal attack. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I move it to your talk page if I was instantly reverted? Would that have made much sense? Has it occurred to you that I was in the middle of copying the discussion to your talk page when I received the red notification indicating I was reverted? Please try to read for comprehension and think before you reply in the future. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A minute after. If you were copypasting it, did it really take you over a minute to traverse to my talk page? Maybe you stopped to enjoy the sight of the talk page without disagreers for a minute. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magoo, please read Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. It is best practice to prevent trolls from disrupting talk pages. I realize you oppose it for personal reasons. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's your line in the sand here. Anyone who disagrees, presenting themselves with a proper argument, is a troll. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen you make a proper argument, only fallacious ones. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially you're just stating I'm wrong without even pointing out what fallacy I'm committing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, would you care to take Viriditas' suggestion and nominate an admin to close this discussion? If not, I'll list it at requests for closure. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to do as you wish. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close

This ANI report appears to be evolving into an extention of an article content dispute. Recommend it be closed. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I put in a request at AN/RfC. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at UAA

There's a serious backlog at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention for any admins who can find a few minutes to stop by and help out. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posting about it every week on AN is hardly necessary nor helpful, especially when the latest post is only a few days old. Everything is a backlog by definition. It'll get done eventually. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your...help? ElKevbo (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is, indeed, helpful, and should not be discouraged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis

Magioladitis (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and his bot Yobot (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) have been blocked many times for issues relating to violations of the bot policy and AWB's rules of use. The most common complaint is that he makes many trivial ("cosmetic") changes which do not change the appearance of an article but clog up editors' watchlists. The most recent block was for one month. He was unblocked three days ago on the back of strict conditions that he would not perform any automated or semi-automated edits for the duration of the block length (see User talk:Magioladitis#Unblock request for details). However I have just reblocked because he was not adhering to these conditions.

In usual circumstances I would remove access to AWB, but as Magioladitis is an administrator this is not possible. I have suggested to him in the past that it would be better to cease all automated editing from his main account. However he has not acquiesced to this yet, and judging from recent events I wonder if he is able to restrain himself in this way voluntarily.

I would like to stress that I believe Magioladitis is acting in good faith, his non-automated edits are beneficial and his administrator actions are not concerning. However the automated editing is proving problematic and we should find a way to manage this.

I'm here to propose to the community that Magioladitis be topic banned from making all automated and semi-automated edits from his main account indefinitely. Any bot jobs approved at WP:BRFA may continue, and we gain from his experience as a long-term editor, admin and BAG member. If this does not achieve consensus, then let's brainstorm other avenues to deal with this.

I am notifying the following editors who have been involved in the past: xaosflux — Materialscientist — The Earwig — GoingBatty — Frietjes — Fram — Bgwhite — intgr — JohnBlackburne — GB fan: and I will notify Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Mag could be unblocked only to participate in this discussion? I'd like to know why he is so persistent in applying cosmetic changes, whether he's trying to climb a leaderboard or is just slightly obsessive about articles being "just so" in terms of whitespace, bypassing harmless redirects, etc. No matter the reason, it's not setting a good example as a member of BAG. And it's a significant annoyance and timesink as people review the edits and have to determine what the reason was (when there is really, none). –xeno^talk 21:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reminded Magioladitis of WP:COSMETICBOT bot several times over the years, more than anyone else, so I'll join the crowd here. These pointless edits have to stop. I'm fine with the occasional bot malfunction, or the occasional misclick on 'save' when you meant 'skip' with AWB. But there's a larger issue at play with Magio's bot in that the bot logic rarely seems to be tested to prevent trivial changes before being unleashed on the wiki. As a BAG member, Magio should understand that WP:COSMETICBOT is not an optional rule and has to be anticipated and tested for just like one needs to test their bots against replacing [[www]] with [[w[[WW (album)|''WW'']]]] on all pages when you wanted to replace [[WW]] with [[WW (album)|''WW'']] on some pages.

I'm not going to say Magio should be removed from BAG at this point, but it's certainly an option I'm willing to consider if Magio keeps running their bots without making sure they first comply with all aspects of WP:BOTPOL, including WP:COSMETICBOT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second xeno's suggestion to allow Magioladitis to participate in this discussion on this page. GoingBatty (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose an unblock on condition that he only edit this page and his own talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping, I do recognize the positive contributions that Magioladitis brings to the project, which is why I tried to work with him on a limited topic ban as his unblock condition (see WP:EDR#Final_warnings_.2F_Unblock_conditions). As clearly stated in the unblock, condition violation may lead to additional sanctions including re-blocking. As one of the WP:AWB developers, I would expect he would need to make minimal AWB edits (possibly via LEGITSOCKS) for testing and troubleshooting purposes even if he ends up under a long term editing restriction, possibly under specific conditions? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I have delisted the prior temporary WP:RESTRICTIONS as Magioladitis was reblocked and unblocked under NEW conditions. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real shame and sad to see energetic editors who like to make mass-fixes get blocked for it. Though the fixes I see here would be so low on my priority list that I couldn't envision them ever rising in my work queue to get even close to approaching the top of the list. Is there any real concern here, though, besides cluttering up watchlists? Can't you just scan or skim the edit summaries in your watchlists and just disregard or ignore "Cleaned up using AutoEd"? If Magio needs something more important and substantial to clean up, then I have several tasks in my overloaded work queue I'd love to outsource to him. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for the ping MSGJ. I'm not sure what to do. As people have said, he makes positive contributions. Since he was unblocked, Maigoladits has probably done ~2,000 semi-manually edits via Yobot's account. Most of this is due to the latest dumpfile via CheckWiki. This is the first dump since ISSN checks were added, which contributed to this message on Yobot's talk page. So, ~2,000 good contributions vs ~20 pointless ones. I don't want to see him blocked because of his overall contributions, but on the other hand, something must be done.

MSGJ, AWB's CheckPage does allow for blacklisted names. I'm not sure if a blacklisted name takes precedent over an admin. Rjwilmsi is the person to ask. Plus, as the main AWB programmer, he could come up with suggestions.

WPCleaner and AutoEd don't have a permission system. But, AutoEd needs to be added to a person's common.js/vector.js file to work. Removing this from the .js file and making it sure it isn't added back should be easy. WPCleaner doesn't make the "trivial" changes or general fixes as the other two programs do. I don't see a problem in not letting Magioladitis keep using that. Bgwhite (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is refreshing because it's the first time I've seen you accept that there is a problem. In the past you have steadfastly defended him. I'm hopeful we can work together to find a solution. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ Actually, last time I made only one comment and that was to defend one type of edit as non-trivial. The time before I suggested a topic ban on editing talk pages. Talk pages are Magioladitis' kryptonite. Kryptonite and OCD is a dangerous mix. Bgwhite (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I interacted with him on this issue several times when I was an administrator. The problem has been going on for years, both with edits from Magoioladitis' main account and from his bot, Yobot. For example, search for "cosmetic edit" on Magioladitis' talk page [23], or look at the block log for Yobot [24]. The responses that always seem to be given are that the edits were a mistake, or are from bug in the software that is being used, or are necessary because of some other bug in the software that is being used. I would expect to see these same excuses again if he comments on this thread. After years of seeing them, I have yet to see Magioladitis take responsibility for his errors by making the changes necessary prevent them (e.g. fixing the years-longstanding bugs in his software that allow cosmetic edits to be saved, making his edit summaries more descriptive, etc.). I believe that any long-term resolution to the problem will require very tight edit restrictions on both his main account and his bot account. Otherwise, you will be back here again soon enough. Good luck, — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the repeated violations of WP:BOTREQUIRE, in particular for bots to be conservative in their edit speeds. Non-urgent tasks such as the bot does should be done at the rate of no more than once every ten seconds, so six a minute. But only yesterday it was making edits several times faster than this, with dozens of edits per minute. This has been raised before, and is surely easily fixable – any code on any computer can query the system clock to at least second accuracy. It is just he thinks WP:BOTREQUIRE does not apply to his bot and can be ignored, as well as the above problems with cosmetic edits and edit descriptions.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Based on the circumstances outlined here, I really think the only solution is desysopping, followed by loss of AWB privileges. Adminship shouldn't be a "shield" which protects one from the kind of restrictions that a "regular" editor in the same circumstances would see. I suspect Arbcom could handle this by motion, though they might want to make a "full case" out of it... But, ultimately, this is boiling down to "trust" and "judgement" (and it's come up repeatedly) and Admins that display neither probably need to lose the bit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised this issue with him several times in the past. Lots of pointless AWB edits that add no value whatsoever. He stops for a time, then restarts after the dust settles. Thankfully I'm not alone with these concerns. Rulez iz rulez for AWB, but this user seems to be "untouchable" due to their so-called admin status. Once again, it's one rule for AWB running bots and one rule for the rest of us. At one point I put my foot through my laptop and sent him the bill. PS - Do I win a fiver? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the block log, Lugnuts, that user/admin is clearly not untouchable. If they were, we wouldn't be here. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go on, give him a 53rd chance. He's an admin afterall! Like to see how quickly a non-admin would have been indef'd for similar bahaviour. Or even to have their block lifted so they could participate at ANI. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have till now held back from calling for his administrator status to be removed, and am still hopeful this won't be necessary. Obviously I expected the issue to come up, and I acknowledge the apparent inconsistency in the treatment he is receiving. We are looking for the best solution for the project and there is absolutely nothing wrong with his admin actions. (Okay he unblocked his own bot once, a long time ago, but I don't remember the exact circumstances.) Personally I'd like to have a try with some editing restrictions before we turn to Arbcom. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have lots of editors pointing out the problems, but not many solutions being proposed. It might be useful if you could indicate whether or not you support the proposal in the first paragraph. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove AWB and ban from operating bots. Problem disappears. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a ban on automated edits, meaning both tools such as AWB, AutoEd and through a bot, as the problems occur on both accounts.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, support AWB and bot removal. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JohnBlackburne you can also kick me out of Wikipedia. Problem disappears too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked Magioladitis (after the agreement of the blocking admin in this discussion above) solely to participate in this discussion. Magioladitis has agreed to only edit this discussion (and their user talk page) until the end of the original block (15 February). Fram (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my points in brief. I'll try to expand the, later:

No, I am not interested to climbing any virtual ladder.
The last unblock violation was a misunderstanding. I thought the restriction has to do only with AWB. It would be stupid of me to violate the rule just to make 3 edits with AutoEd.
I edit a lot. People who edit a lot get a lot of complains anyway. Yesterday I fixed 1,500 pages with invalid ISSN. Yes, there were 20 mistakes. Yes, I went back and fixed them. This is my typical day.
I do a lot of mistakes. I run on multiple tasks and I usually use brutal force (I ignore the skip conditions). This is my main negative. I know about it.
I reply to every single comment in my talk page I never escaped any complain.
I make an effort to pass most the tasks I do to others. I encouraged people to take over.
I have published almost every single script I use. I want others to use my tools. I don't want to be that guy that when they leave Wikipedia they take the tools with them.
Not all complains are valid. Many times I get complains because the editor did not understand what I did (example: removed a duplicated category). I try to use the edit summary a lot. Better than some people who don't use it all.
I wrote on my talk page a lot of stuff I would like the community to agree for. It's not about me. I see a lot of complains around about AWB and tools in general. Some are valid, some are not. I want specific rules. NOTBROKEN has changed. COSMETICBOT has changed. The rules have relaxed. Some of you may know that,some may don't, some may want to deny this fact. Yes, it is a fact.
A lot of people when banned, blocked for using the tools all these years. Even there were different reasons behind, some people may have the impression that the reason was the same: The tools. No, it's not the tools.
When this started I got the impression that some of the blocking admins want me out of Wikipedia. I apologise for that. I see now that this is not the case. I am happy to see that the vats majority does not think I act on bad faith. I still believe though that some editors might want me out. They may believe this would be the solution. Well, it's not.
I typed this in less than 5 minutes I hope it's not too emotional. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose the following as a possible set of edit restrictions:

AWB may only be used by the Yobot account, and only for tasks that have bot approval. No semi-automated tools of any kind may be used on the main account.
All "general fixes" and other changes apart from the literally approved bot task must be disabled within AWB when Yobot runs.
No edits that consist entirely of cosmetic changes may be made with either the main account or the bot account. These include edits that only affect white space and underscores, changes that only bypass redirects, and other changes that do not affect any visible aspect of the rendered page.
All Yobot edits must refer to the specific request for bot approval that authorizes them (in the edit summary).
All CHECKWIKI edits must be clearly marked with the specific CHECKWIKI task they carry out (in the edit summary). Different CHECKWIKI tasks should be handled by different runs of the bot to permit clear edit summaries to be used.
Yobot may only save changes to a page when the specific bot task it is carrying out has been applied to that page, and must skip pages to which the bot task does not apply.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 15:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. So on one hand we have a person who won't stop making tiny harmless, but not very helpful changes. On the other hand we have people that want to really insist that tiny harmless, but not very helpful changes are not made. It seems to me that either side could let this one go and everything would be fine, or both sides can be stubborn and we probably lose an editor. HighInBC 15:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could insist that Admins follow the same rules as everyone else, and get treated for infractions like everyone else – the fact is, if this didn't involve an Admin, this situation would have been dealt with a long time ago. (And, before anyone brings it up, I'm pretty sure I've seen non-Admins blocked for edits not all that dissimilar to the ones mentioned in this case.) Instead, this is another shining example of where someone has been cut multiple "breaks" simply because of the usergroup they're in... Bringing this back around though, in terms of "solutions", anything less than the loss of AWB privileges in this case would be unsatisfactory – that combined with an understanding that "self-granting" AWB privileges at a later date without community consensus first would result in immediate desysopping. Anything less than this would be unacceptable IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall they were blocked. I don't see how they are being treated any different for being an admin. Not everything needs to boil down to admin v non-admin. HighInBC 16:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Magioladitis has – a "regular" editor would already have lost AWB privileges. And I'm of the strong opinion that an Admin that gets blocked multiple times (esp. for the same infraction) should no longer have Admin privileges. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should file a case with ArbCom, since they're the only people who can take the bit away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could, if I had unlimited time to burn on Wikipedia activities that will likely only end in aggravation. Fortunately, I have a real job for that instead! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of taking away his admin privileges (which are not the reason we're here), how about doing the exact opposite and saying "Magioladitis, here's the mop! When your block is over, could you please help us clean up [fill in the blank]? Your work there would be much more valuable to the project than these minor edits." GoingBatty (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- IJBall I would like to know example of editors who lost AWB right. It's one of the reason I insist that we resolve the situation by strong consensus. I do not like to see people losing their AWB rights. AWB is a browser so in some level equivalent to FireFox or Chrome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course the main use of AWB is to perform bot-like editing, either with manual review or in a fully automated way, not to "browse" in a normal sense. The first sentence of WP:AWB describes AWB as an "editor", which is indeed the main purpose of the tool. The AWB rules of use on WP:AWB directly state "Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled. ", and the reason for this thread is repeated abuse of the rules. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree with HighInBC The edit's are harmeless, let 'em go. If he was harming Wikipedia with those edits, then I could see imposing the conditions stated here, but he isn't. The main complaint that I saw was that it was clogging up people's watch lists. Big deal, I ran across that a while ago, some one was doing a mass update of templates and it was filling my watchlist, big deal, I skipped those and looked only at articles (I was doing a vandal run at the time ) and ignored their edits. As long as Magioladitis isn't harming the encyclopedia, let it go . KoshVorlon 16:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If clogging up the watchlists was blockable I would have blocked User:MediaWiki message delivery ages ago. HighInBC 16:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clogging up watchlists is blockable if what is clogging them are trivial edits. If the MediaWiki Message Delivery System only added or removed whitespace, it would get blocked/disabled under WP:COSMETICBOT just like Magio was for edits like [25]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no big deal. Magioladitis could stop doing it, people could stop caring, either way everything is fine. HighInBC 17:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome attitude you have. I guess if you brought an issue here, but no-one cared about it/you, then you'd be fine with it? No, thought not. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have already answered your question to me on my behalf, but you failed to predict my response so I will answer it myself. If said harm was this insignificant then I would not expect people to get too worked up about it. HighInBC 19:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the issues with this users edits have been raised time and time again, by multiple different users, I can only conclude you don't know the definition of insignificant. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb that particular one was a very specific bug that was fixed in a few hours after you reported it. That's the problem here: If any of the scripts has a bug it may result in something like this. Is this common? No it's not if we discuss percentages here. Ofcourse for a bot with 4 million edits, 1% is 40,000 pages. Can this be prevented? Well, yes and no. CHECKWIKI scripts are not done by me. My method is based a lot in the fact the list created actually contains the error in question. But, since I fix every single error and I fixed this immediately after the report why just re-reported this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still this one is a very good example that I want to get more people involved in Wikipedia. I keep reporting new errors to User_talk:Knife-in-the-drawer#New_ISBN_tracking_categories even they have not edited since June. Check the entire talk page. I want mot motivate more and more people to work for Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also the fact that I encouraged a lot of people to make copies of my bot tasks. GoingBatty, Bgwhite know this at hand I believe. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said earlier here "I'm fine with the occasional bot malfunction, or the occasional misclick on 'save' when you meant 'skip' with AWB." This happens to everyone. But the larger issue is that the bot logic rarely seems to be tested to prevent trivial changes before being unleashed on the wiki. And should understand that WP:COSMETICBOT is not an optional rule and has to be anticipated and tested for just like one needs to test their bots against replacing [[www]] with [[w[[WW (album)|''WW'']]]] on all pages when you wanted to replace [[WW]] with [[WW (album)|''WW'']] on some pages."

Solution? Don't brute force. Don't ignore skip conditions, especially if the condition is "whitespace only". Do a semi-automated test run if need be. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb yes I can sort this out. The problem nowadays (speaking about mainspace edits) has been reduced to newly introduced CHECKWIKI errors. The ISSN errors were rather new and my script was a hell of a mess. I already sent it to Bgwhhite via email for review. Redrose64 also did some comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb and something personal here: OK I got that a few (I think 40 out of 1,5000) edits of the ISSN fixes were "pointless", but I would enjoy a more polite way to hear this. Something like "hey, your bot failed to fix something in this page. What was about?". Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but after this, this, this, this, this, and many others, I'm sure you can understand why I'm opting for the direct approach.

Look, I'm not looking to shit on you. Your bots clearly do more good than harm. But the harm is doing is in many, many cases preventable. Look at it from our perspective. You get blocked/warned for cosmetic changes, get unblocked on good faith [with restrictions], then reblocked for violating restrictions less than a week after the unblock. No one here wants to be back on your page next week/month because the bot once again ran amok. You say you acknowledge the issue, but no steps seem to be taken to prevent the issue from occurring in the first place. I give you full credit for fixing specific problems when flagged, but the root of the issue remains unaddressed. No other bot op is so often warned for cosmetic changes. What are we to do?

Bluntly put, we're at a crossroad here. You can commit to follow WP:COSMETICBOT / not ignore skip conditions / not using a brute force approach / do semi-automated testing of things where you personally review a substantial amount of edits before letting a fully-automated process take over / whatever other voodoo magic is necessary. Expecting < X/1000 trivial edits is not something I'm willing to put forth as a criteria of success, but their frequency has to be drastically reduced.

Or do we have to revoke your AWB access? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb I of course appreciate your comments and I am excited every time you report something. This is because some people do not even bother to report bugs. Have you ever reported a bug about Visual Editor or Content Translator? I have. And many times. Most of them are still unfixed and there is a group of WMF professionals working on VE and CX. I am a volunteer. I hope you can at least appreciate that I make effort to fix everything as fast as possible. The diffs you provided had examples of Yobot doing "pointless edits". All 4 cases were fixed not only as part of my skip conditions but as part of the software itself. And this is better because at some point I may not be around to edit or use my bot. Someone else will try to use AWB. Bug fixing is better than adding skip conditions to a single bot. Bug fixes have global positive effect. In the first case I noticed I found the software bug and fixed it in less than a day. Sometimes, I am faster. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to bottom line this, it seems like the main issue, at heart, is the complaint by some editors/admins that Magioladitis does not follow the letter or the spirit of their unblock restrictions. Can these restrictions be made more specific to cover those edits these editors have problems with and can Magioladitis assure the participants in this discussion that they can abide by these restrictions, not temporarily but until such restrictions are formally removed? It seems like this would solve the problem, the end of "pointless" edits without Wikipedia losing a very productive editor and unproblematic admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of AWB from his user account and removal of AutoEd from User and bot accounts should be step one. Cannot use these at all from his user account. I'm not sure how to put "restrictions" on bot account activities or how to word it. For example, besides what the bot does, he does semi-manually fix maintenance categories and does requests. Bgwhite (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a specific proposal above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too complex for no reason. The only necessary restriction is #3. Don't edit in violation of WP:COSMETICBOT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That won't solve the whole problem. There is an equal problem with poor edit summaries that make it impossible to tell what the bot was *trying* to do. The more effective single sanction would be to disable all general fixes whenever AWB is run - but that will also not address the entire problem, and will leave us back here soon enough. If Magioladitis was able to work with just "don't violate the existing rules", we wouldn't be here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carl: I commend you for posting a detailed proposal. For #1, could you think of a more specific description for "No semi-automated tools"? Magioladitis didn't understand this included AutoEd, and I wonder if this would include Twinkle or Hotcat. I would also ask that Magioladitis be allowed to edit the User:Yobot page if he would like to indicate which bot tasks he is choosing to discontinue and which bot tasks he could improve per the suggestions here. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hard to find an airtight wording. Perhaps it would work to say that Twinkle and tools whose main purpose is to interact with users or handle vandalism are OK, but tools such as AutoEd or Hotcat that are primarily for editing should be avoided. In the end, a lot will depend (regardless of the sanctions that are used) on how much Magioladitis wants to resolve the situation by not pushing boundaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recently requested this T124868. If this is implemented I won't be doing anymore trivial edits when working with maintenance categories. This is still not the root of the problem but a step forward. Also if other take over my talk page fixes which are my weakest point we save a lot of bad edits done by me. I promised to work on it. I sent GoingBatty an email with my settings file to review it and I hope they take over (GB, did you receive it?). As someone else wrote GoingBatty has better communication skills than I do and they are more careful than I am. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: Your request is a great one - I hope it can be added to AWB. Thank you for sending me your settings. Once my current WP:BRFA is complete, I'll play with yours to see if I can get it to work with the proper skip conditions. GoingBatty (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GoingBatty someone's comment that "GoingBatty can play out the community better than you" rang as a huge bell in my head. :D -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it speaks well of any editor or admin that they are aware of their editing strengths as well as those areas where there is room for improvement and they can be honest about themselves. A technical solution might be the best answer here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. — Earwig ^talk 00:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember non-admins - just admit your faults when dragged though AN/ANI and you'll ~~get away with it~~ be OK. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A built-in AWB solution for most of the errors is underway thanks to the AWB team. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zordon (2nd nomination)

I'm looking for some advice. What's the best thing to do with this AfD? The nominator is a sockpuppet and was blocked before the end of the AfD; one established editor participated, as did two IPs, one of which belongs to the same sockmaster. In light of that, the result is potentially unsound. Is it worth re-opening it or re-closing it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppetry is not good. However, the article should probably have been merged anyway. There doesn't seem to be an independent notability for the character. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not required anyways for merging. Merging can be done unilaterally, as it is part of the normal editing process and reversible without the use of admin tools. I see no contradiction with closing the AFD as bad faith/sock abuse, and just enacting the merge anyway. --Jayron 32 02:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD had been NAC'd as merge, but I reclosed it as a bad-faith-speedy-keep with reccomended merger discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carl and the Passion

I am trying to list a 1980's Long Island Band called Carl and the Passion. We were a New York Music Awards nominee in 1988 for Best New Band and Best Male Vocalist. I have tried to edit as a registered user our submission on The Music of Long Island Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Long_Island#cite_note-1). Please advise if I am doing something wrong in this process as I am confused with the process to getting this uploaded correctly. Thank you! Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulDohertyAIA (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulDohertyAIA: In the {{Cite web}} template, you forgot the |url=, which I have just added. Also, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, as you shouldn't be inserting information about your own band into Wikipedia. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page

I created this Talk:Tomyris//Archive_1 by mistake. Would you please delete it? And next time where I can submit similar cases? Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You can tag any page where you are the sole contributor with the {{db-author}} template and an admin will delete it within a few hours at most. Jenks24 (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standard offer request for Bazaan

Hello,

I am passing along a Standard offer unblock request from Bazaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This request was sent to UTRS. The user has requested that the content of the unblock request be forwarded to the noticeboard. The relevant content is as follows:

I agree to another Standard Offer if necessary, although it would be the second time. I would like the content of my unblock request to be forwarded to the noticeboard. I promise to never repeat the behaviour which led to my initial block, and the subsequent indefinite block.
Why do you believe you should be unblocked? It's been six months, please give me another chance. At least give me a rope.
If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? Most South Asian, but wide ranging
Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. I purposefully brought a sock puppetry ban on my account. It's my fault. I have suffered enough, including tremendous personal attacks.
Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block? Plenty of accounts have been blocked in my name, although most aren't mine.
The ones used by me are Bazaan, Rainmaker23, Uck22, JKhan20 and Merchant of Asia.

The user has not received any additional blocks on the account and is therefore tentatively eligible for Standard Offer consideration. Thanks, Nakon 01:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan. BMK (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were issues concerning Bazaan and his or her socks other then sockpuppetry itself, which the editor doesn't mention. Search on "Bazaan" in the noticeboard files. I'd like to hear what the editor has to say about that behavior. BMK (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified Bazaan's block to permit him to edit his talk page: if we're willing to consider unblocking someone, the situation isn't so bad that talk access should remain disabled, and it's easier if the user can post messages on his own talk page instead of relying on UTRS assistance. Nakon, would you mind sending Bazaan an email asking him to make further replies on his talk page? Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent User:Bazaan an email update regarding their talk page. Thanks, Nakon 02:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the sockpuppetry, there was some copyright issues way, way back. Is there anything else, from a content perspective, that would merit a conditional unblock? By which I mean, an "unblock conditional on an acceptance of a topic ban in articles relating to XYZ." Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I may be unusually strict, but I oppose any sort of standard offer when there has been sockpuppetry/ I don't think that anyone who has engaged in sockpuppetry can be trusted at their end, at least not until the twenty-second century. That is my opinion. It just reflects a distinction between editors who make mistakes and editors who choose to game the system. I know that other editors are more forgiving than I am, and I am very forgiving of flaming, but not of sockpuppetryl Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further note from Bazaan's talk page:
I am responding to issues raised in ANI. I again commit myself to never repeating the behavior which caused my indefinite block. In 2013 and 2014, I had differences with a few editors of WP:Bangladesh, which unfortunately swelled into a rather traumatic cycle of personal hostilities. This included pointless edit wars and conflicts over what pictures to be placed in what article. The absence of Wikipedia administrative or arbitration personnel caused the situation to deteriorate further. Initially when I joined Wikipedia around 2007, I was much younger and faced several issues like copyright infringement. But I now have a stronger understanding of Wikipedia policies. I believe I have matured over time. My contributions were never questioned for pushing an unacceptable POV, but a few people at times disagreed with its relevance. However, I used reliable and credible references. If my editing privileges are restored, you will not see any dramatic rise in editing activity. If there are any issues, it will be brought to either DRN or ANI. I've learnt my lesson truly well. I don't deserve a topic ban as I never had serious content disputes. It was mostly personal attacks over pictures and relevant sentences. Lastly regarding sockpuppetry, please have a look at the first investigation. As one administrator notes, he didn't even consider what happened to be sockpuppetry. I opened a second account after being blocked. My mistake. I have always made good faith contributions. Never in bad faith of gaming the system.
This was left as an unblock request, which I've declined because it wouldn't be right for me to unblock him as this discussion's still ongoing. It was a procedural decline (don't think of it as a frivolous request), and I've asked him to use {{helpme}} when writing future comments for this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bazaan writes "I believe I have matured over time", but he also writes "The absence of Wikipedia administrative or arbitration personnel caused the situation to deteriorate further" and "I don't deserve a topic ban as I never had serious content disputes. It was mostly personal attacks over pictures and relevant sentences." These don't appear to me to be the statements of someone who has "learnt [their] lesson truly well", as they are still blaming others and not taking responsibility for their actions. And for an editor who used multiple sockpuppets to write "Lastly regarding sockpuppetry, please have a look at the first investigation. As one administrator notes, he didn't even consider what happened to be sockpuppetry. I opened a second account after being blocked. My mistake." is not acceptable. Perhaps we can accept that one sockpuppet was a "mistake", but what about the other three they admit to? (That's assuming we can take their word that other accounts which were blocked as theirs were incorrectly identified.) I'm not yet closing the door on this, but, at least so far, I do not find the editor's comments to be persuasive. BMK (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm often in agreement with BMK's opinions, in this case I do believe a few of Bazaan's statements are somewhat excusable. Articles about the sub continent can be very contentious considering articles about India and Pakistan ended up at Arbcom. Perhaps Bangladeshi articles should fall into that category given the nation's history with India, but that's a discussion for another page. The sockpuppetry issue is certainly of concern. Perhaps a quick check by a CheckUser would alleviate this concern. [Iff] no socking is revealed in the last 6 months, I could probably support a conditional unblock. Bazaan has admitted to having issues in Bangladeshi articles in the past and letting him back into this area may not be healthiest. If no socking is revealed, then I could support an unblock provided a 3 month topic ban from Bangladeshi articles is levied to encourage Bazaan to edit somewhere else so the community could regain some confidence and to truly prove that he has "matured over time". However, if socking is revealed within the last 6 months, then the offer is off the table. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have similar concerns to Blackmane; given how controversial such articles can be, and the past troubles this editor has had while editing them, Most South Asian, but wide ranging doesn't seem the best space to dive straight back into. Perhaps a 3-month topic ban from all sub-continent / South Asian articles would be a good place to start? GoldenRing (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oppose unblock - I had edited with him and I would say that it was a bad experience. Yes he has evaded his block enough times for like a year, I can see that some of his nationalistic edits on Bangladesh subjects had been removed, a few more are still left to be checked. You need to read his unblock request, "My contributions were never questioned for pushing an unacceptable POV" or "I opened a second account after being blocked" and "I have always made good faith contributions. Never in bad faith of gaming the system"[26] tells that he rejects that he was totally wrong with his blatant policy violations that he has made, which includes vandalism and block evasion. How he can be trusted with this? I understand that I had socked too but blaming others or failing to accept it is not good. Capitals00 (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock - this is a historically highly disruptive user. Normally I'm quite lenient with supporting standard offers, but this is not a case of an editor going off the deep end one time and then seeing the error of their ways. Here we have an editor who was indef'd for outright vandalism who attempted to abuse a process to erase their history, and then socked through their siteban for almost another full year. That behaviour ended less than a year ago, and I don't think we should even be considering the standard offer until at least that much time has gone by. Call it punitive, whatever: I do think a very strong message needs to be sent to this user. Nevertheless, I have a proposal: that Bazaan be conditionally unblocked, under the conditions that they are indefinitely topic banned from any topics related to Bangladesh, broadly construed, and may not operate more than one account for any purpose; conditions may be appealed after no less than one year. They are encouraged to contribute constructively in other areas and to follow all content and behavioural guidelines during this time. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock as requested Several of the requesters statements seem to indicate that they do no realize which behaviour of theirs was disruptive. Capitals00 has gone over some of those statements. I would not oppose a conditional unblock that involves a topic ban from areas this user was disruptive in in the past. HighInBC 23:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock, and accept standard offer, though only with close scrutiny, and the understanding that if he even so much as leaves a major edit marked as minor, would be enough for a total site ban. Besides that, I sensed a of ring of truth and sincerity that gave me a rather brief reprieve, but just enough to give him another chance, but only ONE chance.. after this, this is it.. gone for good. I think his gaming the system and bad behaviour in the past is simply his way of beating the system.. he had a genuine interest in improving the project but for whatever reason his way of going about it is breaking some site rules that he seems to feel are not as binding (to him) as they inevitably are; plus his intellect and wit would get him past it it without a scratch, and got a rude awakening that he can't just breeze his way past our site policies. Anyway.. my characterizations may be totally off-beat here but this was my two cents and initial impressions that colored by my decision to support. Thanks very much. -- œ^™ 04:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify a few things here. First, it is not a good idea to expect Bazaan or any other editor here to be completely perfect. Second, like some others have requested, I would oppose topic ban and it is not needed because he was not topic banned when he was blocked. If he makes disruptive edits we have always got AN or AE for seeking sanction like topic ban. Instead I would say that he should make another promising unblock request, not before next 6 months. He should confirm that he understood the damage that he has done and try not to justify with anything better that he presumably did here. Capitals00 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unconditional unblock, support conditional unblock. Just to make a my position clear. Unblock on the condition that a minimum 3 month topic ban from all Bangladesh relate articles broadly construed be levied. My support is also conditional on no socking within 6 months prior to the unblock request. If socking is discovered, then the clock is reset by another 6 months per the Standard Offer. However, I would be willing to overlook the socking if Bazaan proactively reveals any socks they may have used in the 3 months leading up to the unblock request. Blackmane (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock with close monitoring and a complete understanding on his part that the leash is very, very short. Katie^talk 13:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

This was listed at ANRFC, though I can't quite find sufficient consensus to close it one way or the other. Most users have opposed an unconditional unblock, though some would support an unblock on the condition of a topic ban from the most problematic areas. I'd like to see some further discussion on this before closing. Should Bazaan be kept blocked, or would an unblock with a topic ban be acceptable, and if so what would the terms of this topic ban be? Sam Walton (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Let's hope some more folks will look into it. Personally, if a former socker asks for an unblock and hasn't been socking, I see no reason to be extra-strict and say no. After all, if they were sockers to the core, they wouldn't have to be asking for an unblock. Drmies (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll restate my suggestion from above, since it came late in the thread: that Bazaan be reinstated but topic-banned indefinitely from Bangladesh. They were disruptive in that topic to the point of earning a siteban, and then socked through it persistently for over a year. It's apparent that they shouldn't edit in that topic area until they build experience editing in topics less personal to them. If they can show they're able to contribute constructively in other areas, then requesting lifting of this sanction should be very simple a year from now. I say a year because that's the length of time that they abused multiple accounts to be intentionally disruptive through a siteban, and it hasn't been a year yet from when they finally gave that up. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong

Any appeal must come from the user themselves. To appeal an ArbCom ban, Ryulong must e-mail ArbCom. He knows this very well. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Howdy. It's been over a full year now, so may we have Ryulong's talkpage privillages restored? He deserves a chance to seek reinstatement. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MfD of WP:Reform of Wikipedia

Could I please request that several admins go through this discussion and stop the incivility and bludgeoning that is occurring in various !votes and comments by various users on both sides. I am aware that this is not the 'typical' board for this type of request, but several users may need to be brought here because of comments on the essay/proposal's talkpage and the MfD. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Also posted on WP:ANI[reply]

Unexplained reverts on Comedian and false accusations

I made a constructive edit on Comedian today. MarnetteD chose to revert me with no helpful edit summary whereas I had made my point clear. Then, another user called Curro2 did the same. In the meanwhile, I've been the only one who had undo-ed and ~~readded~~ removed the ~~content~~ two words with an edit summary. First, I was warned my edits were vandalism (wth?!), then apparently I was blanking templates/content (oh, is it?) and was warned twice over that. Also, that templated warning says I didn't provide an edit summary. The two editors have not maintained good faith and accused me falsely. I call for my edits to be reinstated and that the editors in question are reprimanded. Thank you. --117.194.236.244 (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google search is not a reliable source, and the original wording that the other editors have been restoring is the correct one. Referring to your edit as vandalism is erronious and shouldn't be done, but when it comes to the actual content they are correct and not you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know that it isn't. I meant that the users can themselves see the links returned by the search query. [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Yes, now you'll say they're personal blogs but if you could point me to a single source that says with complete affirmation that they're the same, I'll rest my case. --117.194.236.244 (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steel1943

Steel1943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Please block this user. He keeps reinstating original research in the Melissa Duck article. 172.56.30.65 (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 597: / Line 597: @@
 :Google search is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], and the original wording that the other editors have been restoring is the correct one. Referring to your edit as vandalism is erronious and shouldn't be done, but when it comes to the actual content they are correct and not you. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 06:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 ::Yes I know that it isn't. I meant that the users can themselves see the '''links''' returned by the search query. [https://newyorkcomedy.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/comic-vs-comedian-whats-the-difference/], [http://www.comedyofchicago.com/2012/07/thinking-out-loud-comic-or-comedian-by_11.html], [https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-comic-and-a-comedian], [http://funnycoach.com/Comedian%20vs%20Comic.pdf], [http://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/lessons-in-comedy-from-milton-berle-and-lou-jacobi]. Yes, now you'll say they're personal blogs but if you could point me to a '''single''' source that says with complete affirmation that they're the same, I'll rest my case. --[[Special:Contributions/117.194.236.244|117.194.236.244]] ([[User talk:117.194.236.244|talk]]) 07:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
+== Steel1943 ==
+{{vandal|Steel1943}} - Please block this user. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_Duck&type=revision&diff=701273526&oldid=701273392 He keeps reinstating original research in the Melissa Duck article]. [[Special:Contributions/172.56.30.65|172.56.30.65]] ([[User talk:172.56.30.65|talk]]) 07:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards