Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

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

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area

(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: - 8-11 editors have voted in Shushugah's proposals by now. starship.paint (RUN) 11:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll let them keep running a little longer. I won't realistically have time to write a closing statement before the weekend, anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Preemptively commenting that I have been sick for the past couple of days: not seriously, but enough that I feel like I haven't had the mental energy to give this the attention it deserves. It has not slipped my mind. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:清风与明月_Continued_Tendentious_editing.

(Initiated 10 days ago on 5 September 2024) Conversation seems to have ended, consensus seems to be that the user is an issue, but no clear consensus on what to do about it. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CBAN Indef for User:Wikiprediger

(Initiated 8 days ago on 7 September 2024) Restored from archive. Admin closure requested. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Done by StarMississippi. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 105 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:National Rally#RFC: What words should appear in the "political position" line of the infobox?

(Initiated 88 days ago on 20 June 2024) RfC already expired on this very controversial article and a formal closure is needed to prevent future edit warring. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 85 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)

(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)

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)

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)

Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 70 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 70 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 63 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone taking a look at this? Pretty please. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on the inclusion of alleged Ukrainian misuse of civilian infrastructure for military operations

(Initiated 53 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

(Initiated 41 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine

(Initiated 41 days ago on 6 August 2024) Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine Hi! calling for closers for this one, as well as interpretation of whether content should be placed back in in case of WP:NOCONSENSUS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 37 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image

(Initiated 37 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Can someone close this before the opening editor pings any more projects. It's around eight so far. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The opening editor needs to be warned about forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

They were in that very RFC and went right back to doing it within a few days. Nemov (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Then I think AN/I is the appropriate place for that. I'm not going to encourage this sort of behavior by closing this discussion immediately, but other closers here might think differently. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for the confusion. I don't think it should be closed just because of the forum shopping. The RFC is nearing expiration. I just mention the pinging of projects in order to save the community time. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Projected Electoral Votes infobox

(Initiated 37 days ago on 10 August 2024) Hello. Please close this discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

(Initiated 35 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Herrenvolk democracy#RfC Should the Israeli Flag be displayed in the article?

(Initiated 34 days ago on 13 August 2024) Discussion has been open for more than 30 days. I believe the result is pretty clear however am involved and another editor has objected to my interpretation of the consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

(Initiated 30 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Algeria#RfC on ethnic groups in the infobox

(Initiated 21 days ago on 26 August 2024) Greetings closing admins, I would like to request a closure of RfC discussion of Algeria Algeria RfC discussion as the discussion has stabilized and it is due for closure. --Potymkin (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Potymkin: It's not due for closure, as it's been open for 19 days not 30. The last comment was four days ago, at 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC), so I also don't think that it's stabilised. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

okay thank you for your output and also for correcting my form, I apologize for mistakes i made in the template on this form as this is my first time. I have made wrong judgement when I read " 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." I fully trust your judgement that the discussion is not yet ready for closure. the person who started the RfC @Kovcszaln6 said in UserTalk Page " In order to avoid any future trouble (see WP:INVOLVED) I decided that it's best if I don't close the RfC myself. As I have stated, I'd suggest that you request the RfC's closure at WP:RFCL" so what do you recommend I do next ?

Delete the Template and I restate it in 11 days ?

or keep the templete until it ticks 30 days have passed ? Potymkin (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Rename and re-theme ITN: request for an early close

(Initiated 4 days ago on 12 September 2024) There is almost unanimous consensus to close this RfC early, but I think this needs an uninvolved closer. There's currently an ongoing RFCBEFORE discussion in anticipation of a workshopped RfC on the future of ITN, so a quick review of this close request would be greatly appreciated. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

5 to 9 (just counting heads) is not "unanimous". Neither is a list of several opposers supporting close (with one supporter "ambivalent", and one of the RFC opposers opposing the early close). And a rename proposal doesn't interfere with whatever other discussions you may be having. If some future discussion does even more - great - consensus can change, after all. RFCs run for 30 days. And this one should too. - jc37 21:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion about an early close being nearly unanimous, not the RfC itself. A closer here will weigh the arguments and make an appropriate decision. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:New South Wales Police Force#RFC - former police officers Rogerson and McNamara crimes in 2014

(Initiated 41 days ago on 6 August 2024) Hello. Could an uninvolved editor please summarise and close this discussion. Thanks Melbguy05 (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	8	12	20
TfD	0	0	1	4	5
MfD	0	0	4	5	9
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	27	19	46
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#North West Leicestershire by-election, 2010

(Initiated 66 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Imperial Royalty

(Initiated 65 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_9#All-Star_Batman_and_Robin

(Initiated 56 days ago on 22 July 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:Wikipedia utility templates

(Initiated 37 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:NASCAR by year

(Initiated 28 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 28#Category:Education scandals and controversies

(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 August 2024) I think this is an easy one, both to close and to implement – {{db-xfd}} is your friend for non-admins :D HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2#Category:LGBT YouTube celebrities

(Initiated 14 days ago on 2 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Electrogravitics#Redo of merger with Biefeld-Brown effect

(Initiated 285 days ago on 6 December 2023) a merge discussion related to Electrogravitics and Biefeld–Brown effect now without comments for 4 months; requesting a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

(Initiated 133 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 111 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)

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

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

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

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)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 109 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 99 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)

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)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

(Initiated 78 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 70 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isabel#Proposed merging of Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into Hurricane Isabel

(Initiated 35 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

(Initiated 30 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#"File pages without a corresponding file"

(Initiated 25 days ago on 22 August 2024) Needs uninvolved editor or admin to close the discussion. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 21 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter#Proposed_moratorium

(Initiated 20 days ago on 27 August 2024) Needs a closed from an experienced user. Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (20 out of 8401 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Panchal 2024-09-16 15:38 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case User talk:Jimfbleak 2024-09-16 13:34 2024-09-30 13:34 edit,move Persistent vandalism Jimfbleak Talk:Gaza genocide 2024-09-15 21:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case User talk:Magnolia677 2024-09-15 21:01 2024-09-16 21:01 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Bbb23 Template:Snow Patrol 2024-09-15 20:13 2024-10-15 20:13 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Snow Patrol 2024-09-15 20:11 2026-09-15 20:11 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan User:Daniel Quinlan/Sandbox 2024-09-15 18:54 2026-01-01 00:00 move test protection Daniel Quinlan Maria Zakharova 2024-09-15 05:30 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Saryuparin Brahmin 2024-09-15 03:30 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Philippe Lazzarini 2024-09-15 03:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Talk:Beliveo Lamoya 2024-09-14 19:25 2024-09-17 19:25 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Beliveo Lamoya 2024-09-14 19:23 2024-09-17 19:23 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/portal/core 2024-09-14 17:01 indefinite edit,move RFPP request Anachronist Jol Thoi Thoi Bhalobasha 2024-09-14 06:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Ogaden (clan) 2024-09-13 20:38 2026-09-13 20:38 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Galileo Galilei 2024-09-13 19:05 indefinite move Persistent vandalism: per RFPP Daniel Case Template:Infobox cricket tournament 2024-09-13 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Archive top red/styles.css 2024-09-13 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3381 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Communist Party of India (Marxist) 2024-09-13 15:28 2024-12-13 15:28 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; up to ECP as semi isn't sufficient; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Anastasia Trofimova 2024-09-12 21:06 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter

WP:AN/CXT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to move forward with Mathglot's proposal (see #Proposal), which will cause a mass deletion of the pages on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review, with the option to save certain pages from deletion within a two-week window. As part of the proposal, there is also a consensus to amend WP:X2 in the manner S Marshall specifies in this edit.

Opposition to this change revolved around the argument that the articles which would qualify for mass deletion should be improved instead of deleted. Elinruby proposed alternatively that we should focus on recruiting editors fluent in foreign languages, Mathglot initially proposed to mass-draftify the articles instead of deleting, and Sam Walton argued that the articles contained valid content that didn't deserve mass deletion.

A majority of other editors, however, argued that many of the articles involved are poorly sourced BLPs that have the potential to harm their subjects if left unimproved. Given the large number of articles and low number of editors involved, it will likely be months before these articles are improved. Additionally, a user who is not fluent in both of the languages involved in a translation will not be able to adequately evaluate the validity of the machine-translated content; the article may appear unproblematic to such a user, but the content translation tool could have subtly altered the meaning of statements to something false.

In short, the consensus is that in the long run, the encyclopedia would be better off if these articles were mass deleted. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Hi, Wikipedians. I wanted to give you an update on WP:AN/CXT. Since that discussion was closed about eight months or so ago, we've cleared out about 10% of the articles involved, which were the easiest 10%. The work is now slowing down as more careful examination is needed and as the number of editors drops off, and I'm sad to report that we're still finding BLP issues. The temporary speedy deletion criterion, X2, is of little use because it's phrased as a special case of WP:SNOW and I'm not being allowed to improve it. The "it's notable/AFD is not for cleanup" culture at AFD is making it hard for me to remove these articles as well, so I'm spending hours trying to get rid of material generated by a script in seconds. I'm sorry but I'm discouraged and I give up. Recommend the remainder are nuked to protect the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For more context on this issue, please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#X2 revision. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: This link is now located at .../Archive_61#X2 revision. Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, S Marshall, and I don't fault you for your choice. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Isn't there some way to use the sortware to delete all of these in bulk, if only as a one-time thing? Seems like a huge waste of time if it's being done manually by hand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Easily doable as a batch-deletion. I could have it wrapped up in 15 minutes. Unfortunately community consensus did not lean towards approving that option. In fact, most CXT creations which have been reviewed needed cleanup but turned out to be acceptable articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I would support a nuke, a mass draftification, or some loosening of X2. The current situation is not really tenable due to the density of BLP violations. However, ultimately, the broader community needs to discuss what the appropriate action is under the assumption that we are not going to get much more volunteer time to manually check these articles. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, the broader community doesn't need to discuss that. It's completely needless and the community has had a huge discussion already. All that needs to happen is for WT:CSD to let me make one bold edit to a CSD that was badly-worded from the get-go, and we'll all be back on track. That's it. The only problem we have is that there are so many editors who want to tell me how to do it, and so few editors willing to get off their butts and do it.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Restored from archive, as it's unhelpful for this to remain unresolved.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support systematic nuke/ revision of X2 to enable this mess to be cleared up. It's not fair that @S Marshall: is being prevented from improving the encyclopedia like this. Amisom (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support @S Marshall:'s revision or a nuke from orbit. I wasn't active when this situation was being discussed originally, but having now read over the discourse on the matter, it is clear that our current approach isn't working. No one else is stepping up to help S Marshall do this absurd amount of reviewing, leaving us stuck with thousands of machine-translated BLP violations. It's all well and good to say that AfD isn't cleanup and deletion solves nothing and we should let articles flower patiently into beautiful gardens, but if no one's pulling the weeds and watering the sprouts, the garden isn't a garden, it's a weed-riddled disaster. Give the gardener a weed whacker already. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support the bold edit required to X2; it's true, of course, that AfD is not clean up- but neither should it be a barrier to clean up. In any case, moving a backlog from one place to another is hardly helpful. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Question @Elinruby and Yngvadottir: As users who (from a quick glance) seem to have been active looking through these articles, do you think the quality is on average worse than a typical random encyclopedia article, and if so, bad enough that speedy deletion would be preferable to allowing them to be improved over time as with any other article? I don't mean to imply that this is necessarily the case, but I think it should be the bar for concluding whether mass speedy deletion is the correct answer. Sam Walton (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• (I wish I'd seen this earlier; thanks for the ping. I feel I have totally let down S Marshall; I just couldn't stand it any more.) On the whole ... yes. Support deletion of those remaining that have not been marked as ok/fixed. As I tried to explain in the initial discussion, the basic premise here is incorrect: as it states somewhere at Pages needing translation into English, a machine translation is worse than no article. It will almost always be either almost impossible to read, incorrect (for example, mistranslating names as ordinary nouns, or omitting negatives ...) or both. Some of these translations have been ok; many have been woefully incomplete (just the start of the lede), and they all require extremely careful checking. Yes, what lies in wait may include BLP violations. I sympathize with the article creators, and I am usually an inclusionist; I put hours of work into checking and improving some of these, and I'm not the only one. But please, enough. We'd wind up with decent articles faster if these were deleted, and the majority that are bad do a disservice to their topics. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• You haven't let me down. You've given me a truckload of support with this.—S Marshall T/C 13:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Still oppose mass deletion -- @Sam Walton: What she said: Thank you the ping; this discussion was seeming a bit reiterative and I had mentally checked out. Like @Yngvadottir: I have put considerable effort into some of these articles. In fact, two or three of them are my own translations, which I would not have attempted without the translation tool, btw. Some are from my translations on French law, and I think 1) they cover important and previously missing topics and 2) they are high-quality technical translations. In most cases they speak for themselves. A couple are not perfect, reflecting the state of the French article, yes, and need work. But while these articles -- I am speaking here specifically of my own translations that appear on this list -- may be imperfect they are still reasonable stubs that can be built upon, and they also support more important articles by helping to prevent redlinks in some of the top-level articles on French law and also the French colonial legacy in Rwanda and the Congos etc. See Biens mal acquis for example. That was painful but I am proud of that translation. I have also encountered other people's translations on that list that made me proud of Wikipedia; the one on a cryptology algorithm for example comes to mind, or Essai sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations. I am an inclusionist, I have to admit, and yes yes, great wrongs and all, but I do think it is important that (for example) articles on Congolese history mention that there have been civil wars (beyond "unrest", and no, I am not kidding). The worst BLP problems I am aware of are in the articles on Dilma Rousseff and I don't believe they are on this list or were created with the tool. Some of the worst PNT pages I have seen predate the translation tool, for instance Notre-Dame de la Garde, which took me years to finish, and Annees folles which is as we speak an incredible mess requiring research in addition to copy-editing and translation. Yngvadottir is correct in saying that inappropriately translated proper nouns is a frequent problem. I recall a Hubert de Garde de Vins who became "wine", and yes, this did reduce the sentence to gibberish. It's annoying enough to make me wanna regex. But. Not mass deletion. I suggest case-by-case intervention in the case of egregious problems with particular users. It's not as though more that a very few users even try to translate. Or perhaps we should revise the criteria for translation user privileges. But even there -- one of the people tagged as delete on sight has created a number of skeleton articles about Quebec. These articles should be be fleshed out not deleted; we should have articles about Quebec. Some of the authors are unquestionably notable, the equivalent in my small culture of Simone de Beauvoir or Colette or Andre Gide. It seems to me that an article that says: this author was born, drank coffee, won the Governor-General's award and wrote these books, is better than having nothing at all. The placeholder takes the topic from unknown unknown to known unknown, or little-known in this context, I guess. We do know a little more about the folk dances of Honduras because there is a very bad article, for which I have done what I could. There are many different problems with the articles on this list. Someone has created multiple articles about, apparently every madrassa in central Tunis. Who am I? Some of the articles I have rescued at PNT were about the medieval wines of Provence, which might seem equally trivial to some. Some of the important but very flawed articles I have noted maybe should not be in the article mainspace -- I am thinking of the ones about the Virgin of Guadeloupe, pretty much everything flagged Mexican historical documents, the Spanish procession of the flowers, etc)--but an interested Spanish speaker could build these out. These topics are unquestionably notable. We should have an article about the Virgin of Guadeloupe, really, people, we should. My suggestion would be recruiting. We desperately need a Portuguese speaker and additional help with Spanish. Some of the unreferenced BLPs sitting around appear to be very fine even though they are unreferenced, and may in fact veer into fluff. But they don't approach liability for libel if that's the concern. I avoid them, personally, because I have in the past deciphered Abidjan l33t about a beloved soccer player, only to be told that we don't as a matter of policy consider these leagues notable. Fine then, they should not be on the PNT to-do list. I'd love to see the translation workflow improved but we should be encouraging the people expanding our horizons is what I think. I am sorry for the very long answer but I appear to be a voice wailing in the desert on this topic and I have now said pretty much the above many times now. Nobody seems to care so oh well, it's not like I don't have other work I can do on the history of the Congo and figuring out what Dilma Rousseff had to say about her impeachment. Reliable sources say she was railroaded (NPR for one) and that is not included in the article at all right now. The articles on Congolese history airily write off genocide and slaughter as "some unrest". In a world where these things are true I really don't care whether on not we find a reference for that Eurovision winner. Someone who cares can do that and I think ethnocentrism is a bigger issue on Wikipedia that these translation attempts. Move the ones that don't meet a minimum standard to some draft space or something. Educate the people who are creating this articles instead of shaking your finger at them. The article creation process is daunting enough and I myself have had to explain to new page patrollers that this punk band is in fact seminal whether you have heard of them or not and whether or not they sing in a language that you can understand. But I have been here enough to do that and I assure you, most people will not. Wikipedia wants to know why its editors grow fewer cough cough wikipedia, lookee here. I will shortly wikilink some of the examples I mention above for easier show-and-tell, for the benefit of anyone who has read this far. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal of these attempted articles (especially to avoid BLP problems laying around). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support [2] I'd say "do a disservice to their topics" is a mild way of putting it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket deletion. Having just checked a bunch of the remaining articles I found plenty of perfectly reasonable, non-BLP articles here, and any bad articles I did find were certainly not in greater number than you would find by hitting Random Article, nor were they particularly awful; the worst offenses I found were poor but understandable English. There's a lot of valid content here, especially on non-English topics which we need to do a better job of writing about. FWIW I'll happily put some time into going through this list. Sam Walton (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at the 20 articles I just reviewed here; none had any issues greater than needing a quick copyedit. Sam Walton (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Samwalton9: Thanks. It's been a long, hard slog. I appreciate it if any of these can be saved. However, did you check for accuracy? It's possible for a machine translation to be misleadingly wrong. And the miserable translation tool the WMF provides usually doesn't even attempt filmographies: look at that specific section of Asier Etxeandia. This is not acceptable in a BLP. Somebody who reads the original language (Spanish? Catalan?) needs to go through that article sentence by sentence and film by film. Unfortunately it's not a matter of notability (that's almost always attested to by the original article), it's a matter of whether we have time to save this article. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
      • That names of works likely don't get automatically translated properly is a good point that I hadn't considered, thanks for pointing that out. If that's one of the primary issues then I'd favour a semi-automated removal of "filmography" or similar sections, if possible. It just seems that there's a lot of perfectly good content in here. Sam Walton (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I looked at the first one you listed, it is a mass of non-BLP compliant (non-neutral, no-inline source) material. Letting stuff like that hang around is not just bad for that BLP but as an example for other BLPs to be created and remain non-compliant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Sam Walton, you didn't answer Yngvadottir's question. Can you speak the source languages? Remember that because of the defective way that software feature was implemented, you cannot assume that the translator speaks English and in many cases they obviously couldn't. (In practice the source language matters a lot because the software accuracy varies by the language pair. Indo-European languages are often but not always okay, and Spanish-English translations have particularly high accuracy, approaching 80%. Japanese-English, for example, has much, much lower accuracy.) So the correctness of the translation must be, and can only be, checked by someone with dual fluency in the source language and English.

            In the real world you can establish some rules-of-thumb. For example, you can quite safely assume that everything translated by Rosiestep is appropriate and can be retained. The editorial skills of the different translators varied very widely.

            All in all the best solution is for a human who's fluent in the source language and English to look at each of these articles and form an intelligent judgment. The thing that's preventing this solution is that, having looked at the content and formed the judgment, I can't then remove a defective article, because the defective wording in WP:CSD#X2 encourage sysops to decline the deletion unless it's a WP:SNOW case... so I've got to start a full AfD. Every. Single. Time. The effort for me to clean up is out of all proportion to the effort editors put into creating the damn things with a script.

            If you don't want the articles nuked (and that's a reasonable position), then please support the X2 revision I have proposed.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

When you say "the first one you listed" are you talking about Tomokazu Matsuyama? Yes, if so. it is indeed an unreferenced BLP but... I suspect five minutes of quality time with Google would take it out of that category, and it's essentially a resume, something like the placeholder articles I mentioned above. I think that perhaps we are better off knowing that this Japanese contemporary artist exists. Why not do a wikiproject to improve these like the one we just had on Africa top-level articles? It does seem to me that you could use a break from this wikitask and a little gamification might well get er done. I share your sentiment that in some ways we have our fingers in the dyke here, but the dyke does serve a purpose I think...In short I respectfully disagree with the current approach to these articles. Elinruby (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Break

@Alanscottwalker: I found a reference for his influences in less time than it took to add the ref code....Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Elinruby: Did you mean to ping me back here, many days after I commented, to tell me you found a pretty crappy commercial source? When I looked at it awhile ago, the article was filled with non-npov/non-referenced/BLP violating text. It is, thus, no comfort that since I commented, awhile ago, someone has according to their edit 'removed the worst of the puffery', and you added that crappy commercial source - its still not policy compliant (even if it is marginally better, since I flagged it) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I brought you back here to tell you that while it may be have been unsourced, fixing this is extremely trivial. I don't give a hoot about this particular article, but his gallery is not a "crappy commercial source" imho and if you want people to fix then article then you should enunciate your problem with it. Sorry if that doesn't fit your preconceptions Elinruby (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding a non-independent crappy commercial source is not fixing. It is selling. We are not in the business of selling. What you call "trivial" sourcing does nothing to fix just makes it worse - "trivial" should have tipped you off. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@AlanscottWalker: Um no.... I was using the term in its software development meaning. I apologize for picking the wrong dialect to make my point. I thought, since you were critiquing the software tool, you might know something about software even though you don't seem to be familiar with the features of this instance of it, or for that matter with a representative sample of its users. Commericial, hmm. The same could be said of my article about the thousand-year-old Papal vintages, you know. That vineyard is selling wine today. Is that article also commercial crap? Since it is a direct translation from French Wikipedia, are you saying that French Wikipedia is commercial crap? You really don't want to make me argue this point, seriously. Incidentally what is with the arbitrary insertion of a break in the discussion? Consider, for just a moment, that I might actually have a point. Entertain the notion for a minute. Why are you belittling my statement? Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Critiquing software tool? No, I was clearly critiquing an article in English on the English Wikipedia. And I was referring to the crappy commercial source - you pinged me, remember, so that I would know you added it to the article. That was not done in French, it was done in English. As for break, that is your doing, why should I have any idea why you added the crappy source, and then wanted to tell me about it in this break. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Let me use small words. CTX is software. Bad translation can happen with or without software. Lack of sources can happen without software. In software development "trivial" means "easy". Do you see now? Be careful who you patronize next time. 01:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall:I'd consider supporting your proposal, perhaps, once I have read it, but could you provide a link for we mere mortals who don't normally follow these proposals? I also disagree that all of these articles require a bilingual editor; some just need a few references and/or a copy edit. But you know I disagree at this point. And if you do, god help us, nuke all of these articles as opposed to one of the other courses of action I have (again) suggested above, please move mine to my draft space if you find them that objectionable. Some sort of clue as to what your issue is would also be nice. Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• The revision I want to make is this one. The intended effect is so that a human editor, who has reviewed the script-generated content and given it due consideration and exercise of judgment, can recommend the content for deletion and receive assistance rather than bureaucracy from our admin corps.

  The basic problem with these articles is that they are script generated and the scripts are unreliable. Exactly how unreliable they are varies according to the language pair, so for example Spanish-English translations are relatively good, while for example Japanese-English translations are relatively poor; and whether the articles contain specific grammatical constructions that the scripts have trouble with.

  You can test its accuracy, and I recommend you do. The script it used, during the problem period, was Google translate. I've just picked some sample text and run it through Google translate in various language pairs, first into a different language and then the translated text back into English, to see how it did. These were the results:-

Source text	Korean	Punjabi	Farsi
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition	Fourth and seventh years ago, our ancestors left the continent, a new country born in Liberty.	Four score and seven years on this continent, first our father a new nation, brought freedom and dedicated to the proposition	Four score and seven years ago our fathers on this continent, a new nation, the freedom brought, and dedicated to the proposition
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.	And when he saw the multitude, he went up to the mountain, and his disciples came, and opened his mouth, and taught him, saying, Blessed are the souls of the poor: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.	Jesus saw the crowds up on the mountain, and when he sat, his disciples came to him and he opened his mouth, and the poor in spirit was teaching, that theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Yes: interestingly the algorithm interpolated "Jesus" into the text.)	And seeing the multitudes, he went to the mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came to him and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for the kingdom of heaven.
Editors agree not to publish biographical material concerning living people unless it is accurate	The editors agree not to post electrical materials about living people unless they are the correct person.	To publish the biographical material about the editor, it is right to disagree,	Editors agree to publish biographies of living people, unless it is accurate.

I encourage you to try these and other examples with different language pairs. Can you see why you need to speak the original language in order to copyedit accurately?—S Marshall T/C 22:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

But that is not a fair test since it magnifies any word choice errors. There *will* be errors, yes. We clean them up at WP:PNT --- ALL THE TIME. And no, it is not necessary to speak the language always, though it certainly help. I really suggest that maybe you just need a wikibreak from this task. Bad english can mostly be fixed. There are the occasional mysteries, yes. There are colloquialisms, yes. This does not justify wholesale destruction of good content. I was just here to get the link as I mentioned your proposal to one of my PNT colleagues; I need to go but I'll look at your proposal the next time I log in Elinruby (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The liquor was strong but the meat was rotten.

Translation wonks will recognize the (apocryphal) story behind the sentence above, concerning literal mistranslations exacerbated from there-and-back translation. (The story perhaps originated after the NY World's Fair of 1964, which had a computer translation exhibit in the Russian Pavilion.) In any case, I'm just getting up to speed on this topic and will comment in more detail later.

Briefly: yes, you definitely have to speak the language to copyedit accurately. I'm actually in favor of a modification to WP:MACHINETRANSLATION to make it stronger. I fully agree with the worse than nothing statement in the policy now, but I'd go one step further: the only thing worse than a machine translation in an encyclopedia, is a machine translation that has been copyedited by a capable and talented monolingual (even worse: by someone who knows a bit of the language and doesn't know what s/he doesn't know) so that the result is beautiful, grammatical, smooth, stylish, wonderful English prose. As a translator, puh-LEEZ leave the crappy, horrible, machine-gobbledygook so that a translator can spot it easily, and fix it accurately. Copyediting it into proper English makes our job much harder.

If it's too painful to leave it exposed in main space, perhaps moving to Draft space could be an alternative. In fact, rather than a mass-delete, why not a mass-Draft-ify? (Apologies if someone has already said this, I'm still reading the thread.) More later. Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

mass-Draftify would work for me. And yeah I disagree with you too a little, but I knew that. My point is, we all agree that an issue exists so what do we do? I also have some more reading to do before I comment on what S Marshall (talk · contribs) is proposing. I have a story about the policy but I want to make sure it pertains to this discussion. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Elinruby is certainly correct to say this "wasn't a fair test", because going through the algorithm twice doubles the error rate. But a lot of people reading this discussion will speak only English so this is the only way I can show them what the problem is ---- without that context, they may well find this, and the original discussion at WP:AN/CXT, rather impenetrable because they won't understand the gravity of the concerns.

  It was even more unfair because it was me who selected the examples and I don't like machine translations. In order to illustrate my point I went with non-European languages and convoluted sentence structures. If you tried the same exercise with a verse from "Green Eggs and Ham" then you'd get perfect translations 99% of the time. (It tripped me up with the Sermon on the Mount because quite clearly, the algorithm recognised that it was dealing with a Bible verse, which I found fascinating.)

  The script is particularly likely to do badly with double-negatives, not-unless constructions, adverbs of time ("since", "during", "for a hundred years"), and the present progressive tense, in some language pairs.

  It would certainly be possible to construct a fairer text using more random samples of language.—S Marshall T/C 10:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall: alright, I grant you that there aren't many bilinguals here. This *is* the problem in my view. I'll also specify that I don't claim expertise outside the Romance languages, and very little for some of those. But allow me please, since I know you speak or at least read French, to propose a better example. There are common translation errors that can occur, depending on which tool exactly was used. The improperly-translated name (nom propre) problem was real but is now mostly fixed. The fact that a writer whose novels were written in French gave them titles in French should come as a shock to nobody. The correct format for a bibliography in such cases *is* title in the actual language of the words in the book, webpage or whatever. Translated title, if the title is not in English, goes in the optional trans-title (or is it trans_title?) field of the cite template. Language switch to be set if at all possible. If it is not, let me know, and I can reduce the number of foreign words that English wikipedia needs to look at. So. In all languages, pretty much, words like fire and sky and take tend to be both native to the original people and likely to carry additional meanings, as in take an oath, take a bus, take a break etc. On the other hand what the software tool does do extremely well is know the correct translation for arcane or specialized terms, often loanwords, like caravel or apse or stronghold. These words are in my recognition vocabulary not my working vocabulary and using the tool in certain instances saves many lookups. When there is a strong degree of ambiguity or divergence in meaning (like the example on my user page) then THEN yes a fluent or very advanced user is needed. There are known divergences that a bilingual would spot that an English speaker would not. Sure. "Je l'aime beaucoup, mon mari" is a good example. But the fact that this is true does not prove that every line of every one of these articles still needs to be checked before they can be permitted to continue to sully Wikipedia, or that each of these lines needs to be checked by you personally. If you feel overwhelmed, take a break. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• I speak English, French, German, Gibberish and Filth.  :) Joking aside -- I'm not concerned about noms propres. I'm concerned when the script perverts or even inverts the meaning of the source text. It's quite hard to give you an example because the examples I've discovered have all been deleted, and there's only the one non-English language we share, but perhaps an administrator will confirm for you the sorry history of Daphné Bürki. It was created as a machine translation of fr:Daphné Bürki and the en.wiki version said she was married to Sylvain Quimène, citing this source. Check it out; the source doesn't say that. In fact she was married to Travis Bürki, at least at one time (can't say whether she's still married to him). We had a biographical article where the subject was married to the wrong bloke. It's not okay to keep these around.

  Draftification is exactly the same as deleting them. Nobody is going to fix these up in draft space. The number of editors who're competent to fix them is small, and the amount of other translation work those editors have on their hands is very large, and it includes a lot of mainspace work that's more urgent than fixing raw machine translations in draft space, and it always will; we can get back to fixing draft space articles about individual artworks when every Leibniz-prizewinning scientist and every European politician with a seat on their national parliament has a biography. (We're on target never to achieve that. The democratic process means new politicians get elected and replaced faster than their biographies get translated from foreign-language wikipedias.)

  I don't object to draftifying these articles if that's the face-saving solution that lets us pretend we're being all inclusionist about it, but it would be more honest to nuke them all from orbit.—S Marshall T/C 00:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• I am just coming back to this. I agree about the relatively few translators and the large amount of work, and yet, we so fundamentally disagree. Some of the designated articles do are, in my opinion, within the top percentiles in article quality. Others have in fact been fixed up. You and I consulted about one once. Others, yes, need work, and I at least do get to articles that I say I will get to. Slowly, at times, sure. I have no problem with articles that don't meet a certain standard not going to mainspace, but I don't see why you singly out the translation tool as your criterion. I mention noms propres because I have mentioned one above from Notre-Dame de la Garde where Commander de Vins came across as wine, and this did make the sentence gibberish. But that article did not come out of the CTX tool. Ihave no idea what the Leibniz prize is, but I am not sure it's more notable, in the abstract, than Marcel Proust, but fine. Work on that all you like, sure. But don't tell me it's more important that some mention in Congolese history that there have been civil wars, or I will just laugh at you. The sort of error you mention above with Daphné Büki -- I'll look at it myself shortly, if it's from French I don't need an admin -- can be made by anyone who knows less than they think they do. Automated translation not needed. Now, I propose that since we are talking about this we work out some sort of saner translation process. For instance, if African football leagues are by policy not notable, as someone once told me, fine then, the article should not be in the translation queue. Put something in there about a minimum number of references, require the use of trans-title in the references, whatever is agreed upon is ok with me. Your proposed change would preserve most of by not all of the articles that have been worked on, which is a slight improvement I guess, except you'll also nuke the 3-4 articles that needed nothing and a whole lot of biography that I've avoid because people tend to write me snooty messages to inform me that the person isn't notable, and why waste work when articles like History of Nicaragua are so lacking? Elinruby (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, I've gone through this and thought about it, and I'm conditionally a Yes on change to X2 and nuking the list, with an option to save certain files.

S Marshall, I take your point about draftification being pointless, as they'll just sit there with most of them never being edited ever.

I believe you've also persuaded me that the nuke is appropriate, given some conditions below. In order to keep Elinruby and Sam Walton (and me, and others) happy about not deleting certain files we are working on or wish to work on, I had an idea: what if we agree to allow a delay of two weeks to allow interested parties to go through and mark files in the list we want to keep so when the nuke-a-bot comes through, it can pass over the files thus marked. (I don't know if we can gin this up for two weeks from yesterday, but that would be auspicious.)

More specifically, to Elinruby's (22:03, 1 April) "So what do we do?" question, I think here's what we do:

• Those of us who want to retain files, mark them with {{bots|deny=X2-nukebot}} to vaccinate them against nuking.
• Change X2 accordingly
• Somebody develops the nuke script
• Nuke script should nuke "without prejudice" so that if someone changes their mind later and wants to recreate a file, it shouldn't be "salted" or require admin action to "undelete"; you just recreate it in the normal way you create any new file.
• If needed, we run a pre-nuke test against sandbox files, or can we just trust the vaccination will be respected?
• Start the script up and let 'er rip

Elinruby, if this proposal were accepted, would you change your no to X2 modif to a yes? Sam Walton, would you?

Naturally for this to have any value, we'd have to agree to not vaccinate the whole list, but just the ones we reasonably expect to work on, or judge worthy of keeping. If desired, I can envisage a way to greatly speed up the first step (vaccination) for all of us. Personally, I won't mark any file translated from a language I don't know well enough to evaluate the translation. But, going through all 3500 files is a burden, since there's no point my even clicking on the ones in languages I don't know. If I knew in advance which ones are from Spanish, French, etc., that would be a huge help. If you look at 1300-1350, you'll see that I've marked them with a language code (and a byte count; but that was for something else). I could commit to marking another 200 or 300 with the lang code, maybe more. If we could break up the work that way and everybody just mark the files for lang code, then once that's done, we could all go through the whole list much more quickly, to see which ones we wanted to evaluate for vaccination.

I really think this could be wrapped up in a couple of weeks, if we get agreement. Mathglot (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Entirely happy with this idea.—S Marshall T/C 19:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Agree. Amisom (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• This is fine with me. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Are there any objections to moving forward with this? Tazerdadog (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Almost two weeks of SILENCE sounds like "go for it". Primefac (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm still good with this as proposer, of course, but just to reiterate: we'd still need a two-week moratorium *after acceptance* of the proposal before nuking, to allow interested parties to vaccinate such articles as they chose to. I assumed that was clear, but that "go for it" got me a little scared, so thought I'd better raise it again.

On Tazerdadog's point, what is the procedure for deciding when to go forward with a proposal? Are we there now? Whatever the procedure is, and whenever we deem "acceptance" to happen, can someone close it at that point and box it up like I see on Rfcs, so we can then start the two-week, innoculation period timer ticking without having more opinions straggle in after it's already been decided? Or what's the right way to do this? Mathglot (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Request formal close, per Mathglot. Do I need to post on ANRFC?—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

X2-nuke interim period

Wow, cool! Glad we made some progress, and just trying to nail down the next steps to keep things moving smoothly. To recap my understanding:

• we are now in the "inoculation period" with a fortnight-timer which expires 23:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC) an interim period where we figure out how to implement this.
• during this period, anyone may tag articles in the list at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review with the proper tag to prevent nuking two weeks hence

A couple of questions:

• do we have to recruit someone to write a script to do the actual nuking?
• what form should the actual "vaccination" tag have? In the proposal above, I just kind of threw out that expression: {{bots|deny=X2-nukebot}} but I have no idea how we really need to tag the articles, and maybe that's a question for the script writer?
• will the bot also observe strikeout type as an indicator not to nuke? A possible issue is inconsistent usage among editors: for example, some editors have not used strikeout for articles they have reviewed and clearly wish to save (e.g. see #1601-1622)

As for me, I will continue to tag a couple hundred more articles with language-tags as I did previously in the 1301-1600 range, to make it easier for everyone to find articles translated from languages they are comfortable working with, and that they therefore might wish to tag. Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Updated by Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Let's make two lists, one of articles to delete and the other of articles to retain for the moment. I don't think that it will be necessary to formally request a bot. We have quite a few sysops who could clean them all out with or without scripted assistance.—S Marshall T/C 15:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  I would implement it as a giant sortable wikitable - Something that looks like this:

Name	Language	Vaccinated	Notes
Jimbo Wales	es	Tazerdadog (talk)	Translation checked
Earth	ar	--	Probably Notable
My mother's garage band	fr	--	X2'd, not notable

Tazerdadog (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the current list easier to deal with than creating a new table, or two new ones? Can we just go based on strikeout type, or add some unambiguous token like, nuke=yes in the content of the items in the enumerated list that need to be deleted? I'm just trying to think what would be the least work to set up, and easiest to mark for those interested in vaccinating articles.

If we decide to go with a table, I might be able to use a fancy regex to create a table from the current bullet list. Although I definitely see why a table is easier to view and interpret once it's set up, I'm not (yet) persuaded that there's an advantage to setting one up in the first place. For one thing, it's harder to edit a table than a bullet list, because of the risk of screwing up cells or rows. Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The real advantage of the table is the ability to sort by language. This way, if we have a volunteer who speaks (for example) only English and Spanish, they can just sort the table by language, and all of the Spanish articles will be shown together. It's harder to edit, but in my opinion, the ease of viewing and extracting the information far outweighs this.

I have created a list that removes all struck items at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review/Tazerdadog cleanup list. I'm currently working on getting rid of the redlinks as well. Once that is done, we can move to a vaccination model on the articles that have not been cleaned up in the articles thus far. The vaccination can take virtually any form as long as everyone agrees on what it is - I'd recommend that we vaccinate at the central list/table rather than on the article however. Once the two weeks expire, it's trivial to extract the unvaccinated articles and poke a sysop for deletion. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: This was posted over at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review as well but wanted to mention it here. Timotheus Canens has created a language-sortable table in their sandbox at User:Timotheus Canens/sandbox that I think is similar to what you were thinking. Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And we may have to recreate the table, as I didn't notice it and have been continuing to mark language codes on the main list (and shall continue to do so, unless someone yells "Stop!"). Also, not sure how trivial it is: given a full set of instructions what to do, then, yes, it's trivial, but this is not formatted data (yet) and there are all sorts of questions a sysop might have, such as, what to do with ones marked "moved", or "redirected", and other situations I've come across while going through the list that don't spring to mind. We don't want to burden the sysop with an illy-defined task, so all of those situations should be spelled out before we ask them to take their time to do it, as if there are too many questions, they'll either give up, or they'll do whatever they feel like. Mathglot (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timotheus Canens: Tazerdadog (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Re-requesting closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy

Someone already requested a closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy, which concerns outing/paid editor/harassment/COI... whatever. However, Casliber says that more than one closer, preferably three-person, may be needed. I wonder whether more than one closer is necessary. If so, this indicates that the discussion would be another one of more difficult discussions we've seen lately. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not obvious from the discussion and the number of editors participating and the number of proposals made that it's a difficult and controversial topic? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

To me, closing the whole discussion is very difficult because of the controversy of the topic. However, I concentrated more on milieus and proposals. To be honest, I saw two milieus and one concrete proposal receiving support from the majority. I concentrated on the straw polls and arguments. How about this: close separate milieus and proposals separately? They aren't that difficult to separately close due to other milieus and proposals not likely to pass. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing each one separately probably makes more sense from a numbers perspective. However, it should still be one group of editors that does it, since there is the possibility (mentioned on the discussion) that some of the milieus could contradict each other depending on what gets passed. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Milieus 1, 2, and 5 are easy to close as the majority opposes them individually. Milieu 3 and concrete proposal 1 received majority support, so those would be also easy to close. But you're right; one same group of editors should do the individual closures. However, I won't be part of the closing group, so I'll await the uninvolved closers then. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be willing to be involved in a group closure on this. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I cast a !vote in the discussion which I had forgotten about - it would therefore be grossly inappropriate for me to participate in this closure Tazerdadog (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess this means we're putting the band back together ;) Primefac (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We still need one more volunteer for this. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll step up, if you like.—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

And... we're back down to 2. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Needed: Another closer please!—S Marshall T/C 15:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you just go ahead with however many closers you have now. I further suggest that the "milieux" were intended to get a "general view of the community" and were very vaguely worded, so that if all you can say is "there was no apparent consensus", then so be it. As far as concrete proposal 1, which I proposed, the 28-6 result seems to make the close obvious. You might as well just go ahead and close it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Primefac: thoughts? Nobody else is stepping up.—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh, let's just go for it. I think I've still got your email kicking about. I'll send you my thoughts hopefully in the next 24 hours. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll write mine independently over the same period, and we can see if we agree.  :)—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I've re-opened the RFC. Re-opening interest for other editors willing to work on a close. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Take your time. ;) Meanwhile, what happened to closing separate, individual milieux and proposals? George Ho (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll go back to what I said 4 comment above. The milieux can be very difficult to close because of the wording. I thought the reverted close was a very good attempt to make sense out of M.3 in that it focused on what the consensus there actually agreed on, but that aroused a storm and nobody seems to be able to agree on what was actually agreed on. Concrete proposal 1, which I proposed, is very much the opposite and I think can be easily closed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll help close it, but I think the section below the actual RFC should be considered as well, since they're actively discussing the RFC and how to proceed. Maybe we should wait just a little while longer to see how that develops. Katie^talk 23:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. No point in cutting off productive discourse. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac, KrakatoaKatie, and S Marshall: I'm going to close a couple separate milieus that receive huge opposition. Casliber, the proposer, is fine with it. However, may I summarize the tally votes as just short rationales? I'll leave the others open. --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me, George Ho. It'll make the overall close a bit cleaner. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Closed milieu 1 and milieu 5. I closed milieu 2 as "no consensus", but I commented that another closer can summarize that better than me. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I changed my mind and briefly summarized milieu 2. --George Ho (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Milieu 3, Concrete proposal 1, and Concrete proposal 2 are closed by Winged Blades of Godric. Give Godric thanks for the closures. George Ho (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been thinking. After closing all the milieus and concrete proposals, I wonder whether closing the remainder of the whole discussion as a whole is possible. If not, how about separately closing "RfC discussion" (including Break 1), Break 2, and Break 3? George Ho (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Someone has been dishonestly removing valid references to atheists as such

Among the pages I watch, I noticed that both John Desmond Bernal and Michael Foot had been removed from the category 'atheist'. Bernal because it was supposedly trivial and Foot because it had no main-text reference.

I restored Bernal, pointing out that his history could have made him a Deist but he was not. On Foot, it was indeed unsourced, so I added quick details with two highly reliable references.

I then thought to check, and found it was the same person, "Jobas", who had done this on a massive scale. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Jobas&offset=20170323172504&target=Jobas.)

This has to be dishonest. The two reasons given contradict each other. And how could a committed Christian really think it was trivial? I suspect this person wants to eliminate 'off-message facts'.

How someone can think it a good idea to be 'dishonest to God' puzzles me, but is not my problem.

I hope you now take action, reversing every change that has not been fixed already.

I am busy with other matters, I do not want to spend more time on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GwydionM (talk • contribs) 09:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Both the removals you cite look legitimate to me. See this explanation of how biographical categorization works; we categorise by what the person is known for, not every characteristic. Thus, if someone's written a book about their atheist views, recorded a Christian rock album, been persecuted for their Buddhist faith etc, they get the appropriate (ir)religious category, but they shouldn't be used for people who just happen to subscribe to a particular belief. ‑ Iridescent 09:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I had a talk with Jobas (talk · contribs) about this yesterday following a WP:AIV report. I reverted several examples where they removed atheist categories, incorrectly citing WP:NOTDEF as their reason. They were blindly removing the categories without checking the text of the article for assertions of atheism. They have been cautioned against making edits like these blindly in the future. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My edit was based on Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which cited: Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in questionand WP:NONDEF: which cited Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not a particular characteristic is "defining" for any given topic, and there is no one definition that can apply to all situations. However, the following suggestions or rules-of-thumb may be helpful:. It can be verified that the subject was an atheist, but it should also be that key defining trait that the subject was prominently noted for or defining characteristic, for example in Michael Foot article, it's only instances "atheist" once inside the article. I don't deny that he is atheist, but it isn't a key defining trait that Michael Foot was prominently noted for i guess, here is anther examples of edit Iridescent (talk · contribs) John Logie Baird, Geoffrey Pyke, Simon Pegg, Andy Partridge, Gary Kemp etc, Is it legitimate?. Thanks for your concern and have a nice day.-Jobas (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Also per WP:NONDEF: a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. In all but one (of 40+) of the cases I reverted, this criteria was met, and the category should have remained in place. Jobas, if you're going to cite a policy as the basis for making potentially contentious edits en masse, then please familiarize yourself with the entire policy in order to avoid causing kerfuffles like this. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 16:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If you guys are going to scold someone for removing atheist categories, than GregorB has been removing numerous Catholic categories from articles even when it was clearly cited, (see examples here, here, here, here, here, here and so forth). To be fair GregorB has a lot more experience than me in this field so after a brief discussion I decided to give up on the topic as it seemed the editor knew more about the guidlines than I did, however if the general concencus here is that just a brief mention and source make it notable to add a religious (or non-religious) category than in the aforementioned instances the category should be added back too. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Also I want to add that I am all for the inclusion of article in religious (or irreligious categories) as long as the subject identifies with them and there is a citation to back it up. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My removal of said categories is based on WP:BLPCAT: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. Note BLPCAT says "self-identified" and "relevant" and "living person". Note also that BLPCAT is a Wikipedia policy, i.e. "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow".

My opinion on this issue: if the religious belief category in a BLP is unreferenced, then it may (in fact should) be removed on sight per WP:BLP. If it's referenced, WP:BLPCAT applies. Religious affiliation or atheism/agnosticism, it's the same.

There's nothing really wrong with the "subject identifies + reference" standard for categories - I suppose the consensus was that it would lead to trivial categorization of thousands upon thousands of biographies. However, since adding categories to bios of non-living persons is fair game according to this standard, I must say that doesn't make too much sense to me. This might be a question for WT:BLP or a similar forum. GregorB (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me that WP:EGRS is stricter than the rest of the WP:BLPCAT guidelines, as EGRS categories are required to be defining rather than merely verified and self-identified. I'm not sure this point is consistently reflected in all the relevant guideline pages. The summary at BLPCAT says such categories must be "...relevant to their public life or notability..." (my emphasis). "Relevant" seems to be a weaker standard than "defining". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I believe the text in EGRS tries to reflect BLPCAT and is just poor wording. BLPCAT as a policy trumps EGRS as a guideline and the latter should be interpreted the way BLPCAT intends it to be handled. I don't have to have written dozens of books on atheism for my lack of belief to be included in a category if said lack of faith has received significant coverage. Regards SoWhy 11:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Athiesm isnt a religion *gets coat*. But BLPCAT only takes effect once reliable sourcing is available for the category. Its 'weaker' once its reliably sourced because BLP is (primarily) about 'is it allowed to be on the article page' not 'should it be there'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment): There are actually two issues raised in the original post. I looked at the example articles given, as well as several more articles where Jobas has edited the categories, and Jobas appears to be correctly adhering to the letter of WP:CATGRS when deleting those categories: i.e.; the subject's lack of belief in gods is not why they are notable (and in many cases, isn't even mentioned in the body of the article), so is properly deleted. So far, so good. The second issue raised is whether Jobas is editing "honestly", and following the spirit of WP:CATGRS by applying it only to improve articles (and the encyclopedia), or is WP:CATGRS being invoked to selectively choose and delete certain categories to advance an agenda, in violation of one of Wikipedia's main policies against such motivated editing. Has Jobas been deleting 'atheist' categories as non-defining, while allowing other equally non-defining religious categories to remain in the same articles? Administrators do need to determine if this means his/her goal is not so much article improvement, but rather POV advancement. For example, does the editor still follow WP:CATGRS when adding religious categories, especially ones with whom the editor identifies? If not, it indicates a problem which needs to be addressed. I've only given it a cursory look, but I've seen enough to raise some concern. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this a copyvio or just a breach of a website's T&Cs?

Via an OTRS ticket I've been made aware that we have over 41,000(!) links, mostly used as references in visa requirement articles, linking to http://www.timaticweb.com. This site is a subscription site but the links inserted include a set of log in details, hence the links go through to the final page rather than a landing page. The owners of the website are naturally a bit distressed that we are hosting so many links to a trade site that users have to pay for. As they are also the owners of the public site http://www.iatatravelcentre.com there is not objection to this site being linked to instead.

By having in the link the necessary information to log into the site this would appear to be a breach of timaticweb T&C let alone security and not an action we should condone?

Suggestions for actions? I'm thinking

1. suggest the site owners disable the account that appears to being used in the links
2. we remove all the links and consider replacing with links to www.iatatravelcentre.com, however I think this needs a query completing for each combination of countries. (Bot task?)

Nthep (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

So, in other words we are using URLs that provide a login access to content, rather than plain links which point to a landing/"subscription required" page? Well, I guess it'd depend on whether the content of the public site iatatravelcentre is of the same quality as the timaticweb one. Something to compare with: What would Wikimedia do if there was a website that lists accounts with login details, allowing violations of WP:SHARE? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• There is some previous discussion of these links at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#links to TimaticWeb. There are also tmeplates that use Timatic Template:Timatic and Template:Timatic Visa Policy which may need to be looked at. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I would say that without permission from both Timatic and the airline whose login we are using we really shouldn't have these links. DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It appears that the user details are coded into both these templates (it's appears to be a Gulf Air account). The difference between the two sites is that timatciweb gives travel trade practitioners a one page summary of visa requirements whereas iatatravelcentre gives a more personalised result based on the input of more information that just home country and destination. Nthep (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not a copyright violation, probably just a breach of the other website's terms and conditions. We're not hosting any copyrighted content, and we're linking to a website that is legitimately hosting content. If the account information is being used illegitimately, that's for them to handle (or not) how they wish. We have no legal obligation not to host such URLs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps no legal obligation not to make our users fraudulently access another website when they follow our links, but I would suggest a moral one, to our readers if no one else. I for one would like to be warned before clicking on such a link. DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably it's on the operators of the website to not have a login system which can be accessed by passing credentials in the URL; I would argue this makes it publicly accessible. On the other hand, if they have clearly stated that this material is meant to be accessed only by subscription, then the link probably violates their copyright (i.e. the editor posting the link here has violated their copyright) and yes Wikipedia can be legally liable for hosting links to copyrighted content in such a situation (IANAL, but see contributory copyright infringement). It's probably in our best interest to remove the links and perhaps blacklist the site, at least temporarily. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I see no policy-based reason to change anything. Ignoring subscription access procedures is not a copyright issue (contributory infringement is impossible unless someone else is copying in an infringing manner; if we're linking to something put up by the owner, nobody's infringing copyright), and we're not bound by their T&A. However, I agree that this simply isn't the right thing to do; we shouldn't be helping someone get content that they should have to pay for. What to do? Do the links go to born-digital data, or are they merely digital versions of print originals? If the former, we'll have to replace something. If the latter, removing the links will be sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the obvious solution is to not allow users to login to your site via a URL, which seems like incredibly poor security, however this is a good faith request and I see no reason not to 'fix' or remove these URLs. Sam Walton (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the credentials used to 'share' access to timaticweb have been disabled by the site. As it looks like a lot of the 41k links are via the {{Timatic}} I suggest the template is temporarily locked to prevent another set of credentials being substituted (something I think has been done before looking at the template history). This now leaves us with a lot of non-working links, attempting to follow a link brings up a 503 error not a redirect to the landing page.

Now while I originally labelled this section as a possible copyvio, I accept that the content being linked to isn't copyrighted just a very convenient repository but I share the sentiments of others who feel it isn't right that we are hosting a method of sharing account information and possibly undermining a commercial operation whether or not we feel they need to address their site security. Nthep (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have placed both templates under full-pp for two weeks while we work out what to do if anything. I have a feeling that replacing the links with links to iatatravelcentre isn't going to achieve anything as it requires quite detailed information submitting into the query field to produce a result. Nthep (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

We were discussing this on several occasions before but never came up with a definite answer. There are two issues here, copyright and the use as a reference. When it comes to copyright in all likelihood the information stored does not pass the threshold of creativity to be copyrighted, it's just facts that by definition can't be copyrighted. It's not even originally created by Timatic, only compiled as the data is provided by the national governments and in most countries government-produced material is not copyrighted. However I've always removed direct copy/pasting of content from Timatic just to avoid any possible copyvio claims. So for that matter there is very little grounds to claim any copyright violations as we don't store any of the material which could be copyrighted here, we only link to it. The more complicated issue is whether we can use it as a source. Timatic is openly accessible, links with credentials are to be found on airline websites or forums like FlyerTalk, there is absolutely no log-in required or any warning whatsoever, saying that it is a subscription service would make very little sense. Credentials are changed only if one of the airlines ceases using Timatic and switches to another service like Delta or KLM did meaning the KLM was switched to Gulf not because KLM blocked access but because it switched to klm.traveldoc.aero. But even if it was a subscription service it shouldn't prevent us from using it as a reference, just like any other paid source. This is how landing page access looks like - https://www.olympicair.com/en/Info/Timatic but it takes you to the same page as the ones used in links. But if a bot can replace all of the links with a corresponding link on www.iatatravelcentre.com which is supposedly OK then it should be fine.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The only objection is that use of credentials in templates on Wikipedia breaches the terms and conditions of use of Timatic T&C clause 1.1. Whether these credentials are widely available elsewhere is not the point, this is about whether Wikipedia should be participating in such conduct. Now if all 41,000 links are via the two templates mentioned above then changing the link to point to the search page of iatatravelcentre.com or using olympicair.com/en/Info/Timatic which seems to me to be an easier interface i.e. not as much detailed travel information required probably isn't a huge job. Nthep (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

But does the "IATA Timatic Service(s)" refer to the database? Timatic is a big system used by the airlines, it's mostly automated these days. The terms of service refer to the Timaticweb2 which should be the program used by airlines to screen passengers against visa and health requirements. In the FAQ it says "TimaticWeb 2 is based on the Timatic database.". What we are linking to here is as far as I understand the Timatic database, I don't think we are using the Timaticweb2 subscription service. But if it can be all easily replaced to www.iatatravelcentre.com or olympicair.com/en/Info/Timatic then of course we should do that.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Just had a good look about the T&Cs of Timatic. It seems like that those who access Timatic as a member of the public are considered "users", per the definition:"'[u]ser' means any person to whom the Subscriber provides IATA Timatic Information, or who the Subscriber enables to retrieve IATA Timatic Information using the Subscriber’s system or any interfaces, and shall include employees, contractors, outsourcers, representatives, agents, consultants, Subscriber customers and other designees of the Subscriber using the Subscriber’s reservation and related systems for the purpose of processing the Subscriber’s passengers. Members of the public who may, with the facilitation of the Subscriber or Users, access the IATA Timatic Information are also considered “Users” for the purposes of this subscription." Also under section 4.2: "The Subscriber may provide Users with IATA Timatic Information using interfaces developed independently of this Subscription (when subscribing to IATA Timatic AutoCheck) or as may be provided by IATA. The Subscriber may provide public access to IATA Timatic Information on their website including mobile websites and mobile applications, provided the Subscriber ensures that any public user is notified of the statement in clause 7.3." So it seems that each individual request is made as a user and is covered under section 4.2 (hence the KLM or Golf Air authentication), and the section 1.1 only applies to subscribers which definitely does not apply to Wikipedia in this case. Put it this way: we are just accessing the information provided by the airlines as a member of the public. Let me know if I'm missing anything else here. C-GAUN (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, IMO there's nothing we did to breach the T&Cs on the use of Timatic services. We have not violated the terms of use in section 4. The fees are between IATA and the subscribers, and do not concern the users. The information we access is provided by the IATA and none have violated section 7. C-GAUN (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A bit more details on the compliance of terms. 4.3.1 is not violated because at none of the time the information has been extracted, resold or transfered; none of the information is stored on Wikipedia as a compliance per 4.3.3; there is no application that retrieves the previously accessed version of Timatic hence 4.3.4 is satisfied. Section 5, 6, 7 mainly concern the terms between subscribers and IATA and are not applicable in this case. Would love to hear your opinions but please read the T&C thoroughly for more constructive comments. C-GAUN (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@C-GUAN: thank you for your assessment however I contend that what is lacking is visibility of consent from the subscribers (i.e. the airlines) for members of the public to use their credentials to access the site - the wording is "

Members of the public who may, with the facilitation of the Subscriber or Users, access the IATA Timatic Information are also considered “Users” for the purposes of this subscription" - my emphasis on facilitation. Where is the evidence of that facilitation in the templates here on Wikipedia? Did KLM or Gulf Air give permission for their credentials to be used or as alluded to by Twofortnights were just picked up off a fan forum and changed from KLM to Gulf Air by the same process when KLM stopped using Timeatic? IATA as the owners of Timeatic obviously think the T&Cs are being breached otherwise why would they have bothered to make contact. I suggest para 4.2 allows airlines to give unfettered access to the public to Timeatic through their own interface as part of that airline's subscription, for example, olympicair.com/en/Info/Timatic which is why I suggested that if the templates are modified to access the data via an airlines interface that is in compliance with the T&Cs. Nthep (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, the main problem is that there is NO T&C governing how the users may access the information via the subscribers or Timatic as a whole. Obviously the Timatic T&C here is followed. If you can find other information on the KLM or Golf Air website stating that users are somewhat restricted from accessing the information then I don't see if there's a problem, as IATA can unilaterally change their TOS but chooses not to. Also 4.2 stated the subscriber may provide the access via their own interface OR the Timatic interface so long as 7.3 or 7.4 is satisfied, which is the case here. C-GAUN (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So where is the authorisation of KLM, Gulf Air or any other airline to use their credentials to access the Timeatic website directly? A query via the airlines own website that returns a result from Timeatic I understand but not using a set of credentials without confirmation of a) where the credentials came from, and b) do the airline agree to their being used via Wikipedia? Regardless of how we feel about this we have the owners of the website saying that the access to Timeatic in the way it is currently being done is not in line with their T&Cs. Nthep (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You are asking for something that never existed. The airline provides access to the information and the users access them directly via the Timatic site or the airline's website as long as conditions set out in section 7 are met. The airline may refuse to do so as well, but there are no rules governing which user can have access to Timatic and which may not. Back in 2013 Delta abruptly ended the ability for customers to access Timatic and removed the tool from their site, hence the links also became invalid because Delta no longer provides "B2C", but it was a unilateral decision and there were never any rules stating that the information must be accessed from Delta. If your so-called "credentials" were obtained from the site then there needs to be a username and password, but the URL clearly stated that the information is obtained as a user via B2C (which stands for business to customer) and hence are not different from the information accessed from the airline's website. AFAIK there are no rules governing how a user may access the information as long as the airline provides the access point to the system. Again, please read the T&C more carefully.

Also I wonder if there's any proof to support that your "request" came directly from Timatic or the airline, as the OTRS is in no way affiliated with IATA or Timatic. So if the airline or Timatic wants people to stop accessing the database then they need to do so directly, not via some third-party websites that has nothing to do with either IATA or the airline. C-GAUN (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, if the airline wanted to cease user access to Timatic it could do so easily, there is precedent.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

C-GAUN I'll just answer the last point as far as I can. As part of the OTRS agent I have to maintain confidentiality but I am satisfied that the request comes from a legitimate source. If any other OTRS agent wants to confirm that the ticket number is VRTS ticket # 2017041110015924. Nthep (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to communicate further through the ticket? Is there any explanation as to why the airline wouldn't restrict access to third party users by themselves and what in particular is a problem with using the information they openly provide on their website as a reference? If the problem is direct access through the use of credentials (although here we go back to the first question), would it be fine to switch and use through https://www.gulfair.com/before-you-travel/visa-information?--Twofortnights (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no objection to the public interface at http://www.iatatravelcentre.com/travelinformation.php# being used to access the same information. The objection is to using the subscribers interface. Nthep (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

But as explained by C-GAUN, the B2C is not a subscriber interface but a user interface.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Nthep, I have no idea how you would be "satisfied that the request comes from a legitimate source". If you have taken an actual look at the Gulf Air's own T&C here, you can clearly see that there are no TOS or T&C related to the use of an external source on their website. However, as I have pointed out below, Emirates's TOS clearly stated that the use of IATA materials falls out of their jurisdiction. So I suggest that you communicate with them to see what's wrong on their end instead. C-GAUN (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If you start at the top of the thread you'll see the request to stop using timaticweb.com comes from IATA who own that domain. That's why we have had so much discussion about the T&Cs of timaticweb.com. Gulf Air only comes into this because the templates on Wikipedia use Gulf Air's user and B2C codes to produce results - having previously used KLM and Emirates at different times. That really smacks to me of less than honest use of various airlines' user and B2C details to access timaticweb.com. IATA would like us to stop, at least in the current fashion, because timaticweb.com is a subscription service and instead IATA offer <www.iatatravelcentre.com> as an alternative as it is a public facing website. What is the objection to routeing the references via the route suggested by IATA? Nthep (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, my problem is that the request itself was unreasonable as the users have broken none of the Timatic's TOS. If they really have a problem, then they should take it up to a subscriber instead of the users here. As for the "less honest" thing you claimed, it was totally unreasonable and would offend a great number of editors as accessing the information as a user is completely legal regardless of how it was accessed. You have repeatedly failed to state that how the editors, as generic users, violated their TOS. C-GAUN (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I did invite IATA to participate in this discussion but as the page currently under semi-pp, I'm awaiting further information via the OTRS ticket. Nthep (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have an update from IATA: "The subscriber is only providing access to the public when the requests were being made from the subscriber's interface on their website using their interface. In this case, the Wikipedia users have reverse engineered the site to bypass the interface developed by the subscriber and access Timatic information independent of the subscribers' website. This is unauthorized access and this way of accessing Timatic is in violation of the End User Terms of Use and is not permitted."

I reproduce here the definition of user from schedule 1 of the Terms of Use "Users means any person to whom the Subscriber provides IATA Timatic Information, or who the Subscriber enables to retrieve IATA Timatic Information using the Subscriber’s system or any interfaces, and shall include employees, contractors, outsourcers, representatives, agents, consultants, Subscriber customers and other designees of the Subscriber using the Subscriber’s reservation and related systems for the purpose of processing the Subscriber’s passengers. Members of the public who may, with the facilitation of the Subscriber or Users, access the IATA Timatic Information are also considered “Users” for the purposes of this subscription." Nthep (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind routeing the references via the route suggested by IATA, but does anyone have the technical knowledge how to do it? As for using different users before, it was already explained, changes were done when certain airlines ceased using Timatic (or perhaps switched off public user access and kept it to their subscription only).--Twofortnights (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @C-GAUN: here. After carefully looking at the terms, it seems that what we were linked to here initially are the terms of service for subscribers and not the users. The terms of service for users are here - https://www.timaticweb2.com/userterms. The subscriber terms of service clearly say that a Subscriber can make the IATA Timatic Information available to Users via a publically available website. As I've said before, KLM did not make it publicly unavailable but simply switched from Timatic to Traveldoc which is another service. This was the reason to change and as for whether the Gulf Air makes it publicly available or whether the credentials were obtained secretly from a forum, the Gulf Air makes Timatic publicly available on their website here - https://www.gulfair.com/before-you-travel/visa-information. Industrial solutions that the subscription is for are for example Timatic AutoCheck and such, which are big automated systems for passenger control, not a simple data that we can look at in publicly available Timatic. Additionally we don't store any of the Timatic data here (even though we can argue on the threshold of creativity), we simply use it as a reference. I am not sure if subscription service can be used as a Wikipedia reference, for example a book also needs to be purchased and it can be used as a reference, but it doesn't apply here as the service is obviously publicly available (and as per Subscriber terms - to the extent a Subscriber wants it to be - so they can limit it if they wish to do so).--Twofortnights (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't dispute the right of a subscribing airline to make the Timeatic information available through a public website but routeing a query via gulfair.com/before-you-travel/visa-information legitimately is a different bird to coding a template that includes a direct url to timaticweb.com even if the end result is the same page. Nthep (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether the airline wants to provide access to Timatic is at the sole discretion of the airline. If it decided to do so, however, then there is no restriction on how we can access the information (either via Golf Air's own portal or the Timatic portal) so long as section 7.3 and 7.4 are satisfied. Also, as Twofornights pointed out, the user TOS is not violated as well, as we are not providing Timatic information here. Only those who access the link to Timatic can be considered as a 'user" per the definition of Schedule 1 of the subscriber's TOS. C-GAUN (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything on Gulf Air regarding the use of the information, however founded the T&C on Emirates's rules regarding the Timatic portal, which reads:

This Website (emirates.com) may contain links and pointers to Internet sites maintained by third parties. We do not operate or control in any respect any information, products or services on such third-party sites. Third party links and pointers are included solely for your convenience, and do not constitute any endorsement by us. You assume sole responsibility for use of third party links and pointers.

This, in principle, applies to all third parties' websites. So you cannot ask an airline to be responsible for the access to a third party's website and the information contained therein. C-GAUN (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I copy the recent comments from IATA and my addition from above as the thread is a bit messy chronologically. The material from IATA is clear why IATA state their Timatic T&Cs are being breached:

I have an update from IATA: "The subscriber is only providing access to the public when the requests were being made from the subscriber's interface on their website using their interface. In this case, the Wikipedia users have reverse engineered the site to bypass the interface developed by the subscriber and access Timatic information independent of the subscribers' website. This is unauthorized access and this way of accessing Timatic is in violation of the End User Terms of Use and is not permitted."

I reproduce here the definition of user from schedule 1 of the Terms of Use "Users means any person to whom the Subscriber provides IATA Timatic Information, or who the Subscriber enables to retrieve IATA Timatic Information using the Subscriber’s system or any interfaces, and shall include employees, contractors, outsourcers, representatives, agents, consultants, Subscriber customers and other designees of the Subscriber using the Subscriber’s reservation and related systems for the purpose of processing the Subscriber’s passengers. Members of the public who may, with the facilitation of the Subscriber or Users, access the IATA Timatic Information are also considered “Users” for the purposes of this subscription." Nthep (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On the basis that IATA state their T&Cs are being breached by reverse engineered links on Wikipedia, I propose that the two existing templates {{Timatic}} and {{Timatic Visa Policy}} are modified either to work via a third party i.e. a Timatic subscribing airlines interface which is in line with the Timatic T&Cs allowing subscribers to give the public access via the airlines interface or to utilise IATA's own public facing interface <www.iatatravelcentre.com> It is clear there is no objection to linking to the data just that links must be via a subscribers interface or IATA's public interface. Nthep (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. However, for this purpose I don't recommend IATA Travel Centre because it requires too much user input, such as date of birth and even captcha, and it only provides information separately for each combination of nationality and destination, so it wouldn't work for {{Timatic Visa Policy}}. Instead, I recommend the interface of Flightworx, as it's the most simple that I've found but still provides full Timatic information, better than airlines. Specifically, nationality and destination for {{Timatic}}, and visa section for {{Timatic Visa Policy}}. This interface still requires user input, and I don't know if it's possible to make it automatic with the Wikipedia template. If not, I suppose that the template could just link to the page and the user could manually select the desired fields. Heitordp (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411

Resolved

 – Not moved, reasons given. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411 -->

Please move to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411 incident

Keeps with same nomenclature for all deletion discussions about same page.

Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No - since the title of the article at the time was United Express Flight 3411, the discussion page is titled correctly. ansh666 23:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There may be, occasionally, a justification to move open AfD discussions; there certainly is no need to move closed ones. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, sometimes there is – when the original AfD is mistilted, which prevents it from being listed in later AfD's under the same title (e.g. [3] ). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between "this AFD is clearly misnamed" and "this page has since been moved." As has been rightly pointed out by both sides, the former should be renamed and the latter should not. I will agree, though, that it can sometimes make subsequent nominations be off by an ordinal, but that's what the talk page records are for. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Primefac. Barring actual problems with the AFD, don't move a discussion — move it if there were a mistake when it was created (IJBall gives a good example of such a thing), or move it if the title itself is somehow causing problems (I'm meaning something much more significant than "3rd nomination", something that's quite rare), but if the title were correct when it was created, don't move it. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Standard offer unblock request from user Edday1051

• Edday1051 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Edday1051 has requested consideration of the standard offer, apparently via UTRS however there's been some breakdown in process and their request was never posted here (partly my own fault). Details of the disruptive behaviour which led to his block can be read at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edday1051/Archive#31 August 2016; the account is also checkuser-blocked by Bbb23. Edday1051's unblock request is reproduced below:

I would like to request an unblock of my account per standard offer. I understand what led to my block, which includes use of multiple accounts and edit warring, and do not intend on engaging in this behavior going forward. Edday1051 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A subsequent SPI on 15 September 2016 suggested he had also been editing through IP 50.29.199.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), blocked at the request of SPI clerk L235. A number of other reports from the same user around the same time and with similar evidence returned negative CU checks, which I think adds doubt to L235's determination (i.e. there's a lot of disruptive editors in NFL articles). Edday1051 himself has denied the connection, passionately enough to have had his talk page access revoked at the time. That being said, I have just given the IP a 4im warning for gravedancing and personal attacks from earlier this week.

I am posting on the user's behalf and am neutral unless I make subsequent comments. Please check User talk:Edday1051 for additional comments from the user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• My general thought for cases like this is that if the editor genuinely keeps way for six months, then the default position should be to unblock unless there is anything especially egregious. There is the suspected block evasion in September, but I don't see the evidence as really being strong enough and I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, we have someone who has been contributing constructively for a long time and who previously only had a few blocks back in 2011. I support unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support He appears to understand what he did was wrong and claims that he wont do it again. The only potential problem is if he was editing through the IP 50.29.199.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as the standard offer doesn't apply if they are using socks to evade. From examining the SPI review, there didn't appear to be any check user done to confirm if that was really his sock or not. While the edits were suspiciously similar, I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He has also claimed all along that IP was not him. -Obsidi (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

CheckUsers would not be able to comment on that, per the privacy policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an exception to the privacy policy that I think would apply in this instance. As per [4]: If the user has said they're from somewhere and the IP confirms it, it's not releasing private information to confirm it if needed. and per WP:CheckUser If the user has said they're from a certain region and their IP address confirms that they are, you are permitted to declare that checkuser verifies they are. He has explicitly claimed he is not in the same state as the IP, and specifically asked for a check user to confirm that (on his talk page). Doing a quick geolocation on 50.29.199.144, it appears that IP is in New Jersey. It shouldn't be a violation of the privacy policy to confirm that his location is not in New Jersey (without revealing where). Also per WP:CheckUser: The disclosure of actual checkuser data (such as IP addresses) is subject to the privacy policy, which requires that identifying information not be disclosed except under the following circumstances: With the permission of the affected user... -Obsidi (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - although the appeal statement is very short, he's added more on his talk page. This user has a long, productive history prior to their block (their first, although it escalated quickly) and I don't see any harm being prevented by keeping them blocked at this point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• I have no objections to an unblock. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment as non-admin and filer of the sock investigation resulting in current block (pls delete if inappropriate). Editor's longstanding but periodic DE led to discovery of the socks and remains the core issue. All three accounts received multiple uw templates from the community on the respective Talk pages. Editor has obvious difficulty working towards consensus in response to reverts of their BOLD edits. For example, the edit which caught my initial interest re DE/SOCK was a threat have a longstanding editor banned if they didn't accept his (DE) edits. XTools shows zero posts to Article Talk pages and 12 post to other editor's Talk vs 3000 article edits. If approved, please clearly articulate expectations re collaboration and reaching consensus with other editors. Lastly, the editor in multiple appeals repeatedly states "do not intend to" which is different that "will not" (re resumption of specific actions). Judge that as you see fit. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Jennepicfoundation: move from topic ban to full ban

There is consensus among the community of editors that Jennepicfoundation be banned indefinitely from editing any and all pages of the English Wikipedia. Following the indefinite block already enacted by Ks0stm, Jennepicfoundation will also loose the ability to edit her user talk page. I have notified her about the ban and the option of appealing it via WP:UTRS. De728631 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

---

After a series of blocked sockpuppets and a discussion on ANI, an article ban was put in place for Jennepicfoundation (talk · contribs) related to her boss (the only subject she has edited) in December 2016. Since then, she has abided by the restricition, not editing the article itself but the repetitive requests on the talk page have diverged into WP:GAME where she was caught placing pieces in the press to then use them as sources.

Her latest request makes it clear that she is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, rather to use Wikipedia as another channel in he Epic Foundation's efforts to promote its leader. I believe it is time to stop wasting time dealing with her requests on the talk page and replace the topic ban with an WP:SBAN. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have tried really hard to work with her but I agree this has gotten to be a pain. She was page-banned in December (after copy-pasting a "foundation approved" biography into our article), but allowed to make comments and suggestions on the article talk page. Since then she has posted "now can we add this?" comments to the talk page on January 5 (pinging me again on January 10 when I hadn't responded), March 8, and April 19. In every case she proposes new sources in an effort to get us to restore information that had been in the company bio, but was declined by us Wikipedians as not independently sourced. In her latest request, she tries to get us to accept as sources things like Seekingalpha.com, DNAIndia, SXSW (apparently a conference whose program includes his canned biography), a Huffington Post blog (a profile whose neutrality can be divined from the opening sentence, "Alexandre Mars has a special radiance around him"), and the Jordan Times (a one-sentence quote from him). I have been the primary person working with her in the past, which is why she pings me, but I have to admit I have become slow to respond; my reaction has become "here we go again!" Her entire goal here appears to be, to make the Wikipedia article duplicate as closely as possible the "foundation approved" biography she copy-pasted into the article in December. I'm afraid Todd is right; she is not here to build an encyclopedia. She is only here to do her job, namely, to create a Wikipedia article that promotes her employer. He is notable and deserves an article, but it has to be an encyclopedia article, not a puff piece. And it's clear that "puff piece" is her only goal. I reluctantly endorse Todd's suggestion of a siteban, per WP:NOTHERE. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. This is of interest: Earlier today, someone suggested she work on other articles instead of being an SPA, and she asked whether doing that would further her "overall ambition to edit Alexandre Mars' page", and she complained about the "backlash" she has received in "trying to update his page." [5] She could hardly have been clearer about what her purpose here is. --MelanieN (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious what this editor is doing here. Support. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support I've just read through the editor's history - user talk page, the article tp, etc. I'm actually surprised how long NOTHERE has been tolerated, we should strive to shut this kind of editor down faster. Leading them on for months is counterproductive at every level; it wastes not only the editor's time, it also wastes the time and goodwill of those dealing with the endless requests for edits. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support very clear SPA who is WP:NOTHERE. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Editor has breached a whole lot of WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT in order to continue a campaign of promotionalism. Not to mention the GAMEy and POINTy behaviour referenced above. It's a fair point, of course, that they have breached these codes of behaviour at least in part becasue we have alowed them tto. By that token, this is now the point at which we do what we we didn't do, in the spirit of good faith and reason, some months ago. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Wouldn't just extending the topic ban to include talk pages achieve the same thing while appearing a bit less heavy handed? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, the responses below make sense, so I support a site ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support AGF is not a suicide pact. Enough time and energy has been expended trying to allow this user to subvert Wikipeida's purpose; a clearer example of WP:NOTHERE would be hard to come by. With regards to Boing's suggestion, such an extension would be tantamount to a site ban anyway, since she has no interest in any other aspect of Wikipedia. Might as well make it official... Yunshui ^雲_水 11:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Kind of self-imposed anyway. Lectonar (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support This conduct is clearly not OK, especially as it means that unpaid volunteer editors are having to regularly spend time dealing with someone who is trying to bias the article as part of their paid employment. I agree with Roger's comment that it's surprising how long this has gone on for. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Enough is enough. MelanieN has had the patience of a saint here. Katie^talk 12:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support This isn't heavy handed, this is an editor who is solely here to promote their employer, and has stated as much. We don't need this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support - COI edit requests are already consistently backlogged with editors trying to abide by our rules. Having this one jamming the queue with obviously frivolous requests is clearly harmful to the project, and enough of our time has been wasted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Support - the purpose of any limited ban (including topic ban, interaction ban, etc.) is to find a way to benifit from a user's usefulness while reducing his/her disruptiveness. A user who declared that any usefulness is just a method to forwars his/her disruptiveness is clearly not a candidate for a limited ban. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• note. After Jennepicfoundation was indefinitely blocked per block log by User:Ks0stm, citing this discussion, I closed this. The OP requested that I revert it to allow the siteban to be decided upon, and I have done so. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  It was my original intent that this block was made in my personal capacity as an admin based on the overwhelming consensus here that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Though I didn't care enough to reopen the discussion myself, I am perfectly happy to have this discussion keep running until a final outcome regarding whether to supersede my block with a formal, community-issued site ban is decided. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Uncooperative paid promotional editors are the herpes of Wikipedia. Harsh, maybe, but there you go. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Quite clearly necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Might be a minor

I just came across this user during page patrols, now he's not revealing a ton of information, but I'm concerned with what he is revealing. Based on his page, he's likely a minor, and has revealed his name (first and last ) and a partial phone number, which means location. I'm pretty sure that's not too safe. I've removed the information that reveals his name and location and I've left him a note on his page about why this isn't safe. Perhaps an admin could chime in or remove the unsafe information.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  16:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: I have revdeled the info, but do not see your messsage on their talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Lectonar It's there now. I contribute from work and got interrupted before I could piost the message. Thanks for the assist!  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  16:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: Work happens to the best of us; thank you for catching this. Lectonar (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

OccultZone siteban rescinded

The indefinite siteban of OccultZone (talk · contribs) imposed in remedy 1 of the "OccultZone and others" arbitration case is rescinded with the following restrictions:

• OccultZone's topic ban from remedy 2 and one account restriction from remedy 3 in the "OccultZone and others" case remain in effect.
• OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from filing, commenting in or discussing sockpuppet investigations. If OccultZone has a reasonable suspicion that a user may be engaging in sockpuppetry, they should raise the issue with the functionaries, an admin, or a sockpuppet investigations clerk, who can then file a sockpuppet investigation if, in their opinion, one is warranted.
• OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits related to, or editing any page about South Asian topics, broadly construed.
• OccultZone is indefinitely subject to a 1RR editing restriction.
• OccultZone is indefinitely restricted from:

• Raising any issue at more than one venue, whatever that venue is (with the exception of bringing a case or clarification/amendment request to ArbCom).
• Raising any issue at a venue other than where it is being discussed.

For clarity, OccultZone is not restricted from:

• Commenting in multiple venues if an issue is moved (by himself or others).
• Commenting in multiple venues if a single issue has been raised in multiple places by other users.
• Notifying users or pages of discussions in other venues.

These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee in no less than six months.

Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 17:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#OccultZone siteban rescinded

archive.org is down

• https://archive.org/

• archive.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.archive.org

After seeing this, I went to check and although I can't find an RS to support it, I will say that the site is not returning DNS lookups. This affects a huge number of archived references and a vast number of articles. Hopefully the edit is incorrect and the site being down is temporary...but right now it doesn't look good. Can anyone else reach the site?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup, ran a few "down or not" checks and it's down. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

See this tweet, apparently a power outage. Ravensfire (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Archive.org is based in San Francisco, which had a major power outage from about 9am to 2pm PDT, due to a fire in a substation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it really the case that something as important as this can be brought to its knees with a local power outage? No mirroring?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, in the wide-world scheme of things, I doubt that archive.org counts as "as important as this" compared to, say, San Francisco's Financial District, which also went down - but I assume in the wake of the outage, the folks at the Internet Archive are probably talking about their options for the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The Internet Archive has some level of data backup in other countries and are proceeding with plans to make a mirror site in Canada. Jason Scott has spearheaded a distributed backup stored by volunteers that doesn't rely on any Internet Archive hardware. (Here's some more info on their data storage process, and did you know its headquarters is in a former church (more photos from Jason Scott)?) isaacl (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Standardising arbitration enforcement procedures

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The following sections are moved (word for word) from the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions procedure to the Committee's procedures page (under the "Enforcement" heading) and as such apply to all arbitration enforcement actions (including discretionary sanctions and actions enforcing arbitration case remedies):

• The "Expectations of administrators" section
• The "Dismissing an enforcement request" section

A note is to be placed prominently on the discretionary sanctions procedure noting that the Enforcement provisions on the Committee's procedures page also apply to the application and enforcement of discretionary sanctions.

The "Appeals and modifications" in the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to reflect the current version standard provision for appeals and modifications, including changes made to it in future amendments (Template:Arbitration standard provisions may be used).

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Standardising arbitration enforcement procedures

CAT:UNBLOCK

Hey, I was going to kill 5 minutes and attack something in CAT:UNBLOCK - something I admit I haven't done in a while - and noticed a pretty large backlog (40 users), many with 2-3 weeks since the last edit to the page by anyone. We should probably deal with these, even if it is to decline them. If everyone with experience accepting/declining unblock requests dealt with 2 of these, I imagine the backlog would disappear fairly quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Emil Bachrach

Resolved

 – The issue has been dealt with amicably. Primefac (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you guys help me to sort this out with Todd?. I guess wiki has changed a lot since the start.--Jondel (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Despite that there is a notification "In Progress" , he is now blatantly removing Jewish categories.--Jondel (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with just leaving the categories out until you provide a source for them? Once there's a source, you can re-add them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Jondel, I haven't been around as long as you have, but verifiability has been one of Wikipedia's core principles at least since I started editing in 2007; that you're required to provide references for your information isn't exactly a new development that any admin could be forgiven for having overlooked. Frankly, I agree with many of Toddst1's concerns; you've failed to notify him of this thread, abused the rollback function in a content dispute, and added (and restored) unsourced and contested information about living people. As for the Bachrach categories, I'll AGF that you were still getting around to adding sources for the unsupported claims (descriptive categories need to be verifiable just the same as prose). There's always the option of working on new entries in the draft namespace or a user sandbox so you can fully develop the article in peace without having to worry about editors challenging your unfinished material. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I've recently added sources, such as a book and articles from Embassies. The person is notable.--Jondel (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I'm apologizing to him and restoring to the version by Todd.--Jondel (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I just stumbled upon this thread. Glad things got worked out. I wouldn't have brought this here as I've been trying to work things out on Jondel's talk page, but now that it's here, I'm starting the subsection below. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

CIR as an admin

Resolved

 – Toddst1 has made a request (voluntarily de-sysop), Jondel has said they'll brush up on the admin policies, and Toddst1 may or may not be taking Jondel to ArbCom over that (which, as mentioned below, is really the only non-voluntary option). There's really nothing more for us to do here. Primefac (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned about Jondel having the admin bit with his demonstrated lack of knowledge of the basic workings of Wikipedia. @Jondel:, I think it would be best if you asked for your admin privileges to be removed. As you say, wiki has changed a lot since the start. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Noted I will be reviewing the workings.--Jondel (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at their recent administrator actions, Jondel has:

• Blocked 112.202.14.185 for 3 hours, 5 hours after they made 2 edits, at least one of which seemed to be an effort to undo vandalism.
• Blocked 124.168.174.252 for 72 hours for a single edit.
• Blocked 38.132.34.58 for 1 week, a day after they made 2 edits.

Going further down the log (into 2014, 2013) shows a mix of similarly (in my opinion) bad admin actions and more sensible actions. Sam Walton (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sam, those are good points. Some more:

• None of the these IPs were warned before these inappropriate blocks were applied.
• None of these blocks were followed up with any WP:EXPLAINBLOCK action.
• Regarding the block of 112.202.14.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in January 2017, here are a couple of important points:

• All edits from this editor appear to have been reverting vandalism [6] [7]
• Jondel fully-protected the page that the IP had reverted vandalism on for no apparent reason.

We have a pattern of abuse of administrative privileges in addition to the basic issues called out above. I'm not content to have this admin "reviewing the workings." It's time to give up the bit, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Just throwing this out there: if you're seeking an involuntary desysop unless they voluntarily get one, filing a request at WP:A/R/C is really the proper venue. Other than saying that I'm going to stay out of this in case a request does get filed. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Would it be fair if we characterized this as misuse, rather than abuse? In any case, the only means to remove the privileges is WP:RFAR unless Jondel asks for them to be removed. –xeno^talk 01:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes and Yes. I don't believe these series of issues are intentional, perhaps rather a bigger pattern where competency may have been lost. You are right - "misuse" is better than "abuse." Either way, I don't think the patterns show admin-level competency.

My broader point was that I hope Jondel voluntarily asks for the admin privilege to be removed. If not, I intend to open a request at WP:RFAR but less drama is better. When I suggested the voluntary option, his answer (above) was that he will study the basics. IMHO, that's not a good enough answer. I hope he reconsiders. Toddst1 (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:ADMINCOND certainly applies. Getting the current Committee to apply ADMINCOND is likely to be challenging, but if it ever applies, this is it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPI Backlog

There is a backlog at WP:SPI of Open cases and of CU completed cases. One case appears to have been Open since 03-21-2017, that is, for a month. These cases appear to be cases that don't require Checkuser, so that any administrator or clerk can check the behavioral evidence and any administrator can block the socks (if I understand the rules). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Still quite a backlog. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Still quite a backlog. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Nonadmin Close review at Alternative for Germany

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new project needs you

Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.

Please join and participate.

Thank you.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Unban appeal information

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

---

Hello, I have been topic banned from editing about Chemical Weapons for 6 months and it is highly imperative that I am not. I am not sure why I have been banned and was given no reason. I guess first of all I would like to know why I am banned, then I can decide if and how to appeal. I think this should be the correct way around? Someone told me that I can actually get a longer ban if I appeal, so i don't actually want to appeal. Just want a bit more info. I asked the banning administrator for more details and waited a day or two and got no reply. I have been editing well since on unrelated topics and showing good behavior. RaRaRasputin (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If I was the admin who had imposed that sanction and had seen your reply [8] I would have just indef blocked you right then and there. I would suggest that you just accept the topic ban, stop being so melodramatic about the urgent need for you, personally, to "fix" this topic area, and find something else to do. Beeblebrox (talk)

Agree with Beeblebrox. The reasons for the topic ban are on your talk page. Your post above offers no good reason for the topic ban to be lifted. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm troubled by the notion of it being "imperative" that you not be banned from the article. Just reading that note raises concerns in my mind about lifting the ban. Beeblebrox is spot on. Dlohcierekim 05:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I thank you for your advice and understand your sentiments. It doesn't look good to lead with the urgent tone and I should have explained myself better. All I really want to do in that subject area is restore one page that seems to have been turned into a redirect without proper discussion or reason after my ban. This article shows the use of a certain substance by a group that shouldn't have it. Should the world ignore that this group has access to this substance and used it before, we could all end up in a lot of trouble very soon. I hope that explains my urgency reasonably, without breaking the terms of my ban. If anyone is able to spot this page and revert, I will be able to relax and accept this sanction. The reasons are not on my talk page by the way or at least I cannot see them or understand them. All I can see are unfounded allegations. I will have trouble correcting behavior if not told what it was and would really appreciate an explanation. Thanks. RaRaRasputin (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you do appear to be reasonably aware of BLP and SYNTH, but somehow just cannot seem to help yourself violating both. But while you are allowed some leeway with the latter, the same cannot be said of the former. If you're, mercifully, to take anything from this ban, please let it be that. El_C 09:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the advice. I have done some biographies of dead persons in similar circumstances to the page that I think I might have broken those rules on. Hopefully these will demonstrate my future willingness to comply with both BLP and SYNTH as best I can. RaRaRasputin (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@RaRaRasputin: I am struggling to think of what you could be referring to here, other than asking, in violation of your topic ban, for another editor to edit war on your behalf at February 2015 Darayya chemical attack. VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and gave them an involuntary break to brush up on how topic bans work. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Another admin has just extended it to an indef block in response to an insultingly stupid unblock request. I think we're probably done here for the time being. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

MTC! v1.0.0

I just released a new version of my move to Commons tool, MTC!. I'm looking for a few willing volunteers to try it out and provide some feedback :) Thanks, FASTILY 03:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Delfadoriscool blocked as possible compromised account

Delfadoriscool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Delfadoriscool had left in 2015, and someone has recently started editing with this account. There are a deleted draft about some sort of fictional/imaginary/not part of our world place (The map shows it to about where Poland and Lithuania would be.) and some strange and concerning edits on the user page. Had no idea if/where to mention this, so it's here. Last edit was 11/23/15. This was the first edit to the user pageon 2/21/17contribs & seleted contribs thanks Dlohcierekim 05:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, user seem to have had too few edits (a total of 5—first edit is this bit of vandalism & personal attack) to tell whether the account is compromised. El_C 05:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Was I hasty? Should I unblock Dlohcierekim 05:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I was looking at 20 or so rather odd edits to user page since February as well. ... Dlohcierekim

Hasty with the assessment the account was compromised, yes—but the account does have a troubled and otherwise odd history overall, there's no denying that. I see no harm in unblocking, but also I estimate no great loss to the project if they remain indef'd. El_C 05:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Computers at work are back up, so I may be away from W for a while. Dlohcierekim 05:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No rush. El_C 09:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The account's entire history is so brief that I can't see how we could determine if it is compromised or not, but all of the recent edits have been to add nonsense to their userpage, which I have just deleted per WP:U5. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Third time unlucky RfC at Talk:Human#Proposed_merge_with_Homo_sapiens

Resolved

An RfC on merging Human with Homo sapiens was closed a mere ten days ago [9], with both a general consensus against a merge, and a certain amount of cloud shadow because the entire thing was perceived as an end-run around a similar decision reached in a deletion discussion five days before that. The same editor who started the previous two attempts has now fired up another RfC - an exact copy of its predecessor [10].

I do believe there is some kind of policy, understood if not written down, that is supposed to prevent this kind of try try again approach to matters that have been subject to a community decision. I would be obliged if an administrator could stick their head in and expand on that, for both the RfC author's and my edification (as I'd like to know what exactly the stance is on this). If I'm correct here, I'd also like to request a procedural close of this repeat incarnation of a rather decisively settled RfC.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've closed the RfC. There needs to be a major change in circumstances in the article to re-run such a discussion so quickly. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Creation of a New Page - Achinthya Puranik (ಡ್ರಾಮಾ ಜೂನಿಯರ್ಸ್)

Resolved

 – Thorough response, and not an AN issue. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I want to create a new page with the name Achinthya Puranik (ಡ್ರಾಮಾ ಜೂನಿಯರ್ಸ್), who became famous through a TV reality show called Drama Juniors in ZEE Kannada TV. He has a huge fan following across Karnataka and other parts of the world, where Kannada program viewers reside. He is 5 years 10 months old, but already has acted in 3 movies and couple of TV serials. His official FaceBook page has more than 12000 followers and there are many fan club pages in his name. He is also going to endorse one of the leading brands in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avimajur (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Avimajur, for a start you should read Wikipedia:Your first article. Please note also that the general notability of subjects for a Wikipedia article is not established by the number of fans or movie appearances. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarises what other, secondary sources have reliably reported about a topic. If you can find in-depth reports of magazines, newspapers or reliable websites about this person (please don't use blogs or other user-generated sites), you can write a first version at Draft:Achinthya Puranik where you can experiment with the layout and content. You will have to present at least one reliable source for your article because we have a rule that all new biographies of living people must be reliably sourced. This page will not yet be a live article but it will be reviewed by experienced editors and can then be moved to the live article space if it meets the requirements. On a final note, we don't use the native name in brackets for a page title but refer only to the commonly used English name or transliteration. You may, however, mention the Kannada version of the name in the first sentence of your draft page: Achinthya Puranik (Kannada: ಡ್ರಾಮಾ ಜೂನಿಯರ್ಸ್) is an Indian child actor from ... De728631 (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User group expiration is now available

A new feature for user groups is an "expiration date", for questions or to discuss further please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions#User group EXPIRATIONS are now live. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to This, that and the other for working on this! Kaldari (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @This, that and the other and Xaosflux: this is awesome, WP:RFP/ACC will benefit greatly with this ability. :) - Mlpearc (open channel) 04:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope this new functionality will be of some use! — This, that and the other (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Block review of Mlpearc

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

Ritchie333 blocked Mlpearc earlier today for 48 hours. [11] First, Mlpearc had two reverts of the Pink Floyd material, the last one ten hours before Ritchie333's block. [12], [13] Second, the IP they reported to AIV had already been blocked a few days ago for disruptive editing for the exact same behavior. [14] There is no reason for Mlpearc to suffer for wildly inconsistent admin behavior. Ritchie333 is also editing in the Pink Floyd area (and indeed, has edited the same article they blocked Mlpearc for edit warring on [15]), took them to ANI where there was little support for their position, and placed another very dubious block on another editor editing in the same area about five weeks ago. [16]

I raised this matter with Ritchie333 on their talk page and got a lot of... something. [17] No substantive response to my concerns, though. Asking for a review of the block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the fair warning that was mentioned. Do we have any context on that (Ritchie333)? On the face of it it doesn't look like a really good necessary and timely block. The AIV report, reverts of the IP by five established editors, warnings and subsequent blocks of the IP did all actually suck, IMO. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm hoping that Ritchie undoes this block. That would be best.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand the timeline of events here, so dug through posting times that I could find ...

• 14:12, 21 April 2017 - on a discussion re: Joe Elliott, Ritchie333 warns Mlpearc "Next time I see you get in a petty content dispute Mlpearc, you will be blocked. Last warning."
• 22:12, 23 April 2017 and 22:29, 23 April 2017 - on Echoes (Pink Floyd song), Mlpearc makes two reverts of WisemanOnceSaid, calling the material "Not Encyclopedic, trivia"
• 23:24, 23 April 2017 - a discussion of the material is started on the talk page by WisemanOnceSaid at Talk:Echoes (Pink Floyd song)#Echoes Cover addition request.
• 17:21, 24 April 2017‎ - WisemanOnceSaid uses a different ref and restores the content
• 17:36, 24 April 2017 - the material is removed by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
• 08:54, 24 April 2017 - Blocklog for "Mlpearc" - Mlpearc is blocked by Ritchie333
• 19:58, 24 April 2017 - starting around 18:32, Ritchie333 does a series of copyedits to the article, eventually restoring the cover material with new ref.
• 20:01, 24 April 2017 - Ritchie333 makes a comment to the talk, mentioning "To be honest, this sort of stuff is borderline, like "cultural references" in films and places; some people don't mind it being there (as long as it's reliably sourced), some people think it's off-topic. I personally prefer to include it, because if you don't, somebody will come along and add it anyway, and then you'll get a silly edit war."

Am I missing something here? At first pass, the block appears out of scale given this chain of events. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Berean Hunter There is more history at Talk:Georgina_Downs#Someone_has_put_an_inaccuracy_back_in_-_please_amend.21 - essentially it is about Mlpearc's attitude to casual editors/IPs...at a time when participation is falling and we should be doing our utmost to attract/interest people in editing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Overturn Block The edits by the IP reported were quite disruptive (to the point that another admin blocked them for those actions). It's arguable if it raised to the level of vandalism, but it seems inappropriate to block Mlpearc for raising the issue. He made three reverts on the page, two reverts on the same text, which pushes the line of edit warring, but probably should have been warned about edit warring rather than blocked. More troubling to me is the response by Ritchie333. This edit gets close, but probably doesn't cross the line, into to WP:Ownership over Pink Floyd articles, but at least opens the question as to if he is WP:Involved enough that using his admin tools was inappropriate. The response seems like a real failure to WP:ADMINACCT to justify his admin actions. The only warning I could find was this "Next time I see you get in a petty content dispute Mlpearc, you will be blocked. Last warning." Which was on something about Joe Elliott and the Local Government Act 1972. Fairly vague threat about not getting involved in a "petty" content dispute. This threat itself is a problem for me, because people get in content disputes all the time. It's not for admins to say if they are "petty" or not and threaten to block people who disagree on content disputes they don't like. I find more problems in Ritchie333's behavior than Mlpearc's so far..... -Obsidi (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the Echoes reverts were not uncalled for and definitely not reason enough for a block. First, where Mlpearc provided reasoning for their reverts, the other editor did not. Second, Mlpearc participated (although not much, but he did not edit the page after that) in a discussion of the inclusion of the cover band, providing reasoning for his actions. [18] Third, against consensus, the other editor added the cover band again, the third time within, you guessed it, 24 hours. [19] Although some of Mlpearc's actions are slightly contentious, they are nowhere near enough for a block. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the theme here is Mlpearc's manner with casual editors/IPs. That would strike me as something important to look at, or are we all treating Wikipedia as some sort of club now? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It's always been a "club" of sorts. Members come and go, but there's always a dedicated group of recent change patrollers who scrutinize edits according to our policies and guidelines and revert and warn if necessary. I don't see Mlpearc's manner being that at odds with this longstanding practice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well then NeilN maybe there's a problem with that, civility to new users has been raised as a (longstanding) issue repeatedly over the years. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I am certain that one of the biggest problems Wikipedia has is people who spend too much time on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that last 24 hours thing was probably a bad idea, as the editor brought it up on the talk page of the article nevertheless. Also, I think that Mlpearc's actions here were uncalled for, and I think that he could have done better in the discussion before by linking relevant policy sections and such. But, they should not be blocked for this either—they were never even told that their behaviour was inappropriate (to my knowledge). It would have been good to tell Mlpearc that their actions were not appropriate, but nothing more. I have to cut this short now—gotta eat. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue with Mlpearc goes back years. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mlpearc, particularly the opposition to Q10 - same problem now. Other warnings I have given him are here, here and here amongst other things I'm too tired to dig out right now. I think I've said everything I need to on his talk, and I've said I will unblock as soon as Mlpearc gives me a convincing unblock request, but he has got to up his game and stop biting newbies several times a day. Now, everybody else, go and find an article to improve, I'm off to bed. @Obsidi: Coming across a dispute in an article, taking action towards it and then deciding you'd like to improve the rest of the article anyway is not ownership, come off it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• As shown by your previous poor block, your judgement when adminning in the Pink Floyd subject area is not the best. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Doing something you disagree with is not "poor" and I assume established editors know 3RR applies to them too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A block is poor when then admin is unaware of WP:3RRNO and characterizes an edit summary of "it doesnt matter what you think, YOU are not a reliable source. Find one or dont add this" as a personal attack. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This: Now, everybody else, go and find an article to improve, I'm off to bed is incredibly unbecoming of an admin and dismissive, as well as condescending. I have no involvement whatsoever in this whole ordeal but I think your actions were over the top especially considering your follow up to NeilN's rather diplomatic attempt to discuss it with you was met with yet more condescension. What makes good editors leave isn't the occasional bite, it's admins who believe they are above the "law" and put down other editors and refuse to discuss their own actions. Your issue with their opposition to a question almost five years ago makes this sounds a lot more like retribution than a good-faith block to stop disruption and if that isn't the case, I'm curious to know what disruption this prevented. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Going to bed with unanimous admin opposition (I count five) pretty much concedes the question, does it not? Why is this block still in place? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, it is late where Ritchie333 presumably lives and he's provided a more substantive and serious response here than he did on his talk page. I still think the block should be lifted as it was hasty and blocking so we can lecture at experienced editors is dubious at best. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Good, let's debate it until the block expires. With no way that I'm aware of to negate the blocklog entry. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Overturn block - I was once blocked in very similar circumstances. Long story short, the admin eventually ended up at Arbcom and would have been desysoped had they not resigned and eventually lost their bit for inactivity. I'm troubled that Ritchie333 blocked an editor in a case where he seems to be WP:INVOLVED. This was a concern that I raised during Ritchie333's RfA and I'm sorry to see that my concerns were warranted. I'm also troubled by Ritchie333's attitude expressed in this thread, his response to NeilN, and his comments to Mlpearc (linked above). Blocking editors for two reverts should be incredibly rare, and only in cases where it would be considered uncontroversial.- MrX 23:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• There is a pretty clear consensus here to overturn the block, so I'm going to go ahead and do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanx everyone, thank you Beeblebrox for the un-block and especially NeilN for their efforts and for giving me a little shove towards this review. I would like to say ever since my block by Coffee not too long ago I have been actively keeping tract not to repeat and I plan to continue to not go there, this is why I stopped at just two. I have a concern, I was advised to considered the possibility of removing Pink Floyd related pages from my watchlist, I've been a Floyd fan since the first time I heard them, even seen them live once, I do a lot of patrolling of music related articles and anything short of a TB I will continue to patrol them, how can I be sure this does not happen again if I make some kind of change or revert that Ritchie333 does not approve of ? I suspect that any future Admin actions by Ritchie333 on Pink Floyd articles would be considered WP:INVOLVED anyway. - Mlpearc (open channel) 04:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It's simple. Take a voluntary 1RR restriction on everything (I do this, see User:Ritchie333#One revert guarantee). Second, use personalised messages where you can (cf WP:HNST). What I don't understand is if you're such a big Floyd fan, how come you've never done any substantial work on the articles? You have read some of the major Floyd books, and you know how to cite sources, right? So why don't you do that? It isn't that hard. (See also Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions#Pink Floyd). Everyone else (except Cas Liber) - you completely misunderstood what the block was about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That's awfully condescending, is it possible Ritdhie333's account has been compromised ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 05:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie might be a bit crankier than usual, but the account is definitely not compromised. ansh666 05:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, I don't mean to be rude, but I must admit to being concerned about this whole situation. I've been chastised by admins for not giving sufficient warnings before reporting other editors to AIV or other administrator noticeboards. It is well established that civil, constructive, and escalating warnings should be given before blocks are performed except in extreme circumstances. Yet, you gave one warning, then blocked someone with whom you were essentially having a content dispute with (you have cast multiple aspersions as to the quality of the edits they were making). Also, "Next time I see you get in a petty content dispute Mlpearc, you will be blocked. Last warning.", where was the first warning, second warning, or third warning? Did I miss these? Where's the attempts to work collaboratively with them? Maybe I'm missing something in my, admittedly, cursory overview of this. Perhaps Mlpearc could use some improvement in their collaborative skills, but it doesn't justify a one warning block in my (oh so humble) opinion. You then proceeded to be a bit uncivil with people expressing their concerns. Indeed, Mlpearc expressed a concern above, and you met it with "... you know how to cite sources, right? So why don't you do that? It isn't that hard." I'm surprised that someone who believes civility and collaborative editing is crucial to adminship would find this acceptable behaviour. Also, if you were that upset with their behaviour and have a difficult history with them (which you obviously do), shouldn't you have sought input from other admins before making the block, or ask a completely uninvolved admin to make the block? I hope you take what I've said into consideration, and best wishes. Waggie (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I've given diffs for three other warnings upthread. I think the message I left on his talk page was pretty civil and conciliatory, and I think inviting them to work on a project to improve articles in the subject interest is a good idea myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333, thanks for your reply. I had looked on Mlpearc's talk page for warnings. I presume you're referring to: an incorrectly pinged and arguably uncivil warning on someone elses talk page, you warning Mlpearc for templating rather than discussing, not edit warring which is what you blocked him for, and then you giving a warning to Mlpearc for edit warring and excuses you assumed he was going to give even though his reverts were WP:3RRNO, which means that your warning wasn't justified. I agree Mlpearc should have given more detail to a new user who wasn't getting it, but I don't think there wasn't nearly enough done to properly resolve the matter. Please forgive me for being frank, but it appears that you're accusing Mlpearc of not giving appropriate and civil warnings, but appear to have civility issues yourself. It's my understanding that politely worded and escalating warnings with specifics directly on someone's talk page is the generally accepted method of warning someone. Statements like "...you may consider yourself lucky to be let off." don't seem to meet that standard. Regarding inviting Mlpearc to improve articles: "...you know how to cite sources, right? So why don't you do that? It isn't that hard." isn't inviting someone to "...improve articles in the subject interest...", I find it sarcastic, snide, and very condescending. I'm not sure why you would think it civil or conciliatory. Forgive my boldness, but it seems like there may be a personality conflict here between you two and you both might want to consider WP:DR. Anyway, thank you again for considering my opinions. Waggie (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I am sometimes blunt towards admins very occasionally when I think they're doing something above their station (like coming to my talk page and bossing me about on a situation I had under control), and I'm not the only one. I think I even purposefully said I do that on my RfA, and a couple of people opposed, but the community was generally accepting that I don't do it indiscriminately, and would never ever do it on a newbie or inexperienced editor. The problem with civility is it's impossible to define and means different things to different people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think most people feel that sarcasm and condescension as quite uncivil, and uncivil has a specific definition. Bluntness doesn't equal incivility, and we're here discussing you and Mlpearc, not Beeblebrox. Would you care to respond to my concerns regarding the warnings? Thank you again for your responses. Waggie (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Adding missing ping for Ritchie333. Waggie (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I see Ritchie avoids Neil's questions and comes out with all sort of guff about being a fan for 30 years and recording a cover version. That's super. And in this very thread states that EVERYONE (apart from one lone voice) is wrong. Shine on you crazy diamond. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that discussion was at cross purposes. I'd already clarified my reasons on a thread further up the page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• [20] — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And thank you K6ka for successfully appealling your block :) have a good wikibreak! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

INVOLVED issues aside, I think the biggest issue with this block is that it seems to be some sort of advocacy and pushing one's particular way of doing things and view of Wikipedia rather than a violation of policy. I think that the encyclopedia would be a better place if I was allowed to block anyone at will, but I am still bound by the community's trust to use the sysop tools according to community consensus. --Rschen7754 18:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that in a somewhat similar situation, Ritchie333 has succeeded in offending User:Denisarona sufficiently to stop vandal fighting / editing completely (let's hope this is just temporary). See User talk:Ritchie333#Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts As a reward for asking for intervention at AIV to deal with a persistent IP vandal at Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, Ritchie333 protected the page for " Edit warring / content dispute" instead of simply blocking the IP, and when Denisarona came to their talk page, Ritchie333 tells them "According to the article's history, you were edit warring; however not all edit warring mandates a block, and in this case a semi-protection, and a restoration of the article to its pre-war state solves the problem. " Phew, thank you Ritchie333 for protecting the page instead of blocking the vandal fighter! His replies after that (". I don't understand why you're upset, sorry.") make it clear that he doesn't understand the impact of his actions or why the protection policy calls for blocking the vandal instead of protecting the page. I tried to get Ritchie333 to see reason and explained the actual situation to them (for which I was thanked by Denisarona), but they dismissed by statements as "you seem to be very angry today" (not really, no) and now hatted the discussion with ""Does the very nature of the structure of Wikipedia drive out creative editors – content writers and those who significantly improve aricles – in favor of non-creative "rules"-following editors unable or unwilling to make complex evaluations of specific situations in favor of simply applying generalized solutions whether they are improvements or not?"" which was probably intended as a self-congratulatory comment but comes across as a total lack of self-awareness.

On its own, this isn't a big deal, but hot on the heels of the Mlpearc block (and the involved protection of Hyde Park, London on 21 April 2017), it shows a worrying pattern of disregard for the results of his admin actions and a refusal to make amends or to critically analyze his actions. Fram (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Fram, excellent points. Ritchie333 also failed to fully respond above to my concerns regarding insufficient warnings or my concerns regarding incivility. I'm deeply concerned about this situation here. Waggie (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Are you asking Ritchie333 to resign and give up the bit? Or if he is willing to be open to the standard recall process (I don't believe he has committed to it yet)? Otherwise there isn't much else that can be done in this forum. If you think it is serious and long term enough you could ask for an WP:Arbitration Committee case. -Obsidi (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 has made some troubling errors in judgement recently and has not been particularly receptive to criticism, but I have no doubt that he is doing what he believes best for the project. If Ritchie333 is willing, perhaps some mentoring from a more experienced admin or two can help turn this around before Arbcom becomes an inevitability.- MrX 22:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

CfR dscussions in need of closing

I'm in the process of trying to normalize the entire group of organization category trees; as a result, I keep creating new discussions, with overlap which can make things confusing. It would be nice if admins here would keep up with closing these - there are currently 5 which can be closed: Animal welfare, Greece, business, Iran, and Poland. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Volunteer Marek on Syria related articles

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

Battle of Aleppo (2012-16)
1. Violates the 1RR restriction by first performing this revert [21] (which is a revert of this edit [22]) and then this revert [23] (which is a revert of this edit [24]). Brightline 1RR Violation. VM later self reverted[25], but then immediately re-reverted [26].

2. Two days later he removes the pic again [27], narrowly missing violating 1RR again.

3. Blanket revert to his highly POV version [28].

4. The dispute at this article escalated, leading BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) to issue a stern warning at the talkpage [29]. VM practically begs BU Rob13 into ordering Etienne to self revert [30] [31]. It is evident he really really wants "his" version put in place. VM then tries to deceive BU Rob13 into blocking EtienneDolet by alleging that Etienne Dolet is restarting old edit wars [32]. But the Christmas celebrations VM mentions were added by me in December [[33]], at which time no one reverted and were still in the article at the time VM posted this. There was never an edit-war over that. Similarly, EtienneDolet added the pics of the burnt buses in December [34], and VM did not revert them then, he reverted them now [35]. He is the one re-igniting old edit-wars (actually creating new ones), all the while lying so as to trick BU Rob13 into blocking his opponent.

5. VM waits a few days and then re-ignites the edit-war with this edit [36], a straight-up revert of the original edit [37] that started the edit war that began on April 13th. This is after BU Rob13 issued his warning and while a discussion is in progress at the talkpage on if and how Al-Masdar news is to be used. The sheer brazeness of this cannot be overstated.

6. For good measure, he also removes relatively uncontroversial, reliably sourced material [38] I had added back in December [39]. The source is reliable and faithfully quoted, the fact that Christmas was publicly celebrated in Aleppo for the first time in years clearly notable. VM did not revert my addition back in December. This has all the hallmarks for a "revenge edit". His habit of re-igniting old disputes after months is incredibly disruptive.

Khan Shaykhun chemical attack
7. Removes reliably sourced material he does not like [40]. The source is reliable (ibtimes.co) and Theodore Postol is a notable academic expert on chemical warfare.

8. [41] Blanket removal of a large amount of reliably sourced material (all sources pass WP:RS except rt.com, and are faithfully quoted). Not even an edit summary, let alone an explanation at the talkpage.

9. [42] Slaps a fringe tag when his edit is reverted (a favorite tactic whenever he can't revert due to the 1RR restriction on these articles, more examples below).

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
10. [43] Again removes reliably sourced material on false pretenses. In his edit-summary he is referring to this RfC [44], but the RfC is only about the lede of the article, not the body text. This is a deceptive edit-summary, falsely alleging that his removal is in line with the RfC.

11. [45] He then doubles down, but switching tack and now alleging that somehow this material cannot be included because there hasn't been an RfC on it. One of VM's tactics is to demand the other party file an RfC whenever material he does not approve of is being added to an article.

12. In the same article, he removes more reliably sourced material [46] with a lazy edit summary, even though the source is clearly reliable and faithfully quoted. No explanation is provided as to how the material is POV and UNDUE. When his edit is reverted, since he cannot revert, he slaps a tag [47].

Ghouta chemical attack
13. [48] Yet again removes reliably sourced material without even an edit-summary. Technically a revert since this material was added at some point to the article (even if long ago), and surely VM is aware of this.

14. [49] Doubles down 4 minutes later, this time with a deceptive edit summary (he did far more than just "attribute"). Technically another 1RR vio.

White Helmets
15. Same story here [50] and here [51]. While some of these sources are junk, sbs.com.au is reliable and quotes an academic expert. When he can no longer revert, he slaps a tag [52].

Other
16. One of VM's disruptive tactics is what I call the "revenge edit". When neither nor the party he is warring against are able to revert because of the 1RR restriction, he adds material that he knows the other part will find objectionable but won't be able to revert. The addition of the pov and fringe tags mentioned in #9, #12 and #15 are examples of this, as are additions such as this [53] [54]

17. VM is abrasive and condescending in talkpage discussions, going so far as to even mock a typo [55] I made [56] (plenty of diffs, omitted for brevity, but you get the idea). He was blocked for precisely such talkpage behavior in the not too distant past [57].

18. Obsession with the lede: Note how he inserts the same exact material both in the body text and the lede (for greater effect, obviously). [58]. This is another "revenge edit", because he cannot revert till tomorrow. Khirurg (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

19. Frankly, this diff alone [59] is proof that VM is WP:NOTHERE as far as Syrian Civil War articles are concerned. Khirurg (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Update since report was filed

I note that VM is still edit-warring, doubling down at Battle of Aleppo (2012-16) [60] , Khan Shaykhun chemical attack [61]. Notice how he demands consensus for re-adding well-sourced material, yet he feels no obligation to seek consensus for the infobox edit [62] which he just sneaks in along with the removal. Both are classic VM moves: Everyone who disagrees with him must get consensus, but this does not apply to him, and sneaking in POV edits concealed within other edits. He is edit-warring against multiple editors at this point. Khirurg (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

(Really quick (1) re that 1RR, it actually wasn't but I self-reverted anyway [63] to show good faith, (2), (3), nonsense, (4), yeah BU Rob13 issued a warning, to other editors. And it's false that I tried to "deceive" anyone - at worst I confused Khirurg and EtienneDolet since they have a long standing history of tag-teaming on these articles (both came over to Syria related topics from Armenia related ones - also should note that EtienneDolet is banned from filing enforcement requests against me because so many of his past ones were BS, and this is likely Khirurg doing it on his behalf). (5) through (17) all nonsense. Removing fringe, badly sourced crap and various conspiracy theories from articles is the OPPOSITE of "disruptive" or "tendentious". Like I said, this is a "why won't they let me push my POV in peace" request.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• I read point 1, which was suggesting VM ought to be sanctioned for reverting badly-sourced POV crap out of the article (and the latter revert he self-reverted anyway). I've assumed the rest of this TLDR complaint is similar. Black Kite (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Um no, he self-reverted [64] and then re-reverted [65]. Khirurg (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't see the problem, actually. Frankly, editors that add stuff like this, sourced only to an Assad mouthpiece news agency, are probably the ones we should be looking at sanctioning. The talkpage of that article does not make edifying reading. Black Kite (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
      • There is an ongoing discussion as to how the source could and should be used. Even VM has conceded it is "semi-reliable". And the 1RR vio stands. The fact that VM thinks he's right is not an exemption from 1RR. Khirurg (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Uh... no. I didn't conclude it was "semi-reliable". Another editor, when pressed about its reliability said something like "well, it's sort of semi-reliable". I then quoted him to highlight how ridiculous it is to use a "semi-reliable" (it's actually not reliable at all) source for controversial text about massacres and rapes that cannot be found in any reliable sources. Nice try. And you're still lying about the 1RR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
          • [66] Nice try indeed. Khirurg (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
            • Yeah, please note that the phrase "semi-reliable" has "quotation marks" around it. "Quotation" "marks" look like this ' " " '. They "usually" indicate that "someone" is being "quoted". Like let me "quote" myself here: "I then quoted him to highlight how ridiculous it is to use......". Hope that "clarifies" things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
              • Quotes or not, you conceded it can be used for some things, implying it's semi-reliable. So much for that argument. Khirurg (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
                • Uhhh... your complaint is that I *didn't* concede. You're not making sense. Anyway, as BlackKite points out, the actual problem is you and ED making edits like this, which constitute pretty blatant POV pushing based on non-reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

See also User:Iryna Harpy's assessment of Khirurg's edits [67] (false WP:ASPERSIONS by Khirurg), [68] (WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by Khirurg), [69] (WP:GAME by Khirurg, trying to declare victory in RfC shortly after it was opened) etc. Like I said, WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Drmies: Edits removing bad sourcing [70] may be helpful, but edits that remove well-sourced material are just POV pushing: [71][72][73]. As an admin it's bogus to selectively go after POV-pushers you disagree with and support those with whom you agree. -Darouet (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

• • SaintAviator, given this I don't think you should be here at all: you clearly have an agenda, you clearly do not agree with accepted standards of reliability. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Just a question, are these [74] fake sources too? Khirurg (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
      • That very question, which is nothing but an attempt to sidestep the issue, proves my point. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
        • I have no idea what you're on about, but just for the record, seeing how I have all of 3-4 edits to the articlespace of the Syrian Civil War, I have no problem stepping back from the topic area, provided others do the same (or even if they don't for that matter). I'm also not sure why you bring up St. Aviator here. I have nothing to do with them, I do not approve of their methods, and this is quite frankly guilt-by-association. Khirurg (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
          • If you have no idea, you're proving my point again. You compare one editor's removal of what they call undue, not via consensus, etc., with another editor's insertion of fake news. The first is editorial procedure, and they may be right, they may be wrong; the other is the insertion of fake news, which runs directly against editorial policy. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
            • This is not "removing fake news" [75], nor is this [76], nor is this [77]. It's WP:JDL using "fake news", "undue", "fringe" as excuses, as are in fact all the diffs I have presented. It's easy to say "fake news" and then remove anything one does not like using that as an excuse. Khirurg (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
              • Yes, in those edits VM is not removing fake news, nor is he claiming that he is, so it may be easy to say "fake news", but he's not saying it. In other words, there is no point here that you are making. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
                • Oh no, he's just removing large chunks of sourced material that just happens to not fit his POV, using flimsy excuses to do so (re-igniting old edit wars in the process in some cases). Nothing to see here folks, move along. Khirurg (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
                  • • First, removing a sentence is not "large chunks" so quit it with the hyperbole. Second, you appear to be purposefully not understanding or obfuscating the difference. Removing some stuff like I did because it's undue or because it's repetitive or because it's worded in a POV manner or because it's not based on reliable sources is not against Wikipedia policy. Someone can disagree with those kinds of edits but there's nothing wrong with them and the disagreement can be hashed out on talk per usual. On the other hand, you, and a couple other editors like SaintAviator, are putting in highly POV text based on fake news sources (Weekly Washington Standard or whatever else) or outright propaganda outlets like Assad's al-Masdar news which are clearly unreliable (and inventing this new magical category of "semi-reliable" doesn't help) is straight up against Wikipedia's policies. So yeah, topic ban is warranted. For you. Especially since you've down right refused to try to engage in good faith discussion on talk and have instead relied on edit-warring and tag teams to get your way, while at the same time basically telling anyone on talk who objects "screw you, we've got the numbers, policy be damned!".Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
                      • You didn't remove "individual sentences", in some diffs you removed 3.5k of well-sourced text. The only one sabotaging any discussion is you, with your trademark incivility, abrasiveness, and obstruction ("Invalid RfC! Invalid RfC!" when someone tried to resolve the dispute by starting an RfC which you knew was going to go against you). Every editor at the Battle of Aleppo tp (except the 1-2 usual suspects that share your POV) is fed up with your behavior. Your aggressive style is counterproductive, generating even greater resistance to your edits. You would find it a lot easier to achieve progress if you adopted a less confrontational style. Mocking your opponents and demanding they submit to your will will conly create more tensions. And please drop the "you and St. Aviator" guilt-by-association canard, St. Aviator hasn't even edited Battle of Aleppo. Khirurg (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

<--- The diffs you gave above are [78] and [79]. Those are sentences. And no, not "every editor" is fed up with anything. Several editors, including ALL uninvolved commentators, for example User:R2D2015 (who independent proposed removing the "Christmas celebration" nonsense), as well as several commentators here, see that there are serious problems with the article and that my edits have generally tried to *solve* these, whereas your edits make them worse (see User:Black Kite's comment above).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, let's see.

On April 25, 7:14, BU_Rob13 notes that you've been spamming him with emails requesting blocks for those who disagree with you and calls your point "dubious at best". [80]

On April 25, 7:34, BlackKite chastises you for demanding that "VM ought to be sanctioned for reverting badly-sourced POV crap out of the article" [81]

On April 25, 13:05, OnlyInDeath notes how ridiculous the text you're trying to add to the article is and says "Given the other contributions are equally inane I am not surprised VM removed them". [82]

On April 25, 13:29, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundri has a laugh at your expense, or more precisely, at the expense of the text you're trying to add. [83]

On 25 April, 14:58, L.R. Wormwood says, quote, "User:Volunteer Marek has been very useful in removing blatantly non-NPOV tattle from that article. I would suggest, given the general tenor of this report, that someone ought to review the contributions of the user who referred VM" - basically saying that you're the one who deserves a sanction and a WP:BOOMERANG here [84]

On 25 April, 16:39, Drmies says "*If someone were to propose a topic ban for SaintAviator and Khirurg, I would heartily support that. Like, support. This stuff has been going on for too long--the fake sources, the weaselish allegations, the propaganda." - so that's a second editor (other than myself) who says that you deserve a sanction and a WP:BOOMERANG here [85]

On 26 April IrynaHarpy (yes, she is uninvolved) says "Yes, there are problems with articles surrounding the subject of Syria, but I do not see them as a reflection of VM's editing practices... And, yes, admin intervention is essential as the GAME is afoot, but I believe you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction", which makes it a third editor who suggests, although here more implicitly, that you need a sanction. [86]

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

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

???????

Maybe tha...

??????

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

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

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

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

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

First against me with this slippery claim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sockpuppet added the text (I removed the text added by the sockpuppet (redacted, clarified later - VM)) here, (the text was added by the sockpuppet account - redacted, clarified - VM) here and [87]. Please actually check what you are talking about before casting offensive WP:ASPERSIONS. As an aside, here we have yet another account with a background in Armenian-related topics (sort of). Add that to the long list and to the evidence for off-wiki canvassing and meat puppeting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The edit summary makes two points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh really? Then why did you re-add it after James pointed out your deception [88]? Khirurg (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

@James J. Lambden, thank you for pointing that out. He is doing it here too [89], sneaking in the infobox edit along with the mass removal of sourced info. Khirurg (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That edit has a well articulated edit summary which explains exactly what I'm doing. You're just making stuff up, hoping everyone's too lazy to actually check your diffs. Also, didn't you just say you were going to "step away from the topic area"? Whatever happened to that? Looks to me like you're just continuing the edit wars [90] (reinstating POV text added by a user who was blocked for it) and trying to start new ones [91].Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1RR violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removes reliably sourced material he does not like

• Regarding #7: "Removes reliably sourced material he does not like [92]. The source is reliable (ibtimes.co) and Theodore Postol is a notable academic expert on chemical warfare."
  I agree. Theodore Postol is an established expert on this subject, ref. MIT, and his work has been published by reliable sources, ref. IBT, DW, RT, TheNation, pressTV, Truthdig, consortiumnews. Even if some of the sources mentioned may lack a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", they are still reliable for reporting what Postol said. The reliability of a source depends on context. It's not "undue" as VM says, nor is it a "conspiracy theory". This is a viewpoint held by a significant minority, and Postol is a "prominent adherent". As long as we include his viewpoint, we must do so "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". How many words that is required to explain his view depends on the subject. I agree that it is disruptive editing to repeatedly, ref diff, diff, diff and diff, remove Postols statement. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 1. He is not an established expert in the subject. He is an expert in another subject. 2. These sources did not "publish" his work, they may have commented on it. 3. Look at the list of these sources - you have i) Postol's original paper. This is a WP:SPS, ii) RT News, iii) PressTV (official Iranian propaganda outlet) iv) Consortiumnews - a conspiracy website and v) Truthdig - another unreliable source. Out of that list only possibly the Nation and IbTimes are reliable. vi) There's this continuing tactic of using "these shitty sources are reliable for reporting what someone said" as an excuse to include WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE material into these articles. Now, there might be a reason to include a brief mention of what Postol said - but not a whole freakin' section. (And yes, it is a conspiracy theory - that's why this got reposted through the far-right outlets as #SyriaHoax, by the same people who claimed Sandy Hook was a hoax, who claimed 9-11 was a hoax, etc. etc. etc.).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this report here rather than at ANI?

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey

• Support (as proposer) James J. Lambden (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Close this thread. Enough disruption. There are already General sanctions in this subject area. Nothing else is needed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• No "Topic ban for anyone who tries to WP:GAME Wikipedia rules by making bad faithed unenforceable proposals which implicitly try to falsely smear other editors"? No "Topic ban for anyone who parades around their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality by abusing Admin noticeboards"? Honestly, the only proposal that might get a measure of support here is a topic-ban from Syria related articles for User:Khurig. That's more or less what... four now? uninvolved editors have proposed so far (and I of course would support it) so why not propose that rather than engaging in what is really just empty posturing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support closing this thread. No, you can't have a pony. Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and trying to impose a new 'subset' of laws because you're unhappy with processes and want to simplify things to appease your sense of order is prohibitive to the development of article content and is contrary to the spirit of the project. These are case-by-case issues to be dealt with as individual cases unless admins see fit to protect a page temporarily until disputes are resolved by whatever process is deemed fitting. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support closing this thread There are already WP:General sanctions in this area which are sufficient but for if an ArbCom case is necessary. -Obsidi (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Close thread or move it to ANI or AE, before WP:BOOMERANGS start getting handed out. Softlavender (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

User:LylaSand

I am not editing the Syrian War articles, but once we are here, does anybody know if User:LylaSand is here to build an encyclopaedia? 1 week old account, 95 edits, exclusively edit-warring?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I was surprised to see them arrive at Ghouta chemical attack, checked their history, and see that they are clearly an WP:SPA. -Darouet (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Based on my experience, she contributed constructively on many pages and was engaged in civil discussions. I do not see any problems. My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Affirm what is written above. There are plenty of people who edit Syria-related articles and little else. If this is a basis for WP:NOTHERE I have a few POV-pushers I will refer. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User: Light show

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Diff 1
• Diff 2
• Diff 3

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

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

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

This kind of behaviour is standard with Light show. He has been banned from Commons for similar disruptive behaviour regarding copyright questions [93], and is banned from editing articles related to Stanley Kubrick [94] and Peter Sellers [95].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrators too harsh and overpowered?

PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY. AND READ THE WHOLE THING. This issue has been bothering me for a year, ever since I joined Wikipedia. I've looked at several cases where Administrators have been really cruel, overpowered, and treated unfairly. Yeah, yeah. I know Wikipedia does not guarantee free speech. But I have to let you guys know this, because I think it will make Wikipedia a better place. Go ahead, block me if you want. But I'm still saying it. First, I'm going to point out some numbers, which I find RIDICULOUS.

• The number of blocked users on Wikipedia could form a country with a population greater than Panama.
• There are 44x more currently blocked users than the number of blocked users who have been unblocked.
• There are 3327x more blocked users on Wikipedia than the number of Administrators.
• The number of users User:Materialscientist has blocked is more than the population of Aruba.

I didn't have this kind of feeling for this site a month ago. Back then, I tried not to get involved into Administrator and user situations. All I did was edit and create new articles on sports related things. Then, I felt like I should do something to contribute to the Wikipedia community. So I decided to become a New Page Reviewer. For the past year on Wikipedia, I've been doing stuff to edit Wikipedia, and nothing bothered me.

But, this peace did not last forever. On March 23rd, I was caught in an ip block, and I appealed it on IRC. We came with a conclusion, and the whole thing was supposed to be over. But it turned out it wasn't. Two weeks later, I got a notice saying I was blocked for sock puppetry, which I didn't do. I found this really strange, because I thought the case was concluded. And it turns out I was blocked by User:DeltaQuad, who had nothing to do with my case. But I did appeal the block anyways on IRC. This one IRC discussion with administrators made me lose all my respect for Wikipedia and especially its administrators. I told the administrators, who I am not going to name, because you guys will block me for "personal attacks". I told them that I was innocent, and I was using a library IP. And suddenly, all of them starting listing hogwash proof that I was the vandal. Just because another admin blocked me. And none of them believed I was in a library, so they threatened to send an email to the place I was in, because they thought that by threatening me, I would have nothing to hide. But I was fine with them doing that, because I already knew that they would be wrong about not believing me.

But I'm not here to complain about my block. The thing that made me lose all my respect to administrators is the way they acted. 2 weeks before my blocked, everyone said I was good faith and everything was fine. Case closed already. But, then, out of the blue, some administrator who had nothing to do with my case decided to run a goddamn checkuser, and block me because that's what admins do. And then, after I got blocked, I went on the IRC and then suddenly everyone started acting like I was the sock, and I was lying to them about the library. The sudden change in the admins's behavior was very suspicious, and I was furious in them. Their behavior change was probably caused by the blocked that DeltaQuad made, and it influenced them. Administrators do not have their own opinions, and they usually go with other administrators in an argument. This makes them very biased, and they are usually in favor of other admins.

This behavior is unacceptable, and must be stopped immediately, or else others like me will suffer. Administrators need less power, to recognize their mistakes, and what they did ruined my entire reputation on Wikipedia. They have ruined the many other reputations of users who want to make the wiki a better place.

The admins involved in my case were:

• User:Huon
  
• User:Ks0stm
  
• User:Slakr
  
• User:DeltaQuad
  

Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me} 20:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

In my view, the tireless work of User:Materialscientist is to be admired and praised. Without the contributions of this one editor the place would be awash with vandals and sockpuppets. I really don't know what your point is exactly. Aruba is a lovely place, but generally much more relaxed than this one. Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with your post above ?  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  21:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has banned (on systems quite unrelated to WP / WMF) entire countries that are significantly larger than Panama, for obscenely large scale and never-ending abuse, those numbers sound anything but ridiculous to me. They actually sound quite small, given the endless torrent of vandalism and malicious socking that WP has to deal with. Assuming, on good faith, that you were unfairly caught up in someone else's abuse, you have my sympathy for that bit and I'm glad you were able to get unblocked. Beyond that, however, I disagree with much of your complaint, as keeping on top of the real abuse is a significant, endless, and mostly thankless task. I thank the admins for their ongoing efforts to deal with abuse, and I believe that the success rate and accuracy is generally quite high. (Non-administrator comment) Murph9000 (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding your specific case: It looks like so much of this is checkuser-based, and IRC-based, that people on AN aren't going to be able to review it. If you weren't socking, it sounds like you've been treated shabbily, but if you were socking, then it sounds like you've been treated leniently. The problem is no one here can really know if those accounts were you or not, so we can't tell which it is. I mean, my intuitive reaction is that maybe you've been unfairly blocked, but I have absolutely no way to look into it at all. In addition, since the IRC conversations weren't logged, there is no way for anyone here to review those conversations either. (Frankly, every time I hear about something happening on IRC, it sounds like a horrible place - the only place worse than AN/ANI. You should probably avoid it.) Anyway, you said you appealed this to the Arbitration Committee; did they respond? They can review checkuser info, and they're really the place to take this.

Regarding your introduction (about the number of blocked users, and - for some reason - Materialscientist): The vast majority of blocks have nothing to do with checkuser, and aren't at all questionable. As Martinevens says, MS is a workhorse who almost never gets it wrong. The fact that there are a lot of troublemakers out there who need to be blocked doesn't have much to do with any other part of your complaint. As you can see above, it's likely people will address that rather unrelated part of your post, and ignore the specifics. You might want to just cross it out and focus on the important part. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Is there page where you can discuss issues about Wikipedia itself where this post will fit? But I will still keep this post on this page. Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me} 21:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, so your not complaining about the block, but your questioning why I "decided to run a goddamn checkuser". Your also still disavowing it. I'm all for being accountable, so i'll explain my actions. I actually didn't know about your IRC talk with admin until after I had made the block. I ran a check user on an IP address related to A community request at ACC #196456 where a checkuser block was in place on a IP address, and required our approval to create the account. From there, your name was on the IP address. I compared the technical data, and I found two different IPs that were vandalizing with your same technical data. From there I blocked you listing 3 accounts in the block log, and not listing a 4th i'm still concerned might be your sock, but has no edits. Moreso, you made an IP edit and this edit or this for non-admins on the same IP address, with the same technical data, with the logging into your account within 2 minutes, to make those edits. The unidentified IP edit was to post an unblock request related to this case, which I can't point to for privacy policy reasons. Futhermore, on a different IP, that you claimed is the library's, an unblock request was posted by a "staff librarian". This "librarian" stated the vandal came to her, told her he would not vandalize and that he would quit the library. Not even 10 minutes later, your account pops up on the same IP, same technical data working on your sandbox. I can also confirm that [96] and [97] were made on the same "library IP" on a different date with the exact same technical info. That was enough for me to issue the blocks, and for any other administrator who would have had access to the data to issue a block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @DeltaQuad: Wait... what is the ACC for? It says you have to request to create an account, which I did. And I don't get how the 3 edits you showed me had anything to do with the sockpuppet case. Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me} 22:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Amanda. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: And can you tell me the 4th account? Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me} 22:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a high-ranking website that anyone can edit. Just knowing that shows there will be thousands of accounts and IPs that have to be blocked (thanks Materialscientist!). People do not have to prove their identity, and no account or email address is needed. That means judgment has to be used when blocks are issued and there may be mistakes. No one here can know if a mistake was made in this case, although Amanda has given a very compelling account above. The "too harsh and overpowered" suggestion is disconnected from reality. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• I took part in (much of) the discussions on the IRC unblock channel and can post the logs if that's considered helpful (the unblock channel explicitly allows publishing the logs). Ks0stm confirmed Amanda's CheckUser findings. The IP address Auth0RiTy said was the library's was not within the IP ranges used by the public library system of the state in question. Huon (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem here is partly that checkusers don't alwways have all the means of getting enough details about an IP address. Different people using the same public computer, on what the checkusers believe to be a private address, using the same web browser (probably the case on a public computer), will look like sockpuppetry to any checkuser; on the other hand, without them (I'm not one of them, by the way), this site will be overrun by sockpuppets. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• So, is this a general discussion about blocking, or are we being asked to review one specific case? I read the whole post as ordered and it seems to be a bit of both.

The number of blocked users is unsurprising, and pointing to it as a sign of overzealousness shows a shallow understanding of why most blocks are issued. The most common reasons by far are vandalism and username violations. There's no reason to unblock people who manifestly came here in bad faith to damage Wikipedia, and most username blocks are "soft" blocks that leave open the option just create a new account and return to editing.

And after that is socking and WP:LTA headcases. Do we always get that exactly right? No. We don't even have any way of evaluating whether we got it right or not in many cases, all we can do is go with what the available evidence tells us.

So I'm left asking again what the purpose of this thread is. Are we being asked to review blocking policy as a whole, or just this one incident? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm trying to say that my case was unfair, and the administrators who were involved in my case did not handle it as well as I expected. If you read my post, then you will know why I have lost all my respect for Wikipedia. Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me} 19:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  Actually...I would follow GoldenRings very insightful advice on your talk-page. Posting on this page probably means that you seek "...discussion of administration methods...". Well, this has been discussed now ad nauseam, and still I only see people who have followed the rules and actually extended you plenty of courtesy. I'd advise you to drop the stick now. Lectonar (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lectonar: I feel like this has to be discussed. And I still do not understand the evidence give by DeltaQuad to oppose my case. Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me!} 21:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't think this is the appropriate forum for this dispute. Instead, you should email the Arbitration Committee (one of the topics appropriate to email ArbCom is "Requests about 'checkuser' or 'oversighter' blocks or bans" and "Requests to review actions by checkusers or oversighters") at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. -Obsidi (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Lectonar:m But still, I think the behavior of these administrators should be discussed. Auth0RiTy ^{Contact me!} 15:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sidetrack: can we / should we have checkuser check more things?

Looking at the above discussion, particularly the question of checkuser accuracy , the Electronic Frontier Foundation website https://panopticlick.eff.org/ (Also see https://firstpartysimulator.org/about ) performs Browser fingerprinting that I believe is more sophisticated and detailed than our checkuser tools. Should we use this sort of additional information to give us more confidence in the results from checkuser? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The interested reader may also find https://clickclickclick.click/ to be entertaining... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all of the above. I was under the impression we were here to write an encyclopedia. Those that would disrupt this non-profit endeavor deserve nowhere to hide. As Rudy Giuliani pointed out about the squeegee men, it was only a couple of guys; never something endemic and unstoppable. A couple arrests made, message sent, and problem solved. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of Checkuser os governed by the global privacy policy, so the Foundation would have to be involved in any discussion of expanding our use of such tools or adding more tools that can breach privacy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I've long thought that the WMF's policy on limiting the use of Checkuser was detrimental to the project as a whole (as, for that matter, is allowing IP editing). My impression, however, is that trying to get them to loosen that up is an uphill and (probably) losing battle, as it appears to be based on philosophical precepts and is therefore not subject to alteration based on facts (or community opinion). Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Given how long it took the WMF to pick off the absolute lowest of the low hanging fruit (block cookies -- code mostly written, already OKed by Legal), I agree. I object to browser fingerprinting on principle. However, some of the information gathered by Panopticlick is automatically sent to the WMF by your web browser (e.g. the HTTP Accept headers) or already gathered by the WMF for other reasons; it is this information that should be available for anti-abuse efforts. I also wouldn't mind zombie cookies (without the use of obnoxious proprietary software or exploits) being handed out to long-term abusers. MER-C 13:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I am asking a technical question about what checkuser checks, not a policy question about who should be allowed to use checkuser or under what circumstances they should be allowed to do so. And yes, I do realize that if there is a consensus to have checkuser check for more things, we would then have to get WMF approval and then have our developers write the new features. My question is, should we? For example, as far as I know, our current checkuser tool does not tell you that one user is reading from a 1024x788 pixel screen while another is is reading from a 1920x1080 pixel screen. So, should the checkuser tool tell the person with checkuser permissions this extra information? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

AE input sought

There is a case at AE which could potentially result in a topic ban for a large group of editors (180 or so). In the interests of building consensus around such a move, input from uninvolved administrators is sought. GoldenRing (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

really just against one person.... Instructor of a big class that is ending soon. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned on AE, I've been informed that the assignment was done yesterday. El_C 13:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Acceptable userbox

Just saw a userbox on the userpage of User:ReneAjax with the text:
This user would fucking love to trust Wikipedia as a reliable source but Turkish vandals prevent him. >:(
. I wasn't so sure this was appropriate since it's denigrating Turks as a whole, and I know we have vandals of different nationalities, it struck me as being slightly Polemic. I figured I'd run it by the admin corps and see if that was the general consensus !  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There are probably vandals of every industrialized nationality of significant population, including Turkey. By Trukish vansals, this user may mean nothing more than vandals (as we generally mean when we say this word here) from Turkey. It says nothing about Turks, or Turkish Wikipedians, in general. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, he might be referring to the Turkish government's interference in his domestic internet ([98], [99], [100], etc.), rather than 'ordinary' Turkish people. And that's the sort of poltical point that loads of userboxes make already :) not a WP:POLEMIC in sight. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

My first thought was that he was directing his comments at vandals on the Turkish Wikipedia, but as they have a grand total of 1 edit to that project it seems unlikely. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• As it is a custom userbox and not a transclusion, I went ahead and removed the word "Turkish". That really is not acceptable, as it attacks Turkish editors of Wikipedia. If they would like to reword it into something more nuanced, as suggested by the above comments, they are welcome to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems to completely ignore alternative suggestions. And in any case, you left the Turkish flag in there so the thing looks completely incongruous. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

INVOLVED block of User:SimonTrew

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

---

I have blocked User:SimonTrew for ongoing personal attacks that he has been repeatedly warned about, in reaction to this ANI thread. The particular impetus for this IAR block is this set of comments. I am very clearly WP:INVOLVED with regard to this user however I believe the "any reasonable administrator" exemption applies in this instance. Posting here for accountability: if there is consensus that my action is unjustified please do not hesitate to overturn. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block Totally justified, lenient even. 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox (talk • contribs)
• Endorse block Very lenient considering past block history for same behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block Hard to write a clearer statement that they intend to treat WikiP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The PA's are also blockable. MarnetteD|Talk 20:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block Rather too short imho. Lectonar (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block As an uninvolved admin, I would have blocked for a longer time that's for sure. Block totally justified. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block Seems very clear that a block was approrpriate given the extreme personal attack that occured, probably should have been longer. -Obsidi (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block. People sometimes need to vent a little when stressed by being taken to ANI and there should be some leniency in such situations, but this latest was a seriously over-the-top attack and needed a firm response. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block, but 31 hours was far, far too lenient. I suggest that if SimonTrew even looks cross-eyed at another editor after his block runs out, the next block should jump the normal sequence and be for a substantial period of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Having now read the unblock request, I am surprised this editor is even still here. I hope some kind of apology will be forthcoming. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block and I agree with the above that 31 hours is rather lenient. Hut 8.5 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block and its precise length. It was warranted because of the continued disruption and rampant PAs over multiple pages during the ANI thread, but it is short enough to allow the user to request one last reprieve before he gets hit with a possible site ban. Softlavender (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

With 6 sysops replying, it's fair to say there's unanimous support for the block. Stickee (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And with nearly full consnesus (including no admin opposition) that the block was too lenient, I extended it to be longer than the previous block - since thhat was 2 weeks, I've extended this to 3. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Blocked zombie proxy that is not blocked

111.96.92.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is tagged as a Category:Zombie proxies blocked on Wikipedia but isn't blocked and being used to promote anti-Semitism. Should it be untagged or reblocked? DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

What's a zombie proxy? nevermind, rhetorical question. The block expired a week or two ago. I've reblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent block rationale as well! Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pile-on praise for that rationale! Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Collateral damage check

Can anyone tell me how to check blocking 2601:4A:401:8FC8:/64 for collateral damage. Seems to be an SPA, but I'd like verification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no collateral there; feel to provide our friend, Mr. Hughes, a wikibreak as needed.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for redirects

I would like to ask an admin to create Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & Pharmacotherapie and Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy = Biomédecine & Pharmacothérapie as redirects to Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. (I can't create either because they're both on the title black list.) Everymorning (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Everymorning: Uh, not to second guess you, but aren't those kinda...long for redirects? What's the context? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Both appear to be commonly used titles for the journal (see here for an example). Everymorning (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeez. Arright then, creating 'em now. EDIT: Done! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

EJustice matter

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

Please review the EJustice AE case, which was just closed in favor of this venue.

There were questions as to whether the action under the ARBAP2 DS were appropriate, with some saying yes and others no. There were also questions about whether a TBAN from ARBAP2 really addressed the issues, or whether we would get into endless boundary testing. Some argued for no sanctions.

At this point I am proposing a community imposed indefinite block, on the basis that

• a) EJustice used WP as a WP:SOAPBOX to campaign for environmental justice and against the plans and actions of the Trump administration, amplified through 180 meatpuppets via the Education Program;
• b) EJustice responded at the AE, and gave no indication that they understand the problem and instead continued to blame reaction of the community to problems with content produced by the class on systematic bias in the community and the bias of editors.

The purpose of the block is to prevent further disruption. This would be appealable via normal channels in 6 months. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support per my thoughts at AE, their defense of copyright violations and plagiarism (see their talk page and the AE thread), their response to the AE thread, and the DUCK factor involving meatpuppetry (not even considering the off-wiki allegations, which I agree should be taken worth a grain of salt.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I also support Train's proposal of an indefinite Tban of engaging students, and suggest it be appealable at AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I would note the close of AE was for AN that a "more tailored TBAN may be considered." NOT a Block. I think its a bit incorrect to say that this was "180 meatpuppets" as this was done through the Education programs in which it is considered appropriate for him to help 180 access WP (although he did it in an inappropriate way here). A topic ban from american politics, broadly construed, and especially from such environmental topics may be more appropriate. But I'll have to review this closer before I formally make my suggestion. -Obsidi (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Although I do see that some admins did suggest a block might be appropriate as well. -Obsidi (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef per persistent WP:SOAPBOX violations with no willingness to change. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. StAnselm (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef block. The fact a professor would have their students try to use Wikipedia to promote the professor's personal political beliefs honestly angers me. Wikipedia should NEVER be used as a political platform, but a neutral, un-biased reference. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from Environmental pages, broadly construed, and an indef block immediately appealable without needing to appeal to AN (any admin should be able to remove). They need to understand WP:SOAPBOX, which they have clearly failed to do despite repeated attempts to inform them of such. I've seen no reason to believe they will not continue to advocate on other issues without a block. That said, I think any admin should be able to recognize if they are willing to actually acknowledge the problems in their conduct and give reason to believe it wont continue. All these problems currently have centered around environmental justice issues. This is a topic area they clearly are unable to edit neutrally. Even if the block is appealed the TBAN in this area should stay. -Obsidi (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Obsidi's proposal, with the addition of an indefinite TBAN on engaging students in Wikipedia activities in any form, whether it be through Wiki Ed or not. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hi! As I understand it, it is proposed that I be banned for engaging in WP:SOAPBOX. In reading that section, I presume I am being accused of violating the first provision of that, namely engaging in advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment. What I did was teach a class on the topic of Environmental Justice with the instruction to students, in teams, to a) write a neutral wikipedia article (among their other assignments) on environmental justice, a well-established field of social science research as well as community organizing b) follow all guidelines provided by the excellent WikiEdu dashboard and curriculum, and c)expect to be graded to a quite substantial degree by the extent to which they used WikiEdu's trainings and guidelines in authoring their articles. I did not create any articles, nor did I engage in any significant edits.

I understand that the students' work raised many concerns about POV. WikiEdu staff and other WP editors and I will be doing a full debrief (likely on a public talk page) once we've all caught our breath after grading and the like. I clearly won't be giving another such assignment without ensuring that I understand how to conform more fully to POV and SOAPBOX guidelines on WP. Please dig into the (quite lengthy) EJustice AE case. EdChem proposed a great set of next steps there. Thanks! EJustice (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@EJustice: I am getting very sick of you going on about how the assignment was to write a "neutral Wikipedia article". Just because your syllabus includes the word neutral doesn't make what you're trying to do either neutral or compliant with our policies. Here's a longer quote from that section of your syllabus: create Wikipedia articles in order to create a neutral, well-documented record of the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency. It frankly beggars belief that you can't see the problem here, but let me spell it out for you: the assignment you have set is based on the assumption that there will be an assault on the environment and environmental justice under the Trump presidency and your students' success depends (or at least could be reasonably seen to depend, whether it's your intention or not) on them finding and documenting that assault, no matter what actual history develops. Whatever else it is, that ain't neutral. GoldenRing (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @EJustice: In your statement here and at AE you have omitted

a) the stuff about Trump in your class description, and the diffs that I and others brought showing how important it was to you that the content added by your students advocate for the EJ movement and against Trump;

b) your consistent resistance to acknowledging the problems with student content while the class was ongoing and instead attributing criticism to systemic bias, racism, classism, sexism, etc;

c) your urging students to ignore community feedback on that same basis.

These omissions only dig your hole deeper. Your class damaged Wikipedia so much, on content that the world very much needs to be NPOV and trustworthy at this crucial time. Your class wasted tons of volunteer time, which is the lifeblood of this place. Your only road out of this hole is acknowledging what happened and how bad it was, which would provide some assurance that you would not repeat it. What you wrote here will probably lead more people to support an indefinite block. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• After some thought and reading all of the comments above I am switching from my earlier support at AE for a TBAN and now Support a community based indefinite block with the understanding that this extends to all classes/courses which EJustice may be running. This is a fairly naked case of WP:RGW agenda oriented editing made more egregious by the use of students, over whom he presumably has some degree of power, as meat-puppets in the promotion of their POV political agenda. I view this as a serious attack on the integrity of the project and one that requires a very firm response. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose My understanding is the coursework is over. Thus, this is not preventative at this time. I read Ed Chem's post at the AE, and I don't see the actual benefit of acting swiftly on this now, prior to the discussion that EdChem plans to hold both with EJustice and with WikiED. I think we will do more harm by acting swiftly now -- what we need is to really dig into what went wrong with a WikiED program -- I stress that because it's very relevant that part of the community through WikiEd invited this. Now that the flurry of editing has stopped, the best way to do this is without being punitive, now. On the "meatpuppets" thing, well it's been decades since I have sat in a 180 student college course, as a student, but I am still certain I never felt mind-controlled by the instructor - and on the other-side, anyone who has dealt with American students is unlikely to think they are easily controllable, especially not by their instructor. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

EJustice has indicated his intention to have another class on wikipedia in the future, and still wants to "make a difference". StAnselm (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Come on, now. Every edit we make, we hope makes a difference. Besides, Ejustice will, like everyone on Wikipedia, learn and hopefully become different for the better in the learning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Alanscottwalker if you read the AE carefully, you will see diffs where EJustice made it clear that grades depended on getting certain content to stick and diffs of very hard-to-read statements by students who were caught between what they understood that EJustice was requiring and what the policies and guidelines allow. This is not mind-control; it is much more mundane stuff of people trying to get a good grade as part of their degree program so they can get on with their lives and careers. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

EJustice will not be having another class this semester, which means we have time to talk with WikiEd and with EJustice, to see if WikiEd can improve such engagements - like never doing it with 180 again (or if you do, have a much different model, and a much more knowledgeable about Wikipedia instructor -and other safeguards) One thing that needs to be looked at is was this designed to fail, given the lack of Wikipedia experience. As for getting grades, that is the rather part-and-parcel of WikiEd. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Alanscottwalker this is the last response I will give you here. No, the education program explicitly warns instructors not to grade students on edits that "stick". This class very much did, which only exacerbated the problems. I get it that you want to be more gentle here but you are not providing valid reasoning. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Warns? Why does it not forbid? To root this out, it has to go to the engagement that Wikied invited, it should be the one to raise syllabus problems, before the on-wiki course is started. Obviously, nothing is "solved" if Wiki-ed does the same thing again with someone else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support I'm not particularly bothered about his ability to edit Wikipedia, but what disturbed me was the fact that he thought (and apparently still does think) that persuading students to break Wikipedia policies to gain marks on their assignments was somehow OK. Unfair on the students, completely against Wikipedia policy, let's sort this problem out once and for all now. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block per the illuminating AE. Ejustice's own comments both there and here seem less than... well, complete, as shown particularly by Jytdog's replies above.[101][102] I agree strongly with Black Kite about the unfairness to the students. Bishonen | talk 23:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC).
• Support indefinite block. I'd rather prevent any future mess, and this is the safe way of doing it. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 23:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The really shitty thing about this is - and this is coming from someone who teaches teenagers - is that some of those students could have written really good articles on those subjects, but were forced to shove their teachers POV back into the articles. I'm no friend of Trump, but someone who forces their own POV down their student's throats is frankly not a good educator. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose because it doesn't address the problem. A block doesn't stop them setting assignments, either good or bad, only from discussing them on-wiki. If this is the only proposal that can succeed then please don't count me against it, but I think we're avoiding the problem here. GoldenRing (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block or siteban. I think a topic ban is simply delaying the inevitable. There is overwhelming evidence from so many of his own statements that EJustice has every intention of continuing to assign students to edit improperly in order to WP:RGW. In fact, an examination of the AE just before its close shows that EJustice even canvassed his students to come here and defend him. This is not going to transform into a net positive, no matter how much guidance is offered. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternative

This seems to be one of the cases where something needs to be done and everyone agrees on that, but no-one can agree what. I assume that @Jytdog: above meant to purpose a community ban rather than block, but I tend to agree with Alanscottwalker above that this would not be preventive. So I propose:

• EJustice is indefinitely banned from setting class assignments on Wikipedia, to be enforced by blocks, both of EJustice and their students. I realise this is hard cheese on the students, but it may be the only way to enforce the ban, if the organisation were to move off-wiki. This restriction can be appealed at any time, either at the administrator's noticeboard or to the arbitration committee. EJustice is advised that, for any appeal to be successful, it should be supported by a member of the WikiiEdu team on the basis of substantial discussion regarding how future assignments will be set.
• EJustice is warned that further POV-pushing in the area of post-1932 American Politics will result in a topic ban from that area under DS as an arbitration enforcement action.

The purpose of allowing an appeal to the arbs is to make appeal easier once the issues are resolved.

• Support as proposer. GoldenRing (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Why does not simply blocking EJustice achieve this goal? They're not here for any other reason, and especially not to improve Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: if we managed to resolve the problem then there's a lot of good that could come out of it; we could have someone who brings 180 productive editors along each semester. So I think there's value in a proportionate response that doesn't burn our bridges. Also, EdChem's comments at the AE case are worth a read; I'm not familiar enough with the situation to really see what the reputational fall-out might be, but I trust him that the potential exists. I won't oppose a ban/indef if that's the only proposal that could pass, but I think we can do better. GoldenRing (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can resolve the problem, though. I'm far, far, more concerned about the welfare of the students - I couldn't care less about EJustice. Yes, if he is going to create an assignment that doesn't involve berating his students to break Wikipedia policy, then great, but I don't see from any of his responses that he's considering doing that. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's the point of an indefinite community ban from doing so. GoldenRing (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my point though - a community ban from doing that, and an indefinite block, are exactly the same thing because that's the only reason they're here. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No, they're not. An indefinite block does nothing much to prevent the same problem from happening next semester. EJustice doesn't need to edit at all to cause this problem, just hand his students a bit of paper that effectively says, "Your assignment is to push POV X into Wikipedia articles. Your grade will depend on how much of the material is retained at the end of the semester." GoldenRing (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I quite like the students that actually engaged with us. They were doing their best to get a good grade, but despite that actually responded to our feedback on the Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration article. I don't support this as an alternative proposal, but as I stated above, I support an indefinite community imposed topic ban from EJustice himself engaging students on this topic in addition to the block that would be appealable to AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting we should go and find all his students from this semester an d block them all, but that if EJustice starts another class next semester we should block an of his students we can find. The problem with not having that provision (and indeed the problem with just indeffing EJustice) is that there's nothing to stop them setting exactly the same assignment next semester; they don't need to be able to edit Wikipedia to do that, only read it, and we can't block them from reading. GoldenRing (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Doesn't go far enough. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 23:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any proposal that blocks or bans the students for any significant amount of time. We have no evidence to believe that they would behave in the way they would without the course pressure behind them - and I'm not referring to the POV pushing, I'm referring to the ignoring of community advice. I supported a topic ban of the instructor above, but have no problem supporting an indef block of the instructor if that is what it came to. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: the original proposal is far superior. StAnselm (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this has nothing to do with students per se and everything to do with EJustice's direction of students. With regard to future classes, under an indefinite block it would not be valid for EJustice to have another class work in WP (through TAs for example) per MEAT. Done is done. I would be delighted if they could successfully appeal a block but due to how obstinate/obfuscating they have been that nothing was wrong and the widespread disruption they caused, that appeal should be made here. Finally with regard to the proposals about Wiki Ed's involvement, this is flawed in a bunch of ways, but the most important way concerns what the Education Program can and cannot do. They actually have little control; they just facilitate and are understaffed even for that. Please do read the statement by Wiki Ed already provided on this matter by Ryan, and you will see that they tried very hard to bring EJustice inline and kept thinking EJustice "got it", but then EJustice would turn around and do the opposite. Which is something to keep in mind with regard to unblock requests (should we impose one). So the proposal doesn't work and is not appropriate in my view. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Jytdog: The students are being used as leverage against the instructor here. I don't like it, but I don't see what other leverage we have. I want to avoid the situation where we indef the instructor and so he takes the organisation entirely off-wiki - that's worse than what we have now. And doesn't the history between EJustice and WikiEd make them the best people to assess whether there's actually been a change of attitude? Someone somewhere proposed a block that could be appealed to any admin - clearly wrong as this guy is obviously adept at saying the right words without actually changing his attitude. I'm not trying to make WikiEd responsible for the appeal, just setting the expectation that EJustice will have to convince them that the change is real before an appeal to AN is likely to succeed. GoldenRing (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I want them to take the organization off-wiki. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 00:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per StAnselm and Jytdog. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of RfC concerning proposed Community Based De-adminship

Your input is requested in a RfC I just opened: WP:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Community_Based_De-adminship. Thank you. -Obsidi (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)