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 and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"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

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 28 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 21 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 89 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 86 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 86 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:RSN#RfC: The Times of India

(Initiated 42 days ago on 17 June 2024) Discussion appears ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 37 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)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 28 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 21 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 19 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	1	9	10
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	4	4
RfD	0	0	0	43	43
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:List of undefeated mixed martial artists#7 to 10

(Initiated 82 days ago on 8 May 2024) We have reached an impasse and agree that a formal closure would be helpful in determining next steps. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 67 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 63 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)

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

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 51 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:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 111#When can titles contain "massacre"?

(Initiated 44 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm rather minded to mark this {{Not done}}. I don't think that discussion came to any useable conclusion. To the extent that there was a consensus, it was about historical events; the Zong Massacre was discussed, and presumably nobody takes issue with Amritsar massacre or Peterloo massacre or St Brice's Day massacre as article titles. At issue is titles like "massacre" in articles about current events, and there's the blindingly obvious guidance from the community to be careful with the wording, but apart from that I don't see the kind of clear conclusion that would justify closing an archived discussion?—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  @S Marshall, then a close of no consensus is perfectly acceptable. Since you're uninvolved, why don't you go ahead and close that discussion? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Anti-Black sentiment#Requested move 22 June 2024

(Initiated 37 days ago on 22 June 2024) Consensus reached. Relisted three times and no further discussion arising, but needs uninvolved closer. (If it helps, end of discussion here: Talk:Anti-Black_sentiment#c-AjaxSmack-20240722195700-Lewisguile-20240722193300) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisguile (talk • contribs) 06:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

 Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Sophie (musician)#Pronouns again

(Initiated 35 days ago on 24 June 2024) Not particularly long or complicated, but participants are arguing over whether there's consensus. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024 July#ABC News (United States)

(Initiated 26 days ago on 4 July 2024) No new comments in a few days. May be ripe for closure. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 CrowdStrike incident#Requested move 19 July 2024

(Initiated 11 days ago on 19 July 2024) Please review or relist this discussion--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I did not see a relisting helping here, given the structure of the current discussion and how it was proceeding. So closed it the most reasonable outcome I could see (No consensus). Soni (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (42 out of 8152 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Talk:Sister location circus fox 2024-07-30 19:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Fouad Shuker 2024-07-30 19:08 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli July 2024 Israeli attack on Beirut 2024-07-30 19:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Jhanak 2024-07-30 16:56 indefinite move Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Min Bahadur Budha 2024-07-30 15:26 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Bat Ayin 2024-07-30 15:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Surat 2024-07-30 00:19 2026-07-30 00:19 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Draft:6b6t 2024-07-29 21:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Isabelle Belato Prasada 2024-07-29 20:58 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per request Daniel Case Mister Supranational 2024 2024-07-29 19:35 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/PAGEANT El C Mila affair 2024-07-29 17:40 2024-08-29 17:40 edit Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Dharavi 2024-07-29 16:51 2025-01-29 16:51 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Cliff Cash 2024-07-29 16:12 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie July 2024 West Bank unrest 2024-07-29 14:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Battle of Netzarim 2024-07-29 14:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli July 2024 Tulkarm confrontations 2024-07-29 14:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Second Battle of Khan Yunis 2024-07-29 14:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Battle at Tel al-Hawa 2024-07-29 14:38 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli User talk:107.152.45.182 2024-07-29 10:18 2024-08-05 10:18 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:23.237.26.8 2024-07-29 08:50 2024-08-05 08:50 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Manu Bhaker 2024-07-28 16:38 2024-08-11 16:38 edit,move Caste-warring by autoconfirmed editors; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Langah (clan) 2024-07-28 14:36 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/CASTE; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Pogonomyrmex wheeleri 2024-07-28 12:04 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG User:Lawyer Mahmoud Nasser Eldamaligy 2024-07-27 20:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Bishonen 2024 Tel Aviv drone attack 2024-07-27 19:00 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA ToBeFree July 2024 protest in Washington, D.C. 2024-07-27 19:00 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA ToBeFree Majdal Shams attack 2024-07-27 18:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA ToBeFree Template:Née 2024-07-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2505 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Peter Paltchik 2024-07-27 16:49 2024-08-27 16:49 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA Ymblanter Darshan (Kannada actor) 2024-07-27 13:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; raise to ECP (WP:CT/IPA) Abecedare Darshan filmography 2024-07-27 13:43 2024-08-27 13:43 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vinayvinyill Abecedare Forward caste 2024-07-27 10:20 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/CASTE -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Pogrom 2024-07-27 10:07 2025-07-27 10:07 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Robertsky Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy 2024-07-27 08:43 2024-08-03 08:43 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Robertsky Garoowe 2024-07-27 00:46 2026-07-27 00:46 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of unsourced material. Yamaguchi先生 I.Sat 2024-07-26 21:38 2024-10-11 20:55 edit,move sockpuppetry JBW TNT Series 2024-07-26 21:37 2024-08-26 21:01 edit,move sockpuppetry JBW Space (Latin American TV channel) 2024-07-26 21:37 2024-08-26 21:01 edit,move sockpuppetry JBW TNT (Latin American TV channel) 2024-07-26 21:36 2024-08-26 21:01 edit,move sockpuppetry JBW Template:Foreign relations of Canada 2024-07-26 20:29 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; upgrading to ECP; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato 5th Assault Brigade 2024-07-26 20:05 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: What [[ Favonian 42nd Motorized Infantry Battalion (Ukraine) 2024-07-26 19:17 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case

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 [1] 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); rescinding this consideration. 18:22, 3 May 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) Adding to the afore-mentioned concerns, after recent interactions with User:Jobas, I'm growing more convinced that the mass editing of religion-related categories is not being done in the spirit of WP:CATGRS. Instead of treating religious beliefs on Wikipedia with sensitivity, care, and "only as appropriate" per policy, the editor appears instead to be applying the policy selectively, adding people with positive notability to favored categories, while removing them from disliked categories, and leaving people with negative notability (criminals, despots, controversial, convicts, societal outcasts, etc.) in the disliked categories, while removing positively notable people. It would be appreciated if someone could verify that I'm not just imagining this selectivity. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have observed both Jobas and Xenophrenic edit on a number of articles and what I have seen is Xenophrenic selectively quoteing from sources in order to propagate his own opinions. Currently, he's engaged with User:Ramos1990 and myself on the persecution of Buddhists article because he is edit warring to add a WP:POINTY sentence stating "arguments that atheism is somehow detrimental to society are manifestly false." This is editorializing and opinionating, not encyclopedic. If good atheists are to be profiled bad ones should be too, just like any figures of any other religious (or nonreligious ideological) point of view. NPOV requires the good and the bad be listed when it comes to atheists. desmay (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at Talk:Persecution of Buddhists and found Xenophrenic explaining that the Zuckerman source is being misused to associate atheism with evil, whereas apparently the reference has "Conclusion" as a heading and text that eliminates the relevance of theism or atheism regarding totalitarian dictators. Wikipedia should not be used to misleadingly cherry pick sources to associate atheism (or anything else) with evil. Johnuniq (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPI Backlog

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

---

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)

Still quite a backlog. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Nonadmin Close review at Alternative for Germany

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block review of Mlpearc

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

Ritchie333 blocked Mlpearc earlier today for 48 hours. [2] First, Mlpearc had two reverts of the Pink Floyd material, the last one ten hours before Ritchie333's block. [3], [4] Second, the IP they reported to AIV had already been blocked a few days ago for disruptive editing for the exact same behavior. [5] 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 [6]), 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. [7]

I raised this matter with Ritchie333 on their talk page and got a lot of... something. [8] 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. [9] Third, against consensus, the other editor added the cover band again, the third time within, you guessed it, 24 hours. [10] 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)

• [11] — 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)

History proves otherwise, as a certain Parrot can attest. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:32, 4 May 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)

I see no need for a formal mentoring arrangement. Any admin should be prepared to defer to 5-0 admin opposition on any action (or 4-1 for that matter). If they want more information or explanation they are free to seek it on one or more user talk pages, or by email if they prefer to keep it private. The Mlpearc thing was a case of one admin thinking they are better with the mop than five other admins combined, which I find alarming. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

(Persoanl attacks and blatant, often repeated lies removed) 86.176.15.93 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No, because no bullying exists. WP:ADMINACCT requires Ritchie to participate if he wants to be an admin. WP:INVOLVED required Ritchie not to do the action in the first place. Ritchie cannot avoid criticism about his admin actions by "banning" people. It's not his talk page, it's Wikipedia's. He has no control over it except that which is conditionally granted to him on WP:UPG.--v/r - TP 15:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

TParis, the IP is a LTA. Their standard M.O. is lying and telling half-truths. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, an editor has every right to ban someone else from posting at their talk page. If that user then continues to post there, after they've specifically been told not to, then that is blatant harassment. With regards to the block, Ritchie333 was correct. I don't find it surprising at all that the incompetent admin brigade (other than Casliber) are now here making a mountain out of a mole hill. Cassianto^Talk 16:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  On the subject of competence, hello Cassianto, I believe you missed the part of Wikipedia:User_pages where it says "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to)" and WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."--v/r - TP 16:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  The subject was "incompetence" which illustrates my point nicely, seeing as you're not even competent at getting that right. Cassianto^Talk 18:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Can we get off the talk page ban thing? Vote (X)'s specializes in lying and misdirection to stir up crap. [12] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Cassianto: You'd be okay with being blocked ten hours after you made two reverts on an article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've had to have been ok with far worse than that. Cassianto^Talk 18:54, 1 May 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 [13] (which is a revert of this edit [14]) and then this revert [15] (which is a revert of this edit [16]). Brightline 1RR Violation. VM later self reverted[17], but then immediately re-reverted [18].

2. Two days later he removes the pic again [19], narrowly missing violating 1RR again.

3. Blanket revert to his highly POV version [20].

4. The dispute at this article escalated, leading BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) to issue a stern warning at the talkpage [21]. VM practically begs BU Rob13 into ordering Etienne to self revert [22] [23]. 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 [24]. But the Christmas celebrations VM mentions were added by me in December [[25]], 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 [26], and VM did not revert them then, he reverted them now [27]. 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 [28], a straight-up revert of the original edit [29] 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 [30] I had added back in December [31]. 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 [32]. The source is reliable (ibtimes.co) and Theodore Postol is a notable academic expert on chemical warfare.

8. [33] 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. [34] 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. [35] Again removes reliably sourced material on false pretenses. In his edit-summary he is referring to this RfC [36], 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. [37] 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 [38] 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 [39].

Ghouta chemical attack
13. [40] 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. [41] 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 [42] and here [43]. 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 [44].

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 [45] [46]

17. VM is abrasive and condescending in talkpage discussions, going so far as to even mock a typo [47] I made [48] (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 [49].

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). [50]. This is another "revenge edit", because he cannot revert till tomorrow. Khirurg (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

19. Frankly, this diff alone [51] is proof that VM is WP:NOTHERE as far as Syrian Civil War articles are concerned. Khirurg (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

20. Another perfect example of the tendentiousness of VM's editing is this [52]. He rams two pro-opposition primary sources (the Syrian Network for Human Rights and the Violations Documentation Center) right in the lede (for maximum visibility, naturally), while also removing the widely covered Christmas celebrations (which unlike the SNHR report, were widely covered by secondary sources). He then re-adds this [53] for good measure (which was discussed here [54]). The Guardian is misquoted, since VM leaves out the crucial fact that the accusing was done by the UN ambassadors of the US, UK, and France. Since these are western governments hostile to Russia, mentioning them would reduce the "sting" of the accusations in many readers' minds, so VM is sure to leave that out. It is quite clear that what VM is after is to repeat "Russia" as "war crimes" as many times as possible in the lede. He then removes reliably sourced material showing the rebels in a negative light [55]. I've lost count of how many times he has done the same edits (especially the Christmas celebrations - this is turning into something of an obsession).

21. Casting aspersions [56] and making personal attacks [57] (two of many examples).

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

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

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

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

Update since report was filed

I note that VM is still edit-warring, doubling down at Battle of Aleppo (2012-16) [58] , Khan Shaykhun chemical attack [59]. Notice how he demands consensus for re-adding well-sourced material, yet he feels no obligation to seek consensus for the infobox edit [60] 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 [61] 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 [62] and then re-reverted [63]. 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)
          • [64] 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 [65] (false WP:ASPERSIONS by Khirurg), [66] (WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by Khirurg), [67] (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 [68] may be helpful, but edits that remove well-sourced material are just POV pushing: [69][70][71]. 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 [72] 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" [73], nor is this [74], nor is this [75]. 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 [76] and [77]. 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". [78]

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" [79]

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". [80]

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. [81]

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 [82]

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 [83]

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. [84]

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 [85]. 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 [86]? 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 [87], 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 [88] (reinstating POV text added by a user who was blocked for it) and trying to start new ones [89].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 [90]. The source is reliable (ibtimes.co) and Theodore Postol is a notable academic expert on chemical warfare."
  I agree. Theodore Postol is an established expert on this subject, ref. MIT, and his work has been published by reliable sources, ref. IBT, DW, RT, TheNation, pressTV, Truthdig, consortiumnews. Even if some of the sources mentioned may lack a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", they are still reliable for reporting what Postol said. The reliability of a source depends on context. It's not "undue" as VM says, nor is it a "conspiracy theory". This is a viewpoint held by a significant minority, and Postol is a "prominent adherent". As long as we include his viewpoint, we must do so "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". How many words that is required to explain his view depends on the subject. I agree that it is disruptive editing to repeatedly, ref diff, diff, diff and diff, remove Postols statement. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 1. He is not an established expert in the subject. He is an expert in another subject. 2. These sources did not "publish" his work, they may have commented on it. 3. Look at the list of these sources - you have i) Postol's original paper. This is a WP:SPS, ii) RT News, iii) PressTV (official Iranian propaganda outlet) iv) Consortiumnews - a conspiracy website and v) Truthdig - another unreliable source. Out of that list only possibly the Nation and IbTimes are reliable. vi) There's this continuing tactic of using "these shitty sources are reliable for reporting what someone said" as an excuse to include WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE material into these articles. Now, there might be a reason to include a brief mention of what Postol said - but not a whole freakin' section. (And yes, it is a conspiracy theory - that's why this got reposted through the far-right outlets as #SyriaHoax, by the same people who claimed Sandy Hook was a hoax, who claimed 9-11 was a hoax, etc. etc. etc.).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this report here rather than at ANI?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued discussion

Comment - there are two helpful things that could happen here. First, a much deserved topic ban WP:BOOMERANG for the filer, User:Khirurg, as suggested by User:Drmies, User:Iryna Harpy, User:Softlavender and to some extent ("sanction" rather than topic ban) by User:L.R._Wormwood and User:Black Kite. The matter was also broached in general terms by User:NeilN. Second - and I'm ready to BEG for this - please, really, outside, uninvolved, eyes are desperately needed on Syria related articles. In particular Battle of Aleppo (2012–16) (and a few others). For freakin' sake, the article uses al-Masdar News, an unabashedly pro-Assad propaganda network which has been known to spread fake news and conspiracy theories [91] [92] TWENTY EIGHT times as a source! This despite the fact that even some of the "pro-Assad" (roughly) editors admit that it's only, quote, "semi-reliable". And it's not like it's being used for non-controversial stuff, quite the opposite, it's being used for straight up POV pushing [93]. Yet, any attempts to fix this problem are stymied by systemic edit warring and tag teaming combined with tag page disruption and obfuscation (and of course Khirurg has been an active contributor to that). That's why I'm really really BEGGING some of you who have commented here to make the effort - and I know it's a huge pain - to take a look at these articles and make some edits. It's absolutely striking how different the comments and discussions are when they are held in an outside venue, where outside eyes are present, such as here, and what is happening on the talk page. It's two different worlds. And one of them is way past the bizarro phase.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Now, this source wouldn't be reliable EVEN IF they didn't have neo-Nazis writing for them. But what is the response of the pro-Assad editors on the talk page of Battle of Aleppo? Why, it's that "if a NY Times editor was caught making the same offensive remarks at Stormfront, we wouldn't be dismissing NYT as a source altogether on Wikipedia" so it's okay to continue using al-Masar. I shit you not, that's an actual quote from one of the editors [94]. Because apparently, it's okay to use sources which employ neo-Nazis (and there's a ton of other stuff wrong with them besides that) because in some alternative universe the New York Times employs neo-Nazis and the Wikipedia in that alternative universe continues to use New York Times as reliable. You. Can't. Make. This. Shit. Up. That is an actual argument made by User:EtienneDolet (who, btw, in the past has insisted that anti-semitic conspiracy websites are "scholarly sources").

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

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

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

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

Comment

• Examples of editors squarely disagreeing with VM at the Battle of Aleppo talkpage: [95] [96] [97] [98] [99]
• Examples of editors fed up with VM's behavior [100] [101] [102]
• I would also like remind everyone (Obsidi (talk · contribs) in particular) of this little gem [103] where VM is trying to trick BU Rob13 into blocking EtienneDolet by alleging that Etienne re-started old edit-wars about the Christmas material and the pic of the burnt buses. But both of those were added in December (the Christmas material by me, and the buses by EtienneDolet) and were never removed. There was never any edit-war over either of these (until now, when VM ignited one by trying to remove the Christmas material. VM is falsely accusing EtienneDolet so as to trick BU Rob13 into blocking him. And he is doing the same thing now. This alone is grounds for a sanction. Khirurg (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Also note how he is still trying to remove the Christmas material (this is turning into an obsession), even though it was widely covered in reliable sources and literally everyone in the discussion totally disagrees with him [104] (except user R2D2015, and even then only as far as the pic and not the text). We are deep, deep in WP:TEND and WP:HORSE territory here. Khirurg (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• How about another proposal: do not comment about other contributors on article talk pages because that is exactly what Hirurg does right now [105]. I do not think he is ever going to stop. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • First of all, in that edit I am not commenting on VM, but on VM's edit. But you already knew that. On the other hand, it looks like it's your friend this is commenting on ther editors, and looks like he is not going to stop [106] [107]. Khirurg (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You tell "another terrible, unencyclopedic, ultra POV edit by Volunteer Marek". And you tell this about a reasonable edit. Come on. You just singled out this contributor, followed him through a number of pages, complained about him on several noticeboards, and for what reason? Is it just because you and ED happened to disagree with senator McCain about Putin [108] [109], or is it because you disagreed about Putin with Canadian and French Prime Ministers [110]? My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And are you really gonna sit there and claim that the sockpuppet claim was unsubstantiated when I already provided the diffs [111] [112]? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Two-front war?

I'm taking some fire too...

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

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

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 [113] and [114] 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)

For what it's worth, I did try to verify with the librarians at the library the user pointed me to that the FIOS ip was theirs (despite not being part of allocations tied to the ASN for New Jersey Public Libraries), but I received no response, which is surprising given how "active" they were in requesting an unblock, as mentioned above. I'm also not entirely sure how the raw number of blocked users even matters here. We're one of the top 10 sites on the internet, and we have a corresponding stream of abuse concordant with a site of such rank (if not a little less, because all but the most insane of people realize we're an open, good-faith non-profit that provides a valuable service to all of humanity). Hundreds or even thousands of accounts get blocked due to the actions of just one human (because hundreds or even thousands of accounts can be created by one human), so depending on how someone wants to warp the numbers—again, for what purpose, one can only speculate—we'll probably one day block a number of accounts equal the entirety of planet Earth, and yet, not-at-all-paradoxically, the vast majority of this little blue pebble's population (not to mention the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia) will still be able to edit unhindered by those blocks. --slakr^\ talk / 02:05, 2 May 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)

• Given that CheckUsers are already quite thoroughly restricted in what information they're allowed to share, I really don't see any reason why if there is technical information that can be gleaned from an abusive user's connection that CheckUsers should not have access to it. But I would also like to see stronger options for preventing these repeat abusers from editing. We can block 10,000 user accounts but the abuser behind them can just create more and be back to editing within a few days; not undetected, but detection takes volunteer time that would be better spent making an encyclopedia. Can the CheckUser function be partially automated, i.e. could a system process automatically compare new user accounts to previously blocked and technically similar accounts, based on IP address ranges or something? Or zombie cookies, as MER-C mentioned, that looks useful for this kind of thing. If SPI is always backlogged, it's because we have no tools at all to fully prevent a user from editing, and the number of them that keep coming back is always growing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

CheckUsers already have access to more than just IP. They're not going to disclose exactly what, though, because that gives sockmasters information on how to evade detection. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: What you propose is something I've discussed with a pair of functionaries before in the context of a machine-learning algorithm to detect likely sockpuppets, and the general feeling was that there's no way it would get past the WMF, Ombudsmen commission, and community. It would essentially be the same as CheckUsering every editor who joined the site, and it's questionable whether that's even permissible under the current privacy policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh I know, it's not likely to go anywhere. Just shouting into the wind here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

AE input sought

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

---

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)

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

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 ([115], [116], [117], 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)

I've removed the flag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for redirects

Resolved

 – Done. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

---

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)

Response to proposal

• Support indef or site ban 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)

Oppose changing to oppose in favor of EdChem's proposal below. -Obsidi (talk) 21:41, 1 May 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)

Ejustice I think the issue here is there is a tension between economic interests and increased environmental regulation. There are often arguments on both sides, some who support increased regulations and some who argue that those regulations destroy jobs and increase costs for businesses. A neutral article would describe both of these positions - it should not be an article about a perceived "assault" on the environment. That view is well-documented but so is the opposing view that it is an "assault" on industry. There are some groups, like industry lobbying groups, who have engaged in significant advocacy on the other side of the issue. So there is advocacy on both sides that is discussed by scholarship. I hope that helps. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System thanks for this important point. The students are exposed to both/many sides of the scholarship and research in the field via this course. I'm sorry they didn't have the chance to expose that in their articles. There was a lot of tough editing going on with few substantive pointers as to how to improve articles and some of them, really smart, got very confused. EJustice (talk) 23:38, 28 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.[118][119] 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)

I would consider encouraging other editors to make edits you cannot to be evasion of a block or proxy editing, and would likely lead to the other editor getting blocked as well (assuming we know about it). -Obsidi (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If they are going to respond to an indef in bad faith via MEAT, there is nothing from stopping them from responding in bad faith with regard to anything we do. This is what we do in this situation and if people SOCK or MEAT we deal with that. The Joy of Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 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)
• Support an indefinite block of EJustice (not the students) (which would for all intents and purposes be a community site ban). I would normally sympathize with those who want to have further discussions, but pursuant to Wiki Ed's statement when the AE request came up (Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Statement_by_Wiki_Ed_regarding_AE), discussion has already been attempted, following which EJustice actually agreed to make the necessary changes, but then that just never happened and nothing did change. I don't think the block/ban needs to be one that we'd never consider lifting, but we will need to be absolutely assured, before considering doing so, that this will not happen again, and that EJustice understands, and crucially, will in fact do what is needed to ensure it doesn't go this way again. This whole issue has been a massive time sink and waste of community time and resources, amplified by the fact that in this case, the problem editor has substantial influence over 180 other editors. Quite realistically, if this wasn't an education linked program, I think this outcome would have occurred some time ago. I would be willing to consider a limited exception to the ban, that EJustice may email an administrator familiar with the situation if they need a copy of deleted content emailed to complete course grading. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef block or community ban after reading the evidence presented at AE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Siteban, which is functionally no different from "indef block resulting from community consensus". When you're intentionally and repeatedly using the site, not to write encyclopedia articles, but for political advocacy, and when you've declared your willingness to do it again, you have no business being here. Compounding the problem is the fact that you forced other individuals to do it, which among other things makes it harder for us to track you and makes it hard for those other individuals who therefore have to see their work deleted. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support. I was wanting to just let this be a learning experience, but the fact that EJustice seems to want to do it again and can't see the problems with what he's doing is extremely concerning. Frankly, I'm surprised that an institution as reputable as Berkeley is sponsoring a course as badly designed as this. Blocking is needed to prevent further damage necessitating precious volunteer hours on cleanup. That being said, I believe that admins should look sympathetically on an appeal to such a block if it addresses the problems with this course and proposes a way forward so that next semester's activity is more constructive. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC).
• Support indefinite block, unfortunately. Everything I've seen, including EJustice's comments, suggests they still have no real understanding of the problems and are far too involved in their own subject to really judge their own neutrality - the constant insistence that instructions along the lines of "Neutrally try to push this one-sided POV into Wikipedia" is actually neutral beggars belief. No educational assignment that is aimed at pushing a specific concept into all manner of articles and which judges the results on how successfully that concept is pushed can be compatible with Wikipedia's goals. This style of educational assignment needs to be done somewhere else, not on Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  I just want to add that I really do feel for the students here, caught up in a very difficult situation, and I do hope it doesn't affect them too badly or sour their feelings towards Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  I'm switching to Oppose for now to give EdChem's proposed efforts described below a chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The professor came here as an *expert* in the field of Environmental justice--a field of his expertise (e.g. [120]). Experts are quite useful in providing WP:RS that many of us unfamiliar with the subject might not be aware of. Many editors had visceral negative reactions to the subject matter--assuming incorrectly that any treatment of environmental justice is by definition POV[121][122]--without looking carefully at the WP:RS (e.g. [123], [124], [125]). We saw a rampage of proposed and actual deletions of virtually every article the students worked. Even worse I have seen repeated accusations of WP:NOTHERE [126][127][128] to the professor and/or to students assigned to add content from a content expert, being overseen by Wiki Ed and claims that the work of students from one of the top Universities in the country (and the world) (U.C. Berkeley) are apparently not welcome here, because apparently university students from Berkeley don't get it [129][130]. In the hail of criticism, I saw little effort to help these new students. The students requests for help I saw were ignored, with the preference to delete and/or userfy their work.
  What happened to WP:AGF? I am embarrassed and ashamed of how poorly we have treated these students and the instructor. Although, I did see problems with WP:OR, poor choices of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV, these are all newbie mistakes. I and few others worked to improve the articles and help fix the problems. I did not see that effort from his strongest accusers, whose knee jerk reaction is to delete and condemn and chase off. Rather than send all the new editors packing, we should be helping them. Experienced editors have no monopoly on content. Ed Chem proposed a solution; so did Ryan (Wiki Ed). We should be working with students and experts not chasing them off. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the students themselves are perfectly aware of what the problem here is, to the point of apologising to us under IP accounts about the inconvenience this has caused. The students are not the problem and do not share any blame, and I would also oppose any attempt to punish them for being victims of circumstance. AGF went out the window when EJustice ignored the advice given to him in good faith by Wiki Ed and a number of editors here, and decided to plow on with his "neutral" attempt introduce biased information to the point of opposing a particular named politician. That I privately happen to agree with EJustice's perspective on the political issue is not relevant here. Experts are only good if they're willing to play by the same rules that everyone else has to. Unless we get something to indicate that this won't be repeated, a block is regrettably necessary to ensure there is no repeat. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

• pinging editors of WP:AN/I thread on EJustice, who have not yet commented here and may not be aware of this filing: Tarage, Anmccaff, Kleuske, Dervorguilla, I_am_One_of_Many, Seraphim_System, DGG, MelanieN, Neutrality, Mr_rnddude, Graeme Bartlett, Ryan (Wiki Ed) --David Tornheim (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Prokaryotes --David Tornheim (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• David what you wrote above, ignores what the Education Program itself said about its experience working with EJustice. Please read it. Here is the link for your convenience. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Neutrality and balance are the outcomes of a collaborative process, they are not the responsibility of any one editor. We sometimes forget that individual editors are allowed to have POV - and these policies are misinterpreted frequently and often, because that is easier then engaging in consensus discussion about sources and balancing. I have seen it happen over and over again, especially on contentious topics. There was very little substantive debate about sources during the course of these discussions. I have seen no evidence of disruptive POV-pushing by this class in the form of removing balancing content. I think Ejustice could have handled it better, but if these articles were G11's they would have been deleted as G11's as Seraphimblade said here I think there were problems that could be resolved by measures other then harsh sanctions - like keeping the class size manageable if the topic of the course is controversial. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support EJustice has been made aware of problems by a number of experienced editors, has been given ample opportunity to correct any newbie mistakes but has consistently chosen to ignore any advice and, more importantly, to blame other editors for the problems that arose using blanket accusations. As an educator, EJustice has an obligation to familiarize himself with the policies and guidelines of the platform he chose as an educational tool, to abide by them and to teach his pupils to respect them, but has proven unwilling or unable to do so, instead providing (strong) incentives to his students to ignore core policies. This is unacceptable, since it's a threat to the fundamentals of the project. Hence a ban is an appropriate remedy until such time EJustice has shown they're willing to accept and abide by these policies. Kleuske (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as punative The course is over, thus any block or ban would be punative not prevenative, this is in opposition of our block policy. Yes EJustice clearly violated POV after being advised not to and yes he exhibited signs of not listeneing, but to ban or block him now would be punative.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Not punitive. There is every indication that EJustice would do more courses in WP, and pretty much everything they have done in WP to date has been wrong. As noted in my OP the purpose is stop future disruption. Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It most certainly is punitive. Per pretty much any available block request ever submitted on wikipedia a block is never enacted after the party has ceased his or her disruptive actions add to that, this block would effect not only him, but his students ? Yes, it's punitive. Per WP:PUNITIVE
When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia.

Would blocking the professor improve Wikipedia, you bet!
Would blocking his students improve Wikipedia, no!
There you have it, you cannot answer this question with an unequivocal "yes", therefore, it's punitive. Block the professor from starting any more projects on WikiEd, no projects, no problem, as without that project, the students have no stated reason to engage in a class project over here.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  19:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I will reply here; Kosh the argument you are making here assumes that EJustice would not edit WP in the future and there is no reason to believe that. He is a Wikipedia editor with intact editing privileges and it would only be normal that he would continue to edit here (that is one of the goals of the Education Program - to recruit more editors). Granted his experience has been crappy but like many advocates he seems to view that as being due to problems with WP. As others have noted it would be unsurprising if he decided WP has great wrongs that need fixing via his own editing, through future classes, or via other organizations with which he is involved (as I understand it he is affiliate at Berkeley and spends most of his time doing other stuff). There is no reason not to expect future direct editing or organized editing that would continue the same problematic behavior, especially as he has given no indication that he understands what has gone so wrong this past semester. Please don't describe this as punitive. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Sorry Kosh, without some concrete evidence that they are not going to continue setting such courses in the future, I cant see anything other than an indef block here until they indicate they understand AND are going to follow our policies AND demonstrate actually doing so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support largely per my statement at the AE thread. Please note that I consider myself WP:INVOLVED in this matter. It also may be advisable to craft an editing restriction along the lines of "Students of EJustice are prohibited from editing content related to Environmental justice, broadly construed, for the duration of their course" to clarify the meatpuppetry issue while not unfairly punishing students who could potentially contribute positively outside of the confines of this course. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - if academic dishonesty isn't involved, then WP:COMPETENCE certainly is. EJustice has thoroughly refused to acknowledge the POV that is blatantly obvious to the vast majority of the editors here who have reviewed his actions. As an indeffed editor, his "meatpuppets"' edits would also be disallowed, unwitting and innocent as they may be as individual editors. This is a flawed solution, but the best one presented. I appreciate Kosh's perspective, but I don't think that the disruption is over at all, EJustice's stated intent is to continue as they have been. I appreciate EdChem's proposal and am generally fine with trying it, but I don't think it will work given the degree of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per 78.26 above. They don't seem to understand the fundamental problems, there's no guarantee he'll just continue after a year's break and I am morally opposed to his placement of his students between a rock and a hard place. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The user is obviously at fault, but this is a new user, without much experience on the site and without clear understanding of WP policies. I checked their comments and edits (including those provided on WP:AE) and do not think they warrant site ban. A topic ban from US politics - yes, maybe. They must be given second chance in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support, with a condition—the responsible figure here is the instructor, EJustice. The proposed site ban for Ejustice is justified, most importantly because Wikipedia is not a suicide pact. The evidence, from the instructor's own posts, show a weak grasp, as far as Wikipedia goes, of WP:Competence, WP:Meatpuppetry, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and the first two of the Five Pillars. Egregious and ongoing problems, despite the time invested by volunteer editors at Wikipedia. In addition there is the appearance of misuse of power in unequal relationships, possibly problematic in a wider arena than Wikipedia.

1. There should be no adverse consequences for any students.
2. The site ban for the instructor should be appealable in less than the normal time, an appeal that includes undertaking to create and have accepted into Mainspace two articles, in areas subject to WP:Discretionary sanctions, of more than stub grade before running another class that involves editing Wikipedia.

Finally, it would be a nice gesture by Wikipedians· to· offer· themselves· as· "Wikipedia· buddies"—less· than· "mentors"—for· students· caught· up· in this rip tide. — Neonorange (Phil) 17:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia that is NPOV. --Tarage (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban for EJustice for, in effect, misusing students as meat puppets to edit Wikipedia in a manner contrary to fundamental policies as variously explained above. Also to prevent subsequent unfortunate classes of students to be so misused.  Sandstein  19:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose a siteban, for two reasons: a) it wouldn't really address the problem (see below), and b) it would allow him to claim martyrdom - to say he was banished from Wikipedia because we are all just biased against his field of study. This editor displays one of the most profound cases of WP:IDHT I have ever seen. This is due to his passionate beliefs about his subject matter, and his conviction that anyone who objects to his pushing those beliefs is doing so out of bias and thus can be ignored. (The fact that Wikipedia has had an article about Environmental justice since 2005 would seem to disprove bias, but that's his story and he's sticking to it.) For this reason I very much doubt if he could ever become a constructive and neutral WP editor. On the other hand, this isn't really about his personal editing, of which he did a minimum - AFAIK none to actual articles. This is about his sending students here to edit at his direction. Several experienced Wikipedians, including some academics, have volunteered to work with him over the summer to see if they can get him to understand Wikipedia's guidelines and abide by them. I commend them for their willingness to try this, but I seriously doubt it will be effective. At most, I suspect that EdChem and the other well-meaning editors will just teach him to pretend neutrality and keep his urging of advocacy out of sight - to do it in lectures and emails rather than where we can see it. I think what we need is not a personal siteban of him, but a ban on his use of Wikipedia in any future classes. I'm not sure how to enforce that, but IMO that is what is really needed here. I see that is more or less what Goldenring proposed below, and I see it got a lot of opposes, but I urge people to take another look at that concept. --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. This is also what Kosh recommended above: "Block the professor from starting any more projects on WikiEd, no projects, no problem, as without that project, the students have no stated reason to engage in a class project over here." --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

All he would do is start a project unofficially. --Tarage (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

He could do that no matter what is decided here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a most interesting statement. I hear you on the martyr thing but on the other hand, that is kind of not our problem. In my view we just need to be consistent and clear, and we indef folks who behave this way, regardless of where they come from. I can point to six or seven AE cases, quickly, of people who (on an individual basis) followed the same trajectory -- arrived here with a clear agenda, got rejected, called everyone else a moral reprobate, and got indeffed. I bet you can too. We treat them all the same, big and small. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef block for EJustice, subject to appeal via WP:standard offer after a minimum of 6 months. EJustice has single-handedly managed to lose the support of 90% of Wikipedians who interacted with him and extended a helping hand. We are way beyond a continuation of AGF leniency at this stage. This case is also casting a shadow on WikiEd, which in itself justifies the ban, in order to avoid the risk of repeating a similar situation (either by EJustice himself or by another professor who may be encouraged to behave similarly if Wikipedia does not use this opportunity to defend its core principles). No sanction should be levied on any students, who have been victims of this unfortunate abuse of the WikiEd process. A statement should be developed to summarize the community's reaction and rationale, to be communicated to every student who was involved, with a goal of helping them continue their activities on Wikipedia with a correct understanding of the project's principles. — JFG ^talk 22:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef block. As per the proposal: The purpose of the block is to prevent further disruption. I've had a very cautiousapproach to education programmes done in the name of Wikipedia ever since the IEP disaster, which among other things was one of the catalysts that caused WikiEd to be created. It's a shame for the students, but as everyone is aware, academia is full of professors pursuing their own agenda. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban or indef block for, inter alia, apparent lack of COMPETENCE. I'm quoting the essay for educational purposes.

Editing beyond one's means. Some people aren't able to grasp the subtleties of how Wikipedia works.

Factual. The best good will is for naught if a basic understanding of the facts ... and their cultural context is lacking.

Illustration: Per Black's Law Dictionary, "social justice" (which includes environmental justice) is sought only "on behalf of individuals and communities who are disenfranchised, underrepresented, or otherwise excluded from meaningful participation in legal, economic, cultural, and social structures". The students may well have understood that they would not be rewarded for adding text about (for instance) the widely reported fact that rising sea levels are going to erode away many wealthy individuals' beachfront homes including Trump's. The professor may or may not be capable of understanding how the distinction between articles about "environmental policy" and those about "environmental justice" causes a significant (and documented) systemic bias in his students' work. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I said on the original AN/I case that I didn't think this was a good idea. Indeed, I still think this is not a good idea. This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, that is true, but, I have to say that no editor should be in a position where their editing is under the influence of somebody else. These students, who have zero blame for this, are under the guidance of their teacher. This invariably means that their contributions will be significantly controlled by their teacher. In this instance that control corporealized as the teacher's biases and opinions presented themselves in the students work. The students of course had their own biases before they started the project. To be frank, this means I oppose class projects. I therefore especially oppose advocacy projects. This is, in my firm opinion, a class project directed specifically to push a position that contravenes NPOV policy. It is not possible to neutrally document the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency. There is a clearly stated non-neutral presumption that is implicated into the assignment; that Trump will command assaults against the environment. This assignment specifically and purposefully neglects to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. I'm not keen on the Dakota Access Pipeline, which I personally view as an assault on both the environment (when not if the pipe bursts) and the native Sioux living at Standing Rock. Off-topic, but, this case made me think of that. This block is necessary. The argument that it is punitive is incorrect. There has already been the stated intention to commit to another Wiki assignment in the future. For that to happen, in my opinion, there should be an expectation that EJ will be able to demonstrate an understanding of what went wrong and why, without appeal to "isms" of any kind. From there the matter should rest with the community. This venue (WP:AN) should be the venue [read:court] of appeal. I specify this because an indef can be lifted by any admin, I don't trust any single admin to lift the block without consensus built at AN to do so. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose While some statements from pages not related to Wikipedia articles were at issue (have since be updated or removed, judging from the first two quotes from here), albeit only sleightly with too much emphasis. The case goes on with dozens of quotes, often it appears related to involvement by Jytdog, or citing for example teacher input. What exactly the issue is which each quote is unclear, possibly also to Jytdog. However, the problem seems to me that the teacher uses Wikipedia talk pages for communicating to his class. Thus, i would say that this needs to be communicated, other than that all those school kids are potential future Wikipedians. prokaryotes (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: We're not restricting the students in any way, we're only banning the instructor. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 16:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Stikkyy: Warn the instructor for now, he is no longer active anyway(?), at least for now, it seems. If you ban him it will reflect on the kids (Our teacher is banned...).prokaryotes (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on some anonymous comments at AE from students talking about how they were canvassed, I don't think they care that much. Laurdecl ^talk 00:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support either indef block or site ban. Based on Ejustice's comments during this incident and plans for future courses etc., it's clear they are WP:NOTHERE and such measures are needed to prevent further planned disruption. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Where exactly do they plan further disruption? prokaryotes (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That has already been discussed above and at AE. Based on your past actions towards me that resulted in your GMO topic ban, I have no desire to interact with you further. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per RickinBaltimore above, if s/he's right, and that's without even checking to find out what political views are involved. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block - I have been busy in my life and unable to keep up with the walls of text, but it seems clear to me that this is not a normal case. As I commented briefly at the AE filing, EdChem is making a lot of sense to me. This rush to indef block or site ban gives the appearance of a punitive action, not preventative, since the students are no longer editing and the professor is here talking. A closing admin will have to weigh that into the argument, and I think it is the major factor to consider. Also, there are two other proposals below, the bottom of which is buried in text without a proper subheading. That's confusing. Jusdafax 22:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban per this diff. I was originally on the fence after becoming involved through an AfD, but after seeing canvassing by a course professor via email... Laurdecl ^talk 08:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This should not be a reason to support a site ban. While that email can be geolocated to Berkeley, these services state geolocation is not always accurate. Even if it was, it could be a fake, we have no proof that the teacher actually wrote that email. And then the question if you allow leaked email data to be used here. @Laurdecl: --prokaryotes (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you seriously suggesting that someone (who?) faked an email to get a professor blocked from Wikipedia. I mean, the Earth could be flat, have you ever been into space? Laurdecl ^talk 00:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Off-wiki evidence is posted on-wiki is unreliable. We don't know the email was actually sent. It could easily be a student who was failing the class making stuff up, and since we don't have access to the email, we can't verify it. What we can say is that the instructor's students acted in a way on Wikipedia that was consistent with meatpuppetry. That can easily be seen by behavioral evidence, and is one of the many reasons I support a site ban/indef. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef block This appears to be the safest option. The alternatives proposed below are far too narrow. Indefinite doesn't have to be indefinite, of course, but any evidence their behavior and NPOV understanding has improved can be demonstrated through a back-and-forth on their talk page. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef When EJustice shows he understands why his behavior was wrong he can appeal the block. Capeo (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef I appreciate other editors' willingness to work with this editor, but I see no other option at this point. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:08, 3 May 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)

With the greatest of respect, I'm not quite sure what you're saying the difference is. We can't physically ban him from setting the assignment; neither the indef block or the community ban will achieve that. Obviously if his students start POV pushing again we could sanction them, but we couldn't stop the assignment from being set whatever we do. Black Kite (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The difference is the enforcement provision. But this is obviously not going to fly, so let's leave it. GoldenRing (talk) 00:53, 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 and how EJustice dealt with the community. 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) (redacted Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 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)

• Yes what I wrote didn't respond well to what you proposed - I am sorry. Yes you did have Wiki Ed only "supporting" at AN or Arbcom. Sorry. I get it that you are trying to do something more "tailored" but i can't see how that would be more effective (it assumes a bad faith response to the indef... so why would they respond to this restriction with good faith?) nor how it is more appropriate. I am sorry again for not being more on point in my response. In my view EJustice has established a pattern of violating our policies and guidelines and amplified that through their students, harming everyone in the process, and an indef (extended via MEAT to any future class) is appropriate. I do see consensus building for indef above btw. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per StAnselm and Jytdog. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose a blanket remedy against the students. They're between a rock and a hard place. Their instructor was essentially demanding they do things they're not supposed to, or else (presumably) have their class grades suffer for it. The instructor, in this case, is the clear problem. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The indef block (or community ban) is the appropriate sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose EJustice has engaged in a deliberate campaign of POV editing and everything I have read thus far shows that they still don't get it. An indefinite block is the only reasonable response. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support a ban on his using Wikipedia in any future classes. I'm not sure how this would be enforced and I certainly don't want to contemplate blocking students, who are not at fault here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose . A block is the only realistic solution and anything else is barely enforcable, and I don't think the ss should be made to atone for their professor's agenda. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This discussion has become needlessly complex... but for the reasons stated elsewhere here, I think an indef block is the best option to prevent future disruption. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A bit more from Ejustice

Please take a look at the 14-week, detailed assignment timeline students completed. This is what their grades are based on for this part of their work, including their completion of extensive training materials and exercises, and multiple mentions of the need to be neutral. In a separate assignment, they are required to write op-eds -- opinion pieces -- and submit them to newspapers. The class is about environmental justice, hence much of what they wrote on WP and in other venues/assignments was to be about environmental justice.

Editors have problems with this part of the syllabus which I've only today learned from WikiEdu is subject to Wikipedia's rules (note that even the web address does not indicate that). On WP, no question that this text violates BLP and CRYSTALBALL. But it's not clear to instructors that this page, provided for the convenience of instructors, is subject to the content strictures of Wikipedia. WikiEdu has indicated that they will make that clear and review the parts of syllabi to be posted for such issues moving forward. And these pages are activated by WikiEdu after the content is loaded by instructors. They have not, in the past, reviewed the syllabus pages for content and WP compliance. I understand from WikiEdu that that will change.

In this class, I ask students to write opinion pieces, and neutral pieces, quantitative analysis, and personal narrative. (Those assignments are not on Wikipedia.) While clearly the work of many of the student entries on Wikipedia do not meet the standard of neutrality, there was never any intent to violate that key principle. Pedagogically, quite the opposite. The intent was to train students in how to explore issues from multiple perspectives and positions. The course never directed students to engage in advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment -- the core elements of WP:SOAPBOX that I believe is the basis of the proposed ban.

The students' work is complete for the semester, and I have yet to create a page. Judge the few edits to pages I've conducted myself by this list of edits to the article I was most active on. My talk page comments on articles do encourage students to add environmental justice content (akin to asking chemistry students to add chemistry content), but at least as frequently push them to find better sources. And I never engaged other editors on such talk pages negatively, nor did the vast majority of students in the class.

Having worked in this field for over 30 years, I advised WikiEdu about the potential for controversy and throughout the semester my instinct was to slow publication from the sandbox into mainspace. WikiEdu didn't initially feel the need to modify the course's timeline for publication. Subsequently we agreed on a process to move controversial material back to sandboxes so that students could continue to edit without disrupting editorial attention. Here's a list of articles that we mutually agreed could continue to be edited in mainspace:

• Water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Arctic resources race (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Skull Valley Indian Reservation (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Stream Protection Rule (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Clean Water Rule (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Hobet Coal Mine (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Clean Power Plan (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Indian reservation (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Food security (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• US-Mexico Agua Prieta pipeline (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (This one is borderline - it might be better to move it to a sandbox for now)
• Executive Order 13771 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Climate change policy of the United States (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Environmental issues along the Mexico–United States border (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Calnev Pipeline (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Air pollution in the United States (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Open Space Accessibility in California (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Electronic waste in the United States (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Green job (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Conservation in the United States (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
• Traditional ecological knowledge (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

A slightly smaller number of articles remain in sandboxes, were deleted, or were nominated for deletion. The latter were reviewed individually by WikiEdu as to whether to Sandbox them or await the outcome of the deletion

The course is over. Banning a professor in a field for having engaged with Wikipedia to teach in that field strikes me as counter-productive to the learning that I am excited to engage in through a public debrief process as proposed over the summer and that served, I believe, as a strong basis for the prior complaint being closed. Looking forward to that and to learning more. Thanks! EJustice (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, to take one example: Arctic resources race. This is where you had made your comment "Remember however that your grade depends also on the extent to which you cover EJ in the article." You had suggested that the article focus more on the impact of global warming on arctic communities. Don't you see that this is putting an EJ "spin" on the article? That the article isn't about global warming, and should only mention it as one of the causes of the race? That your advice was actually encouraging the student to violate WP:COATRACK? In fact, that's exactly what happened. The next edits by the student added irrelevant claims like "The melting permafrost is damaging local infrastructure, destroying roads, buildings, houses, sewage systems, etc." That may be true, but it has nothing to do with the resources race. So I don't think you can hide behind not editing articles much. Your talk page comments (and I can only assume, the things you said in lectures as well) were directly causing POV violations. StAnselm (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Just looking at this link, I see the requirement to "...create a neutral, well-documented record of the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency". You say "neutral", but your terminology of "assaults on the environment" is the exact opposite of neutral. You are asking your students to create a neutral push of one specific point of view! And you are specifically asking them to push Environmental Justice into all manner of articles in a way that clearly violates Wikipedia's principles of neutrality and balance. You appear to be so involved in the concept of Environmental Justice that I really don't think you are competent to judge your own neutrality - just scattering the word "neutral" among your instructions is nowhere near sufficient. I don't think you should be using Wikipedia at all for any of your students' coursework. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Are there any diffs to show attempts to balance the articles that were rejected by the students for POV reasons? What is a "POV violations"?? per WP:POV putsch - is the EJ view of the impact of environmental damage well documented by a vast number of secondary sources? Yes, vast. Please show the evidence of the balancing discussions - had we had those discussions the class would have likely been in a very strong position, but we didn't. For that we would have to compare the sources that are available and make an attempt to balance them to represent the scholarship - Show me one example where a counter-source was presented, and an attempt was made to balance the article based on a discussion about WP:RS. I have never seen any evidence presented that any such discussions took place, or that the class conducted inappropriately tried to push a POV in the context of such discussions. Yes, mistakes were made, but we should keep in mind these were new editors who were unfamiliar with policies. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again, it is not the students who are at fault here. AFAIK, no-one is accusing students of rejecting advice. StAnselm (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If the 180 students have done nothing wrong and are following the Wiki-rules and advice, then what is the problem? If the vast majority of these students are following our rules, it suggests that the professor, Wiki Ed and/or editors have properly engaged and educated the students and brought 180 new highly qualified editors who we desperately need, and that the professor's work is a net positive to Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand: students were still making POV and coatrack edits. but should not be blamed because they were encouraged to do this by their teacher. Most were willing to learn from other WP editors. StAnselm (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• I second the demand for diffs of disruption and refusal of newbies to follow rules. This appears increasingly like a case of WP:BITE. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• The problem with EJustice's narrative here, is that what they actually did in Wikipedia in their course description, in their comments on students' work, and in interactions with other editors, contradicts what they wrote above. This is all laid out in the AE case which I will not belabor here. What I also documented there, was EJustice's focus on egging on the "juice" in the student edits, and saying nothing about the POV pushing and SYN that was present in the student work that they commented on - which were the things that were ringing alarm bells all over the community. And then of course accusing members of the volunteer community who were concerned about that, of systematic and other kinds of bias. And the narrative provided by the Education Program also contradicts what EJustice writes - the Education Program says it tried like crazy from the first they learned about this class to get EJustice to back off the advocacy, and had extensive discussion with him especially after things started to blow up - they kept hearing the right things and then EJustice would go right back to the bad behaviors we are discussing.

EJustice is clearly used to doing the advocate thing in the real world. It is not going to fly here in WP where the diffs of what they did and did not do, are really clear. All the spin in the world will not change the diffs. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes I see your point, and I address above that "assault" on the environment was not the correct way to phrase the assignment, because the tension between the economic consequences and the environmental consequences is discussed in scholarly literature. Academic classes and disciplines are compartmentalized, but our articles are usually interdisciplinary. I think we should focus on how to integrate academic contributions into the encyclopedia, instead of jumping to sanctions - while making it clear that "anti-Trump content" should not be a grading guideline in the future, and certainly not for a Wikipedia project - I don't think we would sanction an economics professor for "putting an economics spin on the article" because he instructed students to emphasize core economics principles in their contributions. Are we really going to sanction a professor for teaching a course on environmental justice? Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That said I have noted there were considerable problems with WP:SYNTH - I think this could have been avoided by asking the students to limit their sourcing to secondary source EJ materials - I have found several on Project Muse and through Google Books. The problem arose time and again from students applying primary sources as evidence for EJ claims - this is fine in a classroom, but not on Wikipedia. I support open discussions between WikiEdu, the professor and our editors to make sure it does not happen again, and I would certainly support sanctions if this was ever repeated. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No, we are not considering sanctioning a professor for teaching a course on any topic. That is just chaff and confusion. Please don't write things like that here. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe StAnselm misspoke when he said "Don't you see that this is putting an EJ "spin" on the article?" Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As you and I have discussed more than once, EJ = a social justice movement and an interdisciplinary academic field. StAnselm clearly meant the former. Please stop obfuscating the problems here. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"Environmental justice is an idea, a movement, a science, and a method." StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Seraphim System's analysis. No. This action is not an attempt to sanction a professor for teaching a class on Environmental justice. But the effect of this action is to punish (WP:BITE) a professor (who is new to WIkipedia) and an expert in the subject matter for bringing 180 new student editors to Wikipedia and encouraging those students to bring scholarly WP:SECONDARY high quality WP:RS on the topic to the articles. The entire action seems very un-Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest you review the evidence here, because it's quite contrary to the conclusions that you drew. Yes, EJustice brought 180 student editors to Wikipedia, but then encouraged them to edit in a non-Wikipedian fashion, and continued to do so even after multiple editors advised him that what he was causing them to do was against policy, guidelines and community norms. He exhibited model civil point of view pushing behavior, as well as repeated WP:IDHT -- and continues to do so (see his comments above). His encouragement to his students was not in actuality to write neutrally, in encyclopedic fashion, but academically, presenting a specific point of view, which he mandated. He encouraged unnecessary forks presenting that POV, and resisted efforts to reign in his student's non-neutral efforts. He did not, in fact, teach his students how to edit Wikipedia, but gave them a lesson in the exact opposite, how to undermine Wikipedia by using it as a vehicle for a specific agenda. For all these reasons, and because academic instructors have no immunity from normal standards of sanctioning (despite EJustice's playing of the "Don't ban a Professor" card), an indef block is well overdue -- only his status has prevented it until now, in my opinion. As a number of other commenters have pointed out, any other editor would have been sanctioned already, and there wouldn't be this level of geschreing over whether it was justified or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have looked at the evidence, including an analysis of EJustice's entire editing history. He made a total of 7 edits to main space and of the 7, only the one on April 13, 2017 was a problem (likely a newbie mistake). Jytdog's carefully cherry-picked and curated statements do make it look like the professor was seeking to advance a POV, especially if one is not familiar with the academic field of Environmental justice as an area of academic study with high quality WP:RS rather than the more commonly known form that is a kind of activism. I am not surprised Jytdog's narrative and careful selection of quotes gave such negative reactions. If that's all I had seen, I would have voted as so many others did. I wish he had put as much effort into helping the students as he did in trying to get their professor banned.

Careful examination of the edits and the articles shows something else. The professor is teaching a class on that academic subject and is grading his students for their use of WP:RS from that academic field. When the professor said, make sure to include WP:RS regarding EJ, what I hear is this:

You are in class dedicated to the study of Environmental Justice. Your assignment was to include high quality WP:RS on the subject, from WP:RS which I have pointed you to and have shown you how to find. I do not see enough of that WP:RS in your work. Please keep in mind that this class is on Environmental justice, and I will be grading you on the extent to which you engage in the course subject material. It's fine that you have documented other areas of coal minding and created a scaffold of material about coal mining in which the specific area of environmental justice can be included. But, I do need to see that you have included enough material relevant to this subject matter in your edits.

We must WP:AGF. Also, there are claim all over of "massive disruption" by the students. Where is the evidence of this disruption by the students? Jytdog's narrative falls apart when you look more carefully at the actual work of the students and the hostility the students received by editors eager to delete their work and making little to no effort to help them, simply making highly accusatory statements such as WP:NOTHERE, etc. There was little to no drama by the students despite how badly they were treated. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

We must AGF until the AGF runs out, and it ran out quite quickly for EJustice, considering his non-responsive responses to editors attempting to clue him in. I'm sorry to say that your analysis of the evidence shows that you really don't understand the problem here: for instance, EJustice's 7 edits are totally irrelevant, what is relevant is the editing done by the students following his direct instruction. He gave lip service to NPOV, and to his credit did emphasize RS, but he told them specifically to edit in a non-Wikipedian POV fashion. Whether what he did was good or bad for his course is not of concern to us -- we don't exist in order to be a teaching aid -- what is relevant is his ignoring the basic policies of Wikipedia which were brought to his attention early on. Your comments make it clear that you don't perceive this as a problem, or just don't see the problem with POV-pushing, I don't know which. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#David_Tornheim.E2.80.99s_Analysis_of_Allegations_.2B_Collaborative_Workspace --David Tornheim (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment from EdChem

I made comments at the AE thread which drew both praise and criticism, and I didn't manage to respond. I'd like to make a few points:

• I don't defend that much of the work ended up as POV advocacy, nor would I suggest that the EJustice has come across on wiki as seeking neutral content. If were editing articles in the way that many of his students have, we would have had a topic ban for advocacy long ago. However, he isn't editing article space and the editing for the course he is administering is over, so I don't see the preventative nature of a ban or a block. Most especially, I oppose moves which interferes with the grading of the students involved (except that necessitated by policy) as our taking actions that lead to them being harmed is just not fair.
• I am not suggesting that EJustice's behaviour has been unwise / poor at times, and the canvassing of students to the AE, if true, was exceptionally inappropriate and unwise. EJustice, some of your actions look awful from a Wikipedian perspective, so please consider anything more you say carefully, because (frankly) some of your comments aren't helping. As several others have commented, for example, the advocacy and POV in your description of Trump's assault on the environment is not mitigated by appearing on a Wiki Ed page or by the word "neutral" being earlier in the sentence. The description speaks for itself, and trying to moderate it is not going to persuade most people, but is going to add to the view that you don't comprehend the issues.
• What I proposed, with an on-wiki discussion with EJustice, will consume some of my time, but need not consume the time of other editors. Others will be able to comment on the talk page, should they wish, or just ignore it until there comes time to look. The Wiki Ed project editors will need to review this mess whether EJustice is banned or not, so some discussions are need irrespective. If I am willing to devote some time to trying to help EJustice, it doesn't harm the community. If it is productive, then we are in an improved position; if it is not, then we'll all know that I was wasting my time and we'll have one more reason to be comfortable that a further course could not be successful. Further, this latter case could result in EJustice deciding that WP is not suited to his coursework.
• As far as I can see, the preventative aspects of a block or ban are preventing a future course, which is a valid concern. So, I ask, what if EJustice is willing to undertake to:
  • make no edits except those for:
    • those related to finalising the assessment of this group of students (asking for a temporary sandbox version of a deleted article, for example (consistent with other wiki policies) – this would not include AfD discussions of the articles
    • those related to discussing this course and what has happened; and,
  • not to set up a WP assignment for any future course without the support of editors at AN and from the Wiki Ed project

Would this be seen to obviate the need for a block? In the alternative, would any block still allow unimpeded discussion in EJustice's user / user talk pages of what has occurred / what went wrong / how things could have been done better?

It is clear to me that there is a building consensus for some strong action, but I am unconvinced that it avoids a future course, under TA supervision, being run and advancing to the point of a serious mess before the situation is fully recognised – especially as the discussion above suggests little support for a mass blocking of student editors, which is the most practical "solution" to such courses... but then, let's hope we never face that circumstance. EdChem (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fleshing out your comments. Very helpful! An indef would clearly preclude running a future course per PROXY and MEAT and to resolve any ambiguity I reckon a close could simply specify that.

I am a little hopeful that a detailed review of what the students actually did might be helpful with regard to EJustice understanding why the community has reacted so strongly and why his reactions have been so consistently wrong. It is hard to understand how they cannot see it now, but I have a bit of hope that it is only because they haven't slowed down enough to actually engage with what students were writing in light of the policies and guidelines. I am grateful you are willing to spend that time. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I support EdChem's proposal, completely. I would emphasize, however, that the link EdChem reference is a wikiedu.org publication, which is then mirrored onto Wikipedia at the course page by WikipediaEDU. WikiEDU published that in January. It is April. Not holding Wiki EDU responsible for its publication, by taking it all out on the instructor WikiEDU published is wrong and is not going to make any sense to anyone beyond Wikipedia. The other link to the WikiEDU discussion references a discussion with the instructor and WikiEDU of April 15, mere days ago, and it is an agreement about putting some articles in sandboxes and some articles it was agreed could be edited in article space. And since then, the Education course is ended. There is no more course to stop now, and the discussion about seeing if anything can be fixed with WikiEDU has been put-off until summer. So, the prudent course is to let EdChem have his discussion in the meantime. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If the discussion happens on EJustice's talk page, it is not incompatible with an indefinite block. Nobody has proposed revoking access to their own talk page. My slim hope is that the discussion would open their eyes and enable a compelling appeal. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The course is over, so there is now no need for a block, and such a block is punitive. Especially so, given the undertakings required by EdChem for his discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes you continue to ignore the block rationale, and as already noted EJustice would have access to their own talk page for the discussion. And with regard to reading students' work in order to grade it, the indef does not prevent reading anything. Am not responding further. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC) (added a bit Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC))

No. I am approving EdChem's way forward over the punitive block. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support leaving open the possibility for a future course with support from editors at AN and Wiki ed depending on the outcome of EdChem's discussion and instructor cooperation moving forward Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef blocking still the safer option. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 14:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• @Alanscottwalker: just to clarify, those aren't my conditions, they are suggestions of a voluntary undertaking which EJustice might make to obviate the need for a ban / block. EJustice, your cpmments on this point would be welcome. EdChem (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, not your conditions, then, but good conditions, nonetheless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

EdChem Alanscottwalker I very much welcome the chance to have the discussion on my user page and to fully debrief what went wrong with respect to this assignment (I've already set it up). Meanwhile, students' work on pages as part of the course is finished and I will not be commenting/editing on any of their pages at least until WikiEdu and I have synced up about how and when that would be appropriate (probably June at the soonest). I teach this course at most every two years and would hope, if I choose to have another WP assignment next time, to do so with WikiEdu's generally excellent support. We will also be debriefing the course on campus more generally, and I do think a ban would be chilling to some instructors' willingness to work in WP. I envision what EdChem is proposing as a sort of "socratic dialogue" where rules of the road are laid out/translated by EdChem and WikiEdu in a way that further facilitates experts to help their students contribute following all of WP's principles while deepening the content available here.

Open as well to other suggestions... Thanks! EJustice (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What is under review here and now is your conduct, not the students'. You had the support of the Education Program already, and based on what they said, you consistently said one thing to them, and then went and did another. You are trying to be a smooth, conciliatory talker here but when the course was ongoing you were combative and dismissive. The concern here is about what you actually have done, while you had support, and how you interacted with students and the community, and what you are therefore likely to do again in this course or any other, and as an editor. (you did actually edit content a bit btw (diffs). Jytdog (talk)

@EJustice: "We will also be debriefing the course on campus more generally, and I do think a ban would be chilling to some instructors' willingness to work in WP." Do you mean this as a threat? In particular, would you use your senior academic position to influence a junior instructor to boycott an organization with whom you have a dispute? --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, I can't speak for EJustice, but remember that instructors working through Wiki Ed are identified by name and institution, so bans and blocks can reflect on the instructors professionally. That academic colleagues working within a single university would have a debrief discussion on a new teaching approach (using WP, for example), especially where there was a problem, strikes me as unsurprising / unremarkable. Similarly, suggesting that problems could discourage others from trying a WP project need not be a threat. Especially when those problems are much more public than is typical for an educational activity, feeling discouraged would be understandable. We are in a situation where what has and will happen is public, and EJustice and his students will share their experiences, so there will be reputational consequences for EJustice and Wikipedia. Let's hope this can be a minor blip for us all. EdChem (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@EdChem: At a preeminent school like Berkeley, most instructors are capable of (1) understanding the structural "problem" (tragedy of the commons) that EJustice accidentally created and (2) coming up with innovative ways to solve it. Also, EJustice is above all a scholar. He should be advising and encouraging other instructors to try replicating his findings -- whatever they may turn out to be.

Of all areas of study, Environmental Justice is the least suited for the faint of heart. Some of the professor's most motivated students may one day find themselves confronting bulldozers. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Jytdog: I don't know the exact technical limits of a block, can a blocked user edit anywhere within their user space? EJustice has already started User:EJustice/WP Policy and Environmental Justice Class, for example. Also, while I know no suggestion of a talk page usage being disabled has been raised, I was suggesting that a close recognise retaining user space access specifically, so that such access can't be unilaterally cut off. Also, I note your comment that an indef would preclude a future class, and that is true in a policy sense, but I am not sure it is practically true. I seek an outcome whereby EJustice can function within policy or decides that he can't and so chooses not to work on WP. Believing he can use WP for classes and just stay in the background would be very much a lose-lose outcome, I think you would agree. EdChem (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  A blocked editor can edit only their talk page, and no other pages in their user space. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep so the discussion could happen on his talk page; doesn't need to happen on a subpage of userspace. With regard to future classes, the community is heading toward an indef and the close should be very clear that sending future classes here would not be OK as long as the indef is in place so there can be no misunderstanding about the community's intentions. If EJustice would choose to respond by ignoring that restriction, well that would just put him in the company of other long term disruptive editors who decide the community is wrong or corrupt and do what they want anyway.

I am very unhappy that we are in this place. Everybody is unhappy; this is everybody's nightmare with regard to the Education Program (including the Education Program itself) and I am sure that EJustice doesn't feel good about this either. The only hope I have for a "win-win" outcome here is very slim - namely that EJustice has not actually read his student's work in light of the policies and guidelines and that what he actually wrote about the community's reactions was just .... some kind of kneejerk reactivity or something. But even that doesn't get us past his own documented efforts in his talk comments and in the course description to to urge students to use WP for advocacy.

And based on what he has written in Wikipedia to date, I do not see it as likely that he has it in him to see and acknowledge that what he did and wrote was wrong. But hope is essential, and you are willing to try. If you and the Education Program succeed in the course of the review of the semester, he can appeal on the basis of his new understanding, and everybody wins. But right now there is no basis I can see to trust that this disaster will not be repeated. An indef is both justified and essential; this strong "no" should be the unambiguous starting point for the review of the semester and consideration of future activities. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I would love to see the students "use WP for advocacy", as long as the resulting article "represents proportionately all significant views published by reliable sources on the topic". And since the majority of reputable published sources currently appear to oppose Trump's environmental policy, the resulting NPOV article would not be politically neutral. To my regret, the instructor has failed to teach his students how to write good WP articles or good propaganda. Gaia is not pleased... --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. It's good of EdChem to make an offer to put in what could be a significant amount of effort. I do fear that EJustice won't really take it in, the same way they really don't appear to have understood all the other explanations - although a single focused effort might yield better results than multi-directional criticism. So if EdChem is willing to try it, then I'm willing to support it. If it doesn't work out, an indef block would still be an option, and with this semester's course over I don't see any problem with allowing the needed time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose EJustice has had many of us working with him and his students to try to do a good job on Wikipedia. His actions have eroded the faith of even those who initially defended his class, myself included. The only possible reaction to such an errosion of the community's trust is indef/site ban. This would be preventative to stop any of this disruption from happening again until the community was convinced any future class wouldn't be pressured into introducing a POV into Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose If you would like to take your time and effort to engage in a conversation with the user, I'm fine with that. If that discussion bears fruit, we can always come here and have an unblock discussion. In addition to the risks posed by future courses, I think we need to consider whether or not the user will continue editing on his own in the same manner as he has been pushing his students. This is especially important if he now sees Wikipedia as a "problem to be solved", and the systemic bias replies to criticism make me think he does. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The suggestions as outlined by EdChem. An indef block is the solution here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support, especially with the following additional condition: EJustice will be watched and indefinitely blocked by any uninvolved admin on request from EdChem if any problems reappear. My very best wishes (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support with admiration for those willing to try this, along with a great deal of skepticism about whether this will really affect EJustice's approach to the subject. I fear that he will simply become better at concealing the advocacy he is urging on his students. I would suggest that this amount to a ban on future participation, which can be lifted by the WikiEdu folks only if they are really sure the lesson has been learned and the problems won't recur. --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Melanie, I recognise that there is a real possibility that my efforts may fail. I do want to respond to your comment from above: "At most, I suspect that EdChem and the other well-meaning editors will just teach him to pretend neutrality and keep his urging of advocacy out of site - to do it in lectures and emails rather than where we can see it." I don't know / can't now what EJustice will learn, but my intent on the teaching front is very much for him to develop an understanding of, an acceptance of, and appreciation for WP policy; how to subvert policy to further an agenda is not my desired goal. Further, if he did run another course where pursuing an agenda and POV editing and advocacy were occurring, I would be in the front row of the crowd calling for sanctions. EdChem (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose non-blocking proposal. I think the original proposal is quite compatible with EdChem's conversation/mentoring, since (a) "indefinite" is not the same as "infinite", and (b) EJustice would still be able to edit his talk page. StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The biggest problem with this proposal is that it would saddle the larger community with what will certainly be a massive ongoing timesink, something that only a ban or block can really prevent. When class assignments go off the rails, it is more disruptive than when one random user does, simply because of the numbers of student editors involved. This proposal would make excellent sense if we were just at the beginning of interacting with, and giving advice to, EJustice, per WP:BITE. But editors who are instructors or students in a class assignment are given the same privileges as all other editors: neither more nor less. They are not entitled to a greater amount of AGF than any other editor would get. And let's remember, an indefinite block is not an infinite block. There is no reason why the community, with sufficient cause, could not lift the restrictions in the future. Therefore, continuing discussion with good-faith and patient editors, at EJustice's user talk page, should indeed continue. But we need to quarantine it to there until we see, convincingly, the kind of correction that has so far been blown off repeatedly. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the instructor's apparent lack of didactic COMPETENCE. We have to assume that he was acting in good faith when he told his students that he would (1) reward them as a group for creating a neutral POV article, yet (2) reward each student as an individual only for adding certain kinds of non-neutral POV content. We accordingly have to adjudge that he wasn't capable of foreseeing (or of subsequently recognizing) that his admonition would necessarily result in a classic tragedy of the commons, where "individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users". --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Siteban (with exceptions noted above) A block would preclude what EdChem is proposing, but a site ban could have an exception for what EdChem is proposing such that any edit outside those exceptions (without being appealed first) would lead to an immediate block. This would provide EdChem with all the conditions he has requested while providing the commmunity the certainty that the behavior won't be repeated until properly appealed. -Obsidi (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Obsidi. If a block is placed, a discussion is still possible though it does add a technical challenge and that's without considering how EJustice responds to and feels about such an action. The other difficulty is that EJustice has not (that I am aware) responded as to whether who would abide by a ban with the conditions / restrictions which I set out... because if he won't then I can't see how any thoughts of an indef block being avoided become moot, in my view. EJustice, a direct statement responding to the suggestion I made above would be helpful. Would you abide by a ban along the lines of what I have proposed? To be clear, a ban would not prevent you from making edits anywhere, but they would be prohibited, and any violation would lead to a block which would stop you making edits. EdChem (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

EdChem Sorry, I thought my prior statement constituted agreement "Meanwhile, students' work on pages as part of the course is finished and I will not be commenting/editing on any of their pages at least until WikiEdu and I have synced up about how and when that would be appropriate (probably June at the soonest). I teach this course at most every two years and would hope, if I choose to have another WP assignment next time, to do so with WikiEdu's generally excellent support. "

Let me respond to each of your points more specifically...

"A. make no edits except those for:

1. those related to finalising the assessment of this group of students (asking for a temporary sandbox version of a deleted article, for example (consistent with other wiki policies) – this would not include AfD discussions of the articles

2. those related to discussing this course and what has happened; and,

B. not to set up a WP assignment for any future course without the support of editors at AN and from the Wiki Ed project"

For A 1 and 2. I actually have no intention of editing the articles at all, unless its part of WikiEdu's cleanup efforts this summer. They typically go through coursework and help edit the good stuff that didn't make mainspace quality standards by the end of the semester into mainspace after being improved. My intention was to help them with that. I think I've only contributed to one of the articles to date. If the community would rather I not help WikiEdu improve them, I'm fine with that.

Are you also proposing that I not be able to edit any other WP content? I think that depends on for how long. By content, I mean articles. I have little interest and perhaps little qualification, besides in the kind of bounded process you propose, in discussing WP policies and/or debating other editors. More on time limits below.

For B. I really wouldn't know how to ask for AN editors' permission two years from now, which is the earliest I'd be teaching this course again. Happy to commit to not setting up a course without WikiEdu's concurrence.

On time limits: If all of these restrictions (not being able to edit WP content or offer a course with WP assignments) are indefinite, my sense is that it is clearer for the community to express that will itself than for me to agree to it prior to developing a better understanding of the violations of norms of which I'm accused.

Your proposal's great strength I think, is to create a bounded dialogue where the quite diverse issues at play here are unpacked in a safe space. I'd be happy to accept any ban that runs until that process is complete and there is consensus (particularly among you and WikiEdu) about the specific violations that I engaged in. I'd also happily accept any ban that that process clearly delineated as necessary moving forward. But being banned indefinitely, for example, for the content of my syllabus, which was not clearly subject to WP policies at the time I loaded it, is something I (and probably other academics) need to understand better.

Is this a clear enough response to your suggestion? Thanks again for proposing a good way forward.

Finally, the SOAPBOX case for a ban has diffs where I encourage students to ensure their content touches on the course topic (environmental justice). I don't think I commented on more than 5-7 articles out of over 40 total. My TAs did more, as did students who were required to peer review their colleagues. Here are 2 examples(a. and b.) of my comments on a page suggested for deletion that avoided that fate. I think they represent more accurately the substantive role I played for students. I would appreciate your thoughts on the problems (SOAPBOX, POV, or other) with my participation in the conversation there. As indicated above, this is the page I was most actively involved in as it posed interesting questions about whether it fit better under another article or as a standalone. Jytdog was also quite actively involved in the discussion to delete for reasons similar to those at play here. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJustice (talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

EJustice, the reasoning for my proposal is that whether you are formally sanctioned with a ban or block will be decided by consensus, and implemented by an administrator uninvolved in the discussion. I am not an administrator and am only one voice in this discussion, equal with every other. I know from experience that a voluntary undertaking can influence consensus to accept that undertaking rather than imposing a sanction. If there is a block imposed, we can still discuss via your talk page, but it would be easier if you were not blocked as we can't use the sub-page you have suggested while you are blocked. Looking at the discussion here, it is hard not to see a consensus, so a block or ban may well be inevitable at this point. If that happens, please understand that WP uses "indefinite block" for "until it is agreed it is no longer necessary", not for "for ever"... though in some cases, blocks are effectively going to be infinite (imagine someone whose every edit was deliberate vandalism, or someone posting pro-paedophile advocacy with images of child victims being abused). We can talk about appeals and unblocking when the time comes. I recognise why you feel there are aspects of this situation that are unfair (the syllabus, for example, or posts of yours interpreted in the least favourable light) but whatever your intent, the overall result from a WP-perspective has been a significant disruption of WP article space and there are plenty of editors who are very angry. Some want to punish you, which is not allowed under WP policy, but blocks and bans to prevent disruption are justified, and a near-identical repeat of this project would be disruptive, I'm sure you'd agree. I suggest we let whatever will happen here happen, and turn to other topics in your user space. EdChem (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

EdChem Thanks for helping me better understand what's going on. Have learned a lot/am learning, and another course will definitely await the kind of deeper conversation you've proposed along with more consultation with WikiEdu. EJustice (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• The levels of difficult things and wikilawyering in EJustice's post are too many to unpack here. Just two things:

First, the diffs he brought here show, just really clearly, how he was driving students to write essay content building arguments to support an advocacy position in Wikipedia. Even here and now. He really doesn't get what we do here.

Second, the past disruption was the class and so a lot of the discussion here has focused on what happened with that, and managing risks of future instances of that. Looking to the future, future courses at Berkeley are a concern. But as I understand it he has some kind of affiliate status Berkeley and spends most of his time doing many other things. There are any number of ways that disruption could continue, via EJustice acting individually or in some other of his RW roles. So please be mindful of that with regard to thinking through risks of future disruption especially with regard to tailoring restrictions on editing privileges.

I am going to go back to cleaning up after the last organized advocacy push in WP, namely the libertarian stuff pushed in by VIpul et al, which this class pulled me away from. I will not probably not comment here further and have probably been too active in this thread in any case - my apologies for that. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Where is the evidence of disruption by the students? You have only provided carefully curated cherry-picked quotes of the professor to advance your narrative that the professor was on a WP:NOTHERE WP:SOAPBOX, etc. mission to encourage a grand level of disruption and violation of wiki-rules, without showing actual disruption and harm. Many of the articles listed above by the professor still exist and are positive contributions to the encyclopedia. The professor worked with Wiki Ed to sandbox the essays that were problematic.
  Did the students edit war? Where is the engagement with the students on the article talk pages?
  Did you make any effort to engage and help the students? I sure didn't see it. What I did see was a consistent effort to try to discourage their efforts to add quality content by deleting their work, unfriendly and unwelcoming exchanges with the professor and with Wiki Ed, and now a massive effort to get the professor banned and prevent future students in this academic field from coming here. All, I can say is: Wow. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support for reasons in the comment immediately above that there was no proof of actual harm by the students. The professor has been kind enough to work collaboratively to address issues with newbie mistakes. I did not see this level of collaboration offered by his accusers.
  The professor has owned up to the problem of the WP:NPOV words in his course syllabus regarding current president's environmental plans, which incidentally is called "catastrophic for the environment, say climate experts" (Independent) a "wrecking ball on the environment" (LA Times), etc. from the first two hits of a Google search of "trump+environment". The fact that an expert in the field asked students to document that which one can see is already in the WP:RS does not seem all that odd. His mistake was to use such strong words to describe it, even though the WP:RS uses similar levels of hyperbole. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll reply very briefly. Half the articles the class created were deleted because they were essays advocating for the EJ movement/against Trump. The other half took an enormous amount of work by the community to make decent, and still need a lot of work. All through this, EJustice drove the students on, and reacted to the community with disdain. The students generally behaved well but there was some votestacking and edit warring; generally they were just put in a bad place and some of their pain has been quite evident. All of this has already been demonstrated. I do understand that you can't see the problems. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - If what I understand here is true, then this proposal is the path of wisdom, instead of a rush to block. For clarity, I suggest this section be renamed 'Counter Proposal by EdChem.' I see a number of respected editors in support of this counter proposal. I must note that, given the community patience for the original proposer despite various blocks and topic bans handed out in the last two years, they seem remarkably unable to tolerate perceived transgressions in others. David Tornheim's comments just above are worthy of reflection. Jusdafax 23:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: I have no objection to you refactoring the top of this sub-thread to include a condensed proposal summary and altering the title, so long as it is clear that the addition occurred subsequently. I think there is benefit to a perspective other than mine summarising where this sub-thread has gone, including EJustice's responses. EdChem (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

If we're going to bring topic bans, etc. into the mix, then it's also relevant to mention David Tornheim was also topic-banned for disruptive behavior and advocacy in environmental topics (i.e., GMOs and pesticides), and you were also warned for similar battleground behavior there too.[131]. Though I should say going off the rails of the topic at hand to snipe at an editor one has been in past disputes with isn't really relevant here. The focus here is on the problems we've seen with Ejustice's advocacy and how to handle that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"David Tornheim's comments just above are worthy of reflection." On the contrary, David Tornheim's comments above show that he has entirely missed the forest for the trees, and really doesn't grok the nature of the problem at all. He has consistently misinterpreted not only what happened, but the purpose of the suggested sanction: why else would he be suggesting that we bow down and kiss EJustice's ring, prophesying doom for Wikipedia if we indef block the professor, thereby cutting off the future flow of students to our shores. Other instructors seem to be able to cope with Wikipedia's policies, even if they start off on the wrong foot and have to be put wise, why should we give EJustice special dispensation from WP:NPOV? At any moment I expect to hear that we're stifling academic intellectual freedom, when, actually, we thrive on the intellectual freedom of the academy when its results are published in reliable sources and gain currency in the field. What we don't allow is intellectual freedom here, because we're an encyclopedia of verifiable knowledge, and not a weblog of opinions. In short,David Tornheim has just about everything backwards, and that's not going to change by reflecting on his comments, just cause unnecessary confusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that dig at Jytdog was as unhelpful as it was, unfortunately, predictable. Going back to the GMO ArbCom case, there has been an ongoing pattern of editors taking sides, with Jusdafax, David Tornheim, and prokaryotes very much on one side. In any case, I am not aware of Jytdog teaching a course in which he instructs large numbers of students to come to Wikipedia and violate NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish No irony intended here: I think that what you say about my intentions hits the nail on the head.

If you believe that my intention was to "instruct large numbers of students to come to Wikipedia and violate NPOV" there should be a ban imposed on me, clearly. I'm learning more, so, in Wikipedia-ese, there's either fairly incontrovertible evidence to that effect in your mind or you are presuming that I had bad intention, which is a violation of a WP principle on your part. This, I think, is the heart of the matter with respect to a WP:SOAPBOX ban or block.

My syllabus for a course approved to be taught at a major university WAS in small measure posted on a site subject to WP rules (unbeknownst to me). I could post all the guidance I gave students about neutrality, about no edit-warring, about plagiarism, beyond even the material they were required to study and were examined and graded on that I have already directed this debate to within the WikiEdu sphere. Is the price of having students edit on Wikipedia a requirement that entire syllabi be reviewed and approved by WP editors, beyond even WikiEdu?

I welcome the chance to engage in a discussion about such questions in a way that does not threaten academic freedom. But I hope you see why engaging deeply in this debate, subjecting the whole of my (and eventually all faculty's?) curriculum to review by this body, under threat of a ban would be, at a minimum, chilling to the participation of many, many present and future Wikipedians.

I am not responding point by point specifically for this reason. I have agreed to limit my activity to discussing issues of principle, learning about them, modifying my teaching accordingly. But defending my intentions on a point-by-point basis, particularly when students and I were threatened very early on with grave sanctions for having such discussions? (and please don't ask me to prove the latter...lots of examples cited and extant right in this discussion stream, and I am relying more on where the considered judgement of experienced Wikipedians takes us than in my newbie ability to make long lists of powerful diffs) I know what my intentions for this assignment were, and they were to teach students to document a controversial topic in a neutral way, and to increase knowledge about said topic in the world. If you believe my intentions were otherwise, that I have been lying, that my syllabus was a lie...then a ban or block is appropriate. EJustice (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It was clear to all of us that you didn't understand NPOV. It was your intention that students come to WP and advocate for the EJ movement and against what Trump has been doing. And yes that is a clear violation of NPOV, whether you knew it or not. What made that doubly awful, was your refusal to even try listen to and learn from the Education Program and the editing community while the mess was unfolding, but instead accusing the entire community and individual editors of bias.

Everybody here was new at some point, but one of the hallmarks of advocates in WP, and the reason why we indef them to prevent further disruption, is that they refuse to learn and change - the disruption will just go on and on unless we stop it. Unteachable newbies who come here to advocate get indeffed. Unteachable newbies who lead 180-person armies into WP to advocate get indeffed too. A teachable person would by now already be saying "I get it. I have reviewed what the students wrote -- what I asked them and urged them to do -- and I get it. Clear advocacy. I am sorry." That is an entirely possible and plausible thing to have done by now and to be able to say by now. But instead, even here you continue to wrap yourself in insulating blankets (before it was the righteousness of your cause and the education program.. now it is newbie-ness), attack others, and refuse to take responsibility for your own actions. This too is what advocates always do. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My main point, of course, was that it was inappropriate of that other editor to take a dig at a fellow editor like that. But I do indeed hear you, I promise, that you did not literally "instruct large numbers of students to come to Wikipedia and violate NPOV". I get it that you did not come to Wikipedia with the intention of making trouble – rather, you came here with the intention of teaching a course. So you did "instruct large numbers of students to come to Wikipedia", and you guided the students in a manner that happens to be very contrary to the way we do things at Wikipedia. The question we are dealing with now is what you might do with a future class editing assignment. By the way, despite my screen name, I am actually someone who was for many years a tenured professor at a large US research university, so I really do understand the issues related to academic freedom as well as the logistics of teaching a large class. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support What truly harms the project is how we irrationally deal with cases like this. Here we have a professor and a 180 students who acted with good intent but may have violated some policies as most users do until they have spent years here trying to understand them. The claims of disruption appear to have been greatly exaggerated and instead of taking the time effort to work with them, the professor and students are brought to forum after forum to block or ban them. We need to work with students and their teachers and not block or ban because they have failed to follow our arcane policies to the letter. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Any editor who has been here for "years" and doesn't understand and strictly follow a fundamental policy such as WP:NPOV shouldn't be editing here. Period. Any editor who is told about NPOV by multiple editors and continues to instruct his (bsaically) involuntary meatpuppets to violate it is deliberately slapping us in the face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ejustice has not been here for "years", not even half a year. The account was created 16 January 2017. I think you may have misread what I wrote? --I am One of Many (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@I am One of Many: Or he may not. What I infer from Beyond My Ken's comment is that most users who have spent more than a year here do understand NPOV policy, and are willing to strictly follow it (if asked); those few editors who don't, or won't, should not be editing here. Likewise, most editors who get repeatedly told about NPOV stop violating it; those few who don't should not be editing here. And so on. Also, he may have taken exception (as do I) to your straw-man argument about "blocking students". --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

But EJustice is not one of those editors who have spent more than a year here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I am One of Many is correct, I did misread his comment, so my first statement makes no sense in relation to what he actually said, therefore I have struck it. My apologies for my misunderstanding. However my second statement remains valid: "Any editor who is told about NPOV by multiple editors and continues to instruct his (basically) involuntary meatpuppets to violate it is deliberately slapping us in the face." That was the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I appreciate the proposal here to give them another chance with the hope any disruption can be stemmed, but I can't shake the feeling that an indef block/site ban is the safest option. Any discussion that leads to them becoming a productive editor who understands how to write with a neutral POV can be done on their talk page if need be. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Any needed discussion can take place at EJustice's talk page. That's where they can demonstrate that they've understood how misguided their actions throughout this have been. If they can do that they should then craft an appeal that convinces the community of it. Capeo (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary break

@EdChem: could you please flesh out a bit more about how things should proceed under your proposal in the event that EJustice either does not end up accepting community expectations or gives ambiguous replies to questions about that? In particular, I would like to be clear on the extent to which you, personally, would or would not assume a mentorship role, and would or would not be willing if appropriate to make a negative recommendation to the community. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Allow me to start by acknowledging your points from AE, that EJustice received plenty of helpful advice and that neither academics nor instructors enjoy a privileged position nor additional rights, and I do have to agree with you entirely on the first point. I see the second as more complicated in practice than in theory, as blocking an instructor mid-course leads to consequent disruption for all the students. Had we known as the course started how EJustice would respond, I would have supported attempting to stop the course from running and preventing a mass of disruption. At this point, however, the mess has been created, vast time and effort has gone into article space clean up, and we need to decide how to proceed. I understand and agree with the consensus above that allowing EJustice to run another course at this point would be absurd, and placing a ban to prevent this is justified. I don't see the benefit of a block, however, in that his edits to article space were few, and if he is willing to help with the post mortem, that is helpful to us and to Wiki Ed.

So, I see as a reasonable compromise:

• the community enacts an indefinite ban on any future course run by EJustice, revocable by an appeal to AN. I would anticipate any appeal would need support from Wiki Ed representatives and evidence of policy understanding from EJustice, and he would be extremely unwise to launch an appeal prematurely
• the community enact an indefinite ban on EJustice editing article space, article talk pages, and any pages (like AfDs) related to his students' work – this could include a post-1932 American politics ban under DS, but I don't see how that is necessary
• EJustice volunteers to make edits only in his user space, or in relation to the Wiki Ed and any other community discussions of his course, what happened, what clean up was required and why, how to avoid similar problems, etc. He would also be allowed to initiate an appeal at AN when he sees fit.
• Any violation of the two community bans would be met with blocks at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator, and a block could also be added quickly through AN if his discussion of the course becomes advocacy in pursuit of an agenda rather than discussion in seeking an understanding of wiki-policy and why articles were deleted, etc.

This is not as restrictive as a site ban and block restricting him to just his user talk page, but it is sufficient, in my opinion, to prevent disruption while leaving open the possibility of a future course.

As to what I seel to do, my intention is to explore some of the individual issues that arose with the intention to bring in relevant policy. I want to discuss the idea of an X and Y topic and how it can be made into an article, starting from the requirement that the intersection is notable and covered in reliable secondary sources, covering whether a stand-alone article is needed and the issues of OR, SYNTH, ADVOCACY, etc. I also have some ideas about materials that are unsuited to WP.

On mentoring, I don't see that as an issue that arises unless the bans are lifted. It might be suitable to lift the article space ban for him to develop a couple of articles as a demonstration to the community of the application of his new understanding of policy, or this could be done in user space prior to an unban request. Having seen various mentorship situations on WP, I know they can appear fine initially but deteriorate if the desire to ignore or side-step policy emerges, which is a reason that mentors are typically admins who can issue a quick block if necessary. EJustice has responded to me very positively so far, but I am aware that there have been IDHT and advocacy issues and my views on the policy issues are very much in line with those raised at the AE and in discussions prior to that. I will try to help him to understand the WP perspective but any unban will require adherence to core policy, and that is non-negotiable.

TL;DR: EdChem, could you please flesh out a bit more about how things should proceed under your proposal in the event that EJustice either does not end up accepting community expectations or gives ambiguous replies to questions about that?

If EJustice does not end up accepting community expectations, I assume that will mean his goals are incompatible with WP articles, and I would hope he would decide not to pursue further courses on WP and would make a statement to that effect. If he did decide to pursue WP courses despite rejecting community expectations, I would expect the ban to rapidly become a community site ban and indefinite block. Further, in that circumstances, it would likely be necessary to authorise blocking students and TAs associated with him as quickly as possible, both to prevent disruption to WP and to encourage him to move any project off WP so that it can be completed and he can carry out whatever assessment is involved. I would be very disappointed if it came to this, though, it would be a huge issue for WP and a big problem for EJustice, likely involving contact from the Wiki Ed project direct to the university.

In particular, I would like to be clear on the extent to which you, personally, would or would not assume a mentorship role, and would or would not be willing if appropriate to make a negative recommendation to the community.

Mentorship is premature, IMO, and arises only after a successful appeal. Any appeal will be for EJustice to make, and the resulting decision will be made by the community. I am a Wikipedian and both believe in and adhere to WP policy. As such, if / when EJustice makes an appeal, I would respond honestly to requests for my opinion. I want the discussion with EJustice to be held entirely on-wiki so that others will be able to form their own judgements. I want to use a user space page so that EJustice need not be distracted by differing perspectives, but still allowing talk page commentary from anyone pointing out issues I have missed, errors that I have made, etc. I would hope not to have to say that an appeal is premature or that I do not believe his beliefs / understanding / goals / whatever have changed (or changed sufficiently), but if that was my opinion, I would share it. On a purely pragmatic level, supporting EJustice's return without believing he would not be disruptive would be foolish on my part, damaging my own reputation and credibility and casting a shadow over my judgement. I am willing to put effort into trying to help EJustice, but I am not willing to throw away WP policy to do it. EdChem (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the teacher used the headlines and facts about policy changes which have been widely criticized, just google "assault on the environment" for instance. Then he asked specifically about instructions on how to write about environmental justice, and was harshly denied. prokaryotes (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Unclear what that diff spanning 13 edits is meant to show. But EJustice asked remarkably few questions and at no point did EJustice ask the editing community how to edit about difficult topics.Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

EdChem, love what you wrote and your intention but none of that conflicts with an indef. A successful effort would provide the foundation for a successful appeal, which would be good for everyone. But nothing they have said or done to date promises success; quite the opposite, as you have noted. It would be best for the community to not go through this whole "should we indef them now?" discussion again; this is the seventh community discussion about this class already. An appeal discussion would be a new one, with a new basis. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, an appeal discusion would be a new one, but that is not one that can be avoided. Even with an indef block, he can (and hopefully will successfully) appeal that as well. An effective siteban (but for the exceptions noted above), would prevent disruption, without any additional cost to the community beyond the consideration of an appeal (which would likely also occur with an indef block eventually as well). Maybe he will never learn and we will never lift the ban, if so that would be sad, but doesn't add any risk of further disruption beyond what an indef block would do. The only additional potential cost would be the cost to an admin who had to block him for violating the ban, but I don't expect that will be very hard to do or cost any more time than a single admin a few minutes (it would be very clear and easy to identify and block if he steps outside the siteban). -Obsidi (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I'm glad you appreciate my intention and that our pro-WP goals are in accord. An indef does not "conflict" with my intentions in making them impossible, but I see an indef as adding extra complexity to my efforts (that I would prefer not to have to cope with), and I believe the block would be a less appropriate community response in any case. In the event of an indef block:

1. EJustice and I would be stuck on a single page for a complex and likely lengthy discussion
2. separating commentary onto talk pages ceases to be possible, and refactoring of an editor's talk page by others is more accepted than it is for other pages in user space, making a discussion restricted to user talk:EJustice much more open to interference. In the event of a ban, it is my intention to work on a user space page where EJustice restricts who may edit while allowing commentary on the associated user talk page.
3. there is the risk of being accused of violating policy on the use of user talk pages, certainly when we discuss possible redrafting of article content (not for implementation by EJustice, though I might put proposals on article talk pages) or if he is drafting a new article
4. imposing a block has the potential to effect EJustice more than a ban to which he is willing to abide, which would not be helpful IMO
5. imposing a block is more likely to have reputational consequences for WP
6. a block precludes EJustice from contributing to a discussion at Wiki Ed pages over summer as their post-mortem discussion occurs
7. a block precludes EJustice from seeking advice / interacting with other editors on their talk page – yes, he could use a ping but those do not always work – and asking specific questions may be helpful at times... I could ask them for him, true, but I want to engage with him in part in a collegial academic-to-academic way and him needing to ask me to post to another talk page for him is not really in keeping with the sense of an interaction between peers that I hope to foster
8. I do not see what a block prevents that my proposal does not, in terms of the potential to damage article content, which gives a block the aura of punishment
9. with a ban in place but not a block, EJustice has the opportunity to demonstrate his willingness to abide by community consensus by not violating it, which would be a positive point for him at any appeal.

In terms of the potential for a further "should we indef them now" discussion, if EJustice violated the ban the indef could be imposed by any uninvolved administrator without a need for a discussion... if the result of my efforts was that EJustice decided to withdraw from WP, an indef could be imposed without opposition... if he sought to run a further course without Wiki Ed and community agreement and without regard to policy, the discussion would be brief and near-unanimous. It is my hope that there is no need for a "should we indef" discussion, only for an appeal which can follow a ban or a block, but if one were needed, given the consensus emerging here, I would not anticipate it being drawn out.

Also, I have to disagree that EJustice has done "nothing ... to date [that] promises success" as he has indicated a willingness to learn and an openness to a discussion with me. He has stated in a recent post (albeit with comments that would have been better left alone) that he sees the reason for a block if there is a belief that his intention was to disrupt. He has not been editing in article space in pursuit of an advocacy agenda and the students will likely most have disappeared, so we are talking about watching one person. Before you say it, I agree that these are small steps compared with his statements during the student editing period, but they are something that I see as headed in the right direction. I have not started on the direct discussion with him as I am awaiting the outcome of this discussion because the restriction to one page only will force a re-think on my part on how to work the discussion. Also, I want to talk with him first on his timing / availability so we can fit with both our schedules. So, it is partly my fault that there is nothing I can point to having achieved in direct conversation on the point you raise.

I admit that the outcome of all this may be that I fail, EJustice is indef'd, and I end up being seen as having taken our AGF guideline beyond the boundary of good sense, but that is a risk I am willing to run. As an editor of nearly 10 years standing, with a clean block log, over 50% of edits to article space, and plenty of major content additions, I believe my record demonstrates my commitment to the principles of Wikipedia. I am willing to monitor EJustice's edits if a ban is imposed, to warn him if I think he is testing limits, and to point out violations of the ban. I'm not an admin and so have no block button, but if he were to violate a ban, I can't see there being a shortage of uninvolved admins ready and willing to block. The mess created here has lessons for Wiki Ed, WP, and student editing, and I'm willing to put in time to try to help us learn as a community what we can from what has happened. As the instructor involved, I believe EJustice can help us in that process, even if by way of a negative example. I am asking that my task not be unnecessarily complicated by an indef block, and instead that a ban that prevents further disruption be used as a more nuanced and targeted response, and I think I have sound reasons for this request.

Thanks for reading this latest wall of text, and I do regret that this discussion has been so extended... I just believe that as a community we can do better than imposing a site ban and indef block. EdChem (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Read a few times. Thanks for the thoughtful remarks. So whatever the community decides here. I am fine with whatever block or ban a) prevents EJustice from directly editing and from running any other group-editing of WP (through Berkeley or any of his other affiliations) without an appeal in which he demonstrates really clearly that he understands the policies and guidelines and the importance of actually engaging with the editing community authentically, and takes responsibility without any of the deflection that we have seen to date; and b) allows a review with you and the Education Program to review the semester (which, although folks in good faith are intending to do it, may not start at all and may not be completed, for any number of reasons). I have only a little hope that those efforts will bear fruit.. The fact that even after all this drama he has not gone and read the students' editing critically and seen what has appalled so many experienced editors, nor seen his role in driving that, is a mindset that ... I understand very well. We have seen the advocate mindset here many many times. But perhaps a facilitated examination will open his eyes. Perhaps. In any case I will trust those wiser in blocking/banning to craft whatever is appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are the specific topics where EJustice has fundamental misunderstandings that you are going to have to clean up, in order to succeed:

• Wikipedia articles are in the genre of "encyclopedia" and in that genre in our weird WP way. Articles summarize accepted knowledge that we find in RS. They aren't essays where you pose a thesis and prove it or where you "make your big points!", they aren't even review articles where you synthesize the primary literature, and they aren't news. They just summarize accepted knowledge. EJustice, like many academics, does not understand this. This is a very hard thing for people in the knowledge business to wrap their heads around. Very hard.
• Wikipedia is not a site for advocacy of any kind. (we have beat this one to death already but it is still unclear to me, even based on EJustice's last remark here, that they get this)
• A lot of student WP editing is awful. Yes even from "upper-division students at one of the world's pre-eminent universities". Copyvio, stuff not supported by citations given, stuff with no citations, bad sources (the Mother Jones one about puppy mill lobbyists... not a good source), SYN by juxtaposition, even just bad writing... all of that is common as dirt. Not to mention the pro EJ movement/anti-Trump advocacy. There has been not even an eyelash-bat toward seeing this. Not while it was happening, and not now.
• When there are problems, we talk about them and try to work them out. Not responding authentically to criticism, but instead with "yessing" (apparently what happened to the Education Program people when they tried to manage the problems), or responding with disdain (attacks or telling students to ignore editor feedback) as he did to the community - and continues to do even in their posts at AE and here, is not OK. The community matters. Dealing with EJustice's own behavior is going to be probably the hardest part of this.

Any one of those by itself would be very hard to work through. You have all 4 of them to work through and they reinforce each other. These are things that in my view EJustice needs to understand before any imposed block or ban would be lifted. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely on the first three points. On the fourth, only EJustice and the Wiki Ed people can really comment on the interactions, we (as the community) have comments from both but were not a part of those discussions. EJustice's responses to the community indicated a lack of comprehension, defensiveness, and a determination to continue forward, and those are problems... but I'm sure he felt harried and avoiding an assessment activity collapsing was likely his uppermost concern. He can show respect for the community will by abiding by a ban, and whether his attitude changes sufficiently to convince the community that he will work in a consensus model and within policy boundaries is ultimately not my responsibility. He will learn and adapt and persuade the community... or he won't. My plan is to start with some of the easier issues and move to the more complex. The copyvio / plagiarism issues, for example, were not well handled on either side, and I think when EJustice understands what solutions were available he'll see the situation was not as difficult as it appeared. EdChem (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

EdChem, thank you very much for such a thoughtful and thorough response to my question. And let me say very clearly that I have never in any way doubted your "commitment to the principles of Wikipedia". And I agree with you that we should want the discussions to be transparent and onsite. Mostly, I'm trying to assess what would be the best way to get to where you and I both want to get, on a direct path with as few diversions as possible. And I guess my own tl;dr is that I have not changed my overall opinion.

I get it that EJustice would be doing little different in his editing under either a block/ban or under the ban that you propose. So I ask myself which scenario would minimize harm, either to the editor or to the community. I'm seeing more falling back into the community's lap under your plan, and the community has already dealt with enough. Taking some of your numbered points: (1–3) I don't think it matters if the conversations just occur on his user talk, and I'm not worried that anyone will be overly picky about the nature of the discussions there. (If they were to be inappropriate, which I think is highly unlikely, they would be no more appropriate on some kind of dedicated page.) (5) No, I don't think we are looking at reputational damage to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's greater interests reside in having clear and consistent guidelines for student assignments, rather than whatever the instructor decides. I never ask for special treatment as an editor, based on my own academic credentials, and I don't give such special treatment to anyone else. (7) Interested editors who want to give helpful advice will know how to find his user talk page. And it's not impossible to get in touch with some other editors, if really appropriate. But not involving editors who wish not to be involved is a feature, not a bug.

Bottom line, I think a site ban, effected by a block that restricts him to his user talk, would be the most efficient way to get to the same outcome, and I still do not see sufficient advantages to the more nuanced kind of ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: As the one who is having the discussion with EJustice, I think I'm in a much better position to judge whether only having access to his user talk page is a pain in the posterior. It is, for me, an unnecessary and unhelpful additional barrier. However, it does not make a discussion impossible, and I do recognise that reasonable Wikipedians can disagree or assign different weightings to different considerations.

Regarding WP reputation, I think a "Wikipedia bans Berkley Professor" headline is something we could do without.

As for needing further community discussions, do you think that EJustice should be included in discussions on Wiki Ed pages looking at what went wrong here? If so, any block will have to be undone and replaced with a ban following a community discussion subsequent to this... under my proposal, taking part in those discussions is already covered.

Finally, if my proposal prevents everything that needs preventing, then how is going to a block justified under the blocking policy?

Thanks, EdChem (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

EdChem, I think we are going to end up agreeing to disagree. But, very truly, thank you for all of the thought and work you have been putting into this. I'd say that your proposal would have prevented everything that needs preventing if you had been more agreeable to taking on the role of mentorship and the accompanying responsibility to deal harshly with an unsuccessful result, which is why I asked you specifically about those things. No, I do not think that he really has much to offer WikiEd, but they can ask him if they want to. And, as much as I understand what you are saying about that headline, I am more concerned about a headline something like "Wikipedia is baffled about what to do when a professor assigns his class to write opinion pieces about Donald Trump". I think it goes against Wikipedia's most basic values to say "we better not ban someone with an academic appointment, because that's someone important, but we can still ban someone who is a nobody, because that's someone who is unimportant". The news story that I would really like to see out there is: "College instructors: please understand that Wikipedia editors are not your teaching assistants, and if you send students to edit here, you need to prepare the students to abide by our editing expectations." --Tryptofish (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: agreeing that we disagree is a reasonable outcome between editors of good-will, and certainly I accept we see differently EJustice's potential to help the Wiki Ed process – but I could be wrong, of course.  :) I don't share your headline concern as I think a ban addresses it. Also, to be clear, my reason for not blocking EJustice is much more that I think there is a chance for a better outcome, and not because Professors shouldn't be blocked. I agree that there should not be unblockable-by-reason-of-status editors. If his response to me had been that he knows what he is doing and doesn't need help, I'd say a block is a preventative necessity. Maybe I am just too optimistic, but I am not yet at the point of seeing no possibility of a better outcome than a block.

As for the mentoring question, under my ban option, edits out of bounds would attract a rapid block no matter what I did, and I would certainly emphasise that to EJustice. If he made an appeal and I thought he wouldn't follow policy, I'd oppose and point to the evidence supporting my view, which would lead (I would anticipate) to a block. I didn't decline the responsibility (well, I didn't mean to decline the responsibility), I just thought it was unnecessary to have a formal mentor prior to an unbanning and return to article space.

I hope that EJustice will understand how an editor would approach topics like the ones he wanted in a policy compliant way, which would leave him much better able to prepare students for WP editing expectations... so maybe we can end up with your preferred news story as an outcome, at least. EdChem (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

EdChem, I think all of that is quite reasonable, thanks. And I think that just about everyone here feels, as I do, that you have done admirable work on this issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Whey you say, "the community has already dealt with enough," what do you mean? I didn't see much effort by the community trying to help the students. Did you? Did you help the students? It seems that most of the "effort" was to try to get the articles the students had worked on deleted as soon as they were published, which would destroy all record of the students' work. That did happen with some of the articles. It's true the discussion at the noticeboards has been lengthy, but isn't that because editors made no effort to help the students with their work? Have you even looked at the work of the students? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

David, I do not answer questions that are based upon innuendo about me. I've spent more time and effort working with student editors, working with WikiEd people, and writing most of WP:ASSIGN, than you appear to realize. Editors may, if they wish, volunteer to be teaching assistants for student assignments, but that is voluntary. And your statement below, that the sanctions discussed here are punitive, is incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

User:EdChem, thanks for putting your hand up here. I guess the thing that I'm concerned about is that EJustice has gotten a truckload of good advice already and disregarded it, so I'm not sure what adding to that will do. But if you're willing to put in the effort, I think it's worth a try at least. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC).

David Tornheim’s Analysis of Allegations + Collaborative Workspace

As I have explained above, I do not feel the professor needs to be punished, and that instead a discussion (such as that proposed by EdChem) should ensue about how to help instructors and students new to Wikipedia add material in controversial topics without so much unnecessary drama. Such discussion would examine how to engage, converse and work collaboratively and in a civil manner with a new instructor and students when they make newbie mistakes and follow our policy to be WP:BOLD, so that instructor and students alike will have a positive experience editing and can be retained as productive Wikipedians who create content that follows our policy and guidelines. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

David Tornheim, thanks for making an effort here, but I have to disagree with some of what you are saying. First, I think that some of the work had way too much WP:BOLD editing and nowhere near enough policy and guidelines. Some of the pages created were not just advocacy but fundamentally unencyclopaedic in the sense of no reliable sourcing to even establish notability. Second, your page is structured to address what you show as allegations by Jytdog. There were many critics so singling out Jytdog is establishing an adversarial process, which I believe is exactly what is not needed here, and I don't see that approach leading to a positive experience. Third, there is strong consensus of multiple policy issues, whatever the merits of any specific example, and it is that that needs addressing, not the specific examples. Fourth, I agree completely that punishment is not needed here, but I can't disagree with those above noting a future course would be disruptive under current circumstances, and there is a legitimate basis for preventative action. I don't think it is right to leave EJustice in any doubt about the community's view on the overall situation, that there was massive disruption, that student editors added much non-policy compliant content, and that advocacy rather than neutrality was the result, no matter the intent. Fifth, I believe that a one-on-one discussion with EJustice is preferable to getting input from many editors at once. Your point about how to support students is important, but to me it is a subsequent issue which follows on from the instructor understanding policy and how to approach potentially controversial content is an encyclopaedic way. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Response to Allegations

In the spirit of starting that conversation, I have created a separate page to respond to all of the allegations made by Jytdog at WP:AE. This is necessary because Jytdog shows the professor’s comments in the worst light through cherry-picking. I am posting my comments there rather extend this overly long discussion.

This is a permalink to the page to be incorporated herein to the record on this case with time stamp of 10:55, 2 May 2017: [132]

The current version of the page is here: User:David_Tornheim/EJustice_Class_Collaborative_Discussion

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Not only is this page of yours wildly unnecessary it also assumes that the people here and at AE don't have enough clue to look at the context of the diffs provided. You don't like Jytdog. We get it. You're mistakenly assuming someone presenting evidence of disruption has to have had directly involved in every diff or even witnessed them at the time. It's not unusual to see an editor being disruptive then go back through their contributions to see if there's a pattern then present those diffs as well. It's not on any single editor who sees large scale disruption to take it upon themselves to solve the issue. The correct action is to bring it to the community as was done. You're singling out of Jytdog on that page is, in the least, petty and bordering on an attack page. Capeo (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

At the least, the page shows a level of preoccupation clearly continuing battleground behavior from the GMO topics that they were topic banned from. While it would be silly to derail the EJustice matter even further by entertaining it now, this does give some good evidence towards imposing interaction bans for David if this continues to be a problem in the future. I know there were concerns about people pursuing other editors outside their topic ban during ArbCom, etc., but the original hope was topic bans would also knock back the battleground behavior a bit in lieu of further escalating sanctions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration

The page I created is designed as a workspace in the spirit of EdChem’s proposal to collaboratively work with the professor to address community concerns. I have created spaces for editors to comment regarding each of the allegations and whether they think the articles and edits are a problem, and if so, how to fix those problems.

I will create new sections and welcome others to do so as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for closure

The proposer made two points, a) that all the students are meatpuppets (either meaning sockpuppets, or astroturfing, see also WP:SOCK) and that there is a campaign for environmental justice against the current US administration, and b) that the user does not understand the problem.

Editor EJustice's comments show willingness to work things out in a constructive way, ie. here (and noted the next course (if) will be in two years), here, or asking the proposer how to write about environmental justice on Wikipedia. There seems to be an argument about - if a block is punitive (WP:PUNISH), or not, and about particular statements such as, assault on the environment, which seems to be a term you come across when studying environmental justice, or reading reliable sources (1, 2, 3, that statement is in all reliable sources to describe changes to environmental laws, budgets, and protests).

The editor is member since 2017, and the current course page revision reads much different, and has no talk page entries. Thus, shows the willingness to consider and act upon input made by the community, besides nobody even used the talk page. Above comments by EJustice, and edits made to improve criticized content, were not considered by many of those editors who voted for the initial proposal. The assignment was public and collaborated with WikiEdu. And there is no clear consensus. Thus, i propose to close this topic without actions.

• Support as proposed. prokaryotes (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Prokaryotes, I can't see how a "no action" close is going to happen. There are different opinions on whether to impose a community ban and indef block, a more limited ban such as that I proposed and no block, or a ban on a future course and an indef block recognising a discussion on the user talk page will follow and possibly a subsequent appeal. Editors supporting no action are scarce. I am not an admin and can't close this discussion given my participation, but I see a strong consensus for some action. Whichever admin does the close and finds where consensus lies on the action to be taken has a challenging task with lots of comments, etc., and I do not envy her or him the task... but I will be stunned if the conclusion is "no action." EdChem (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

EdChem, i try to follow up on your notion about advocacy, starting from the AE thread linked above, and end up here (POV Forks discussion). Basically at every turn EJustice tried to cooperate, i cannot judge for the course participants, but did not see any blatant disrupting behavior. At that POV Fork discussion, EJustice noted "..a number of Wikipedians have suggested that our class syllabus is itself flawed and biased. I would welcome their input to improve it and make it more factually correct." But no editor there responded with input on how to actually improve stuff. EJustice is an expert on the topic of environmental justice, editors engaging probably not. Then there are many content arguments which belong in article space. To me it seems there are new editors, which need some learning in basic Wikipedia guidelines, like how to avoid copy vio, how to quote, et cetera. What's missing, a process of quality control for such courses, not punitive actions. prokaryotes (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

EdChem One third oppose the proposal, and there was no discussion yet for no action. prokaryotes (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, the advocacy edits were made by students and many are in now-deleted articles, which was also the quality control for those articles. As for one-third opposing, there are plenty that are opposing my suggestion in favour of harsher action, so I suggest that one-third favouring no action is not an accurate inference to draw. And, on punitive actions, I think most editors reading the whole thread would not accuse me of advocating a punitive response. After all, a ban to prevent a future course is preventative, and I'm the one who is offering to help EJustice to understand. I think I am much more at risk of being accused of taking the disruption insufficiently seriously that I am of being accused of seeking to punish EJustice. EdChem (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

EdChem I refer entirely to the initial proposal above. I welcome your efforts to discuss the issue with EJustice. Punitive as in banning or blocking the scholar, for actions by what appears to be a minority of the entire class of 180? Hence, if you punish a teacher for the actions of a few, then this is overreacting, because clearly the majority of edits are not masking of agenda, or classic socketing as has been suggested. Which bags the question how you deal with such issues in the future. Suggestion, work out those articles in user or coarse space first, then after review publish. And because we cannot judge the deleted articles any longer - the suggested extent of disruption, the entire case is kind of moot. prokaryotes (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support with the closer stating that EJustice and EdChem have agreed to discuss and address concerns raised by a number of editors. EJustice's and EdChem's willingness and commitment to have a discussion after so much negativity is to be commended.
  I agree with the proposer's arguments above that there was no evidence of disruption, that there was very little discussion on talk pages of articles, that the "assault on the Environment" is indeed typical of the kind of description found in WP:RS. Many of these aspects I have shown in my Analysis of Allegations, especially how little effort those wanting to have the professor banned made to engage at the talk page to address problems, and the effort to delete student work rather than userfy it to help explain non-compliance with policy or guidelines. I don't dispute there were newbie editing problems.
  The solution is to engage the editors and instructors to understand and correct the issues, so they become productive editors, not block or ban the instructor in this punitive action. [I will likely revise this statement.] --David Tornheim (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose a simple nose count shows aprox. 2:1 support for an indef block/site ban (29 in favour, 11 opposing) with ample justification in diffs and explanation for why this should be the case (i. The alternate proposal is split 50/50 so there is no consensus for that, but to say there is no consensus for taking action is wrong. Sure, consensus is not a vote, but the arguments presented by those of us supporting a block are pretty clear and in line with policy. So I support closing, but I think there is ample support for sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Since you are involved with the edits at Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, and cited copyright violations, are you aware that copyright violations occurred elsewhere, and did the warned editor repeated a copyright violation after the warning? prokaryotes (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I was the person who checked all the pages for copyright violations. You can see the extensive discussion I had with EJustice on their talk page. As I have mentioned above and with the diffs provided by Jytdog at AE, EJustice advocated for restoration of content that was copyrighted even after it was explained to him multiple times by different editors that it couldn't be done. By the time I removed it all, the class was largely done. There were copypaste violations from multiple sources in multiple articles, and the defense was that it couldn't have been plagiarism because the students know not to do that. The CIR problem on copyright is one of the reasons I supported a block, but far from the only one. I tried working with the students and liked them. Their professor, however, was clearly here with an agenda and during the project showed the inability to work with the community. A block/site ban is needed to protect against further disruption until we can be assured it will not happen again. There is nothing in this conversation that has made me think we have that assurance yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tony for the explanation. One more thing, the votes who cite the alleged leaked email should be discarded, no way to check authenticity.prokaryotes (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose a no-action closure. There is ample support for sanctions to be levied, and also plenty of support for negotiations to continue. These aren't mutually exclusive things. Any sanction can be lifted if the community believes the discussions were fruitful. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I voted for a reason. Don't just ignore consensus. --Tarage (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Based on your above argument about NPOV, i yet have to see how the editor does not adjusts to Wikipedia's guidelines, addressed issues have been resolved, either through removal of content or the editor changed content. Assume good faith. prokaryotes (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose There's consensus for a sanction, with most participating in the discussion supporting an indef ban (disclosure: includes me). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

::...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments]. I think i am done here. prokaryotes (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of what consensus is. I think there's a far stronger argument that the risk of disruption is too high to risk additional second chances. The editor can demonstrate a better understanding of NPOV on their talk page. About two-thirds of those participating agree with this position. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose No consensus? That doesn't jive with the reality seen a few sections above. Capeo (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• one wonders who will step up and close this, and at what point. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as presented here, and, generally speaking, a competent uninvolved closer does not need to be instructed as to what the close should be. But I do think that this discussion has pretty much run its course, and ought to be closed soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It is obvious that some sort of sanction has to be levied against Ejustice. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 02:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not believe this accurately reflects the consensus. While we do not yet have broad agreement as to the exact remedy, there is broad consensus in favor of a fairly significant block or ban. -Obsidi (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Notice of RfC concerning proposed Community Based De-adminship

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

---

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)

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

Charles Harris (revdel possibly needed)

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

---

Resolved

 – Mopped. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Would an admin mind taking a look at Charles Harris (it's a dab page) and see if the personal information added by an IP needs to WP:REVDEL? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP added phone numbers to about 10 pages, so they all need to be rev deleted and the IP blocked. @NeilN: Prevan (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Mopped away. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. FWIW, I was only aware of the dab page, so figured it might just have been a good-faith misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Community ban for User:The abominable Wiki troll

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

---

The abominable Wiki troll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was indefinitely blocked back in 2009 (see here for first ANI), and since then created *hundreds* of sockpuppets. Basically he has been non-stop socking, or with little break, so that the pages he targets often have to be put under extended-confirmed protection due to his extensive sockpuppetry (for example, Chris Benoit and Bill Goldberg). When this user doesn't get his way, he will often be disruptive in order to make a point as he did here. For more detail see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll/Archive. He has consistently demonstrated a complete lack of respect for policy, including Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:No legal threats, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Harassment, and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Probably one of his worst offenses was harassing another editor he disliked to the point where they considered leaving Wikipedia. A lot of his disruption has been oversighted, and there's also extensive block evasion via IP's that I didn't bother recording in the SPI.

I honestly thought he had already been banned, but recently one of his socks removed the ban notice from his userpage complaining there was no community discussion. This person has made it abundantly clear they are not here to collaborate constructively to the encyclopedia. Therefore, I am proposing a formal ban by the editing community for the reasons already mentioned. To put it simply, this troll has exhausted the community's trust and patience well beyond its limit.

• Support as proposer. Sro23 (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Time for this chronic problem user to find a new hobby, like maybe some MMO or MOBA or something. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support to prevent this "no discussion" wikilawyering from recurring. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support, but noting that I'm not a huge fan of community banning just for the sake of doing so. He's already blocked, which is functionally equivalent to a ban if no admin will lift the block. Obviously, no admin will lift this block any time soon. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't remember the last time I supported a ban of someone who had been blocked a long time before but kept operating socks. My only reason for supporting is the petty edit-warring on the master's userpage; if this guy's going to complain that we didn't do it before, we can do it now. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support, as it seems entirely justified due to the lack of respect for the community and policies. Is that snow I see? Murph9000 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - a user who engages in extensive SOCK violations in order to disrupt has no place here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support No brainer. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - pro forma at this point but sometimes makes things easier (e.g., using rollback tool without hesitation). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support As one of their latest targets. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Surprising this hadn't been done a long time ago. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 06:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support sure. Formalize it. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support No doubt about it. I was also implicated in some pro wrestlers biographies (e. g. Chris Benoit and Chris Jericho). Nickag989^talk 06:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Bad dog! BAD dog! ―Mandruss ☎ 06:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Pile on Support good riddance to bad rubbish. Blackmane (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

A sure sign of vandalism

Recently, there has been an editor vandalising articles, mostly by blanking or replacing content with nonsense text. A sure clue is the use of the words "principe" or prinsepe", either in the username or edit summary. Known vandals are

• Prinsipe Ander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Principe Karl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Superwikibooster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

No doubt there are others. I suggest we adopt a "block on sight" policy for this type of vandalism, without going through the usual series of warnings. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Why? We give warnings to an editor who replaces a few pages with "poop"; why do otherwise with someone who does like this? You'll note that two of the three accounts were globally locked before you left this note, due to multi-project vandalism, while Superwikibooster is locally indef-blocked following a series of warnings. Nyttend (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that these are all the same person. Probably someone already blocked or even banned. Their editing clearly shows they are not here for the good of the project. Mjroots (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you're meaning exactly this wording and imposing a {{uw-sockblock}}? I thought you were using it as an example of why we need to treat this kind of vandalism more harshly in general. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is a specific case. General low-level vandalism of this sort is usually dealt with pretty quickly anyway. I just want admins to be aware of this particular vandal and be a little bit quicker with the banhammer. Not sure about using a sockblock when sockmaster is unknown. {{uw-voablock}} is as good as any. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not go through SPI/Checkuser? ansh666 21:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to take it to SPI; however, since each account can be blocked ebven if it isn't a sockpuppet, I see no reason to go there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I was addressing the last part (sockblock when sockmaster is unknown); this probably falls under the quick checkuser requests thing. ansh666 21:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Started checking these for sleepers/other socks, but there's a large number of accounts on these IPs so it's going to take awhile. There's also some global locks for cross-wiki abuse. If anyone has time, this is a good candidate for an SPI page as a useful record if/when there's future misconduct; if not I'll set it up myself (or look for an existing master) in a few hours. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Backlog at Requested edits

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

---

FYI, there is a backlog at Category:Requested edits that dates back to June 2016. As I write this, there are 171 requested edits. Don't know if this is the place to post this, but seems like this could use some help. — Maile (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was able to tackle about 3 of these. But it's going to take a lot more than me to get through this list... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You're telling me. I took on one of them, and it took a long time yesterday. And it's not really resolved yet because of pushback. A lot of these are COI requests, where the admin/editor has to do a lot of reading and perhaps research to make sure the changes are warranted. In a way, I can see how this backlogged. On the other hand, we have thousands of admins. — Maile (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest, requested edits don't have to be fulfilled by an admin - any uninvolved editor can handle it. It's only the protected edits that we specifically need to deal with. In other words, this isn't really an admin issue. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Closing, not an admin issue other than 7 primarily mediawiki requests. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Second Opinions Requested on a SNOW Keep at AfD

I am a bit concerned by the speedy close of this AfD. (Full disclosure: I was the OP.) I can't ever remember Merge !votes being treated as Keep before and I would like some independent opinions on this. I left a note on Ymblanter's talk page. They have not replied so far, but it's Sunday and they may well be busy. Just to be clear I am not implying any bad faith editing but this doesn't look quite right to me. Anyways let me know If I'm way off base here. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe that since delete is clearly not a valid outcome of this discussion, it should not continue at AfD. Instead, a merge discussion should be opened (with possibly the previous discussion to be copied there). I was not around between closing the discussion and now, and I do not see why my actions should be treated in bad faith.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. A merge does imply a keep, just not the present location. No one is in favor of deleting the content; while a deletion discussion can lead to a merge it's not the best place for such a discussion. Mackensen (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge and keep are very different, and both perfectly viable outcomes of AfD. In general, if there's consensus to merge, it should be closed as merge, and if there's not clear consensus to keep (as an option that's distinct from merge), it shouldn't be snow closed as keep (i.e. whether to delete isn't the only question). So a snow close does cut short the merge discussion that emerged from this thread. But having said all this, while nonstandard, this particular case did seem like a reasonable close to me. There is clear consensus not to delete, and I don't see a clear consensus emerging from this discussion regarding whether or not to merge (nor an indication that more time will yield consensus), perhaps in part due to the venue and range of options people are responding to (it seems many people !vote keep meaning "not delete"). We could let the discussion keep going, but that seems like it would just postpone the inevitable no consensus and subsequent merge proposal. I interpret this as a speedy no consensus, but with clear consensus against deletion (or something along those lines). Maybe nonstandard, but probably the most efficient way forward. (Disclosure: I participated and support[ed] merging). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Close looks fine to me. It obviously wasn't going to be deleted, and a merge discussion is best held at the appropriate talk page(s) rather than at AfD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Ymblanter's close wasn't incorrect (the outcome would not be delete), but it also wasn't optimal. Why split a discussion off to the talk page after over a dozen people have already weighed in on it? At that point, the discussion should be allowed to continue at its present location. No point in reverting the close, since moving the discussion again would be just as bad, but I'd recommend letting such discussions play out to their conclusion in the future. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  Well, actually, there is a difference. Whereas AfD discussions should be closed within a week (or, in some cases, relisted), merge discussions are allowed to run until consensus (or its absence) is clear, which in this case could be well much longer than a week. Additionally, as already discussed above, keep AfD votes could mean both not delete and not move, whereas a move discussion is unambiguous in this sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• The lack of delete !votes (or, rather, rationales) at AFD results in non-delete. However, keep and merge !votes do not necessarily equate to any action. A merge result at AFD does not mean the article has to be merged. Interested editors should try a non-controversial move, and if there is opposition, then a full merge discussion should be held. It's that simple.--v/r - TP 14:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• I have said before and will say again here, that when a merge is proposed at an AfD it should be a requirement to include a notification on the talk page of the target of the merge, something that did not happen in this case. Otherwise we risk a problematic situation in which the AfD participants think they have a consensus for including the merged material in the article, the regular article editors have no such consensus and may strongly disagree, and the outcome of the debate becomes a deletion (because the merge is reverted) when that was not its consensus anywhere. Fortunately the keep decision avoided that problem this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor Imma redbull04 moved their talk page

Moved from WT:AN

Imma redbull04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) move their talk page to 7XzEC4c9NWB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Apparently an attempt to hide past history? Jim1138 (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Jim1138, it was a global rename request. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: After they moved it twice and a page move lock by me. I didn't know this was here - just had their talk page on my watchlist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, missed the second move. I've shifted this to WP:AN as it probably should go there. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Article deletion

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

---

• I had created article Phoebe Lin · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] and just few minutes it goes live it was deleted by an admin Anthony Appleyard. I was not even given time to actually add sources to the page which was unfair. I request a undeletion of the page so that it can be added sources and be in wikipedias mainspace --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 10:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Tiven2240: I have undeleted Phoebe Lin. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Tiven2240: in future: 1) please don't create unsourced BLPs 2) please discuss with the deleting admin before coming to the admin noticeboard. Both of those are basic and you should know better. GiantSnowman 10:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tiven2240:If it is awkward to create the references in exactly the same edit as the text, then start the article in draft space or in a user sub-page and work on it until it is ready, then move to mainspace. An article in mainspace must be compliant with basic requirements the instant it is created. A decade ago, standards were looser, but there is no need today to allow unreferenced articles in mainspace.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Thanks for undeletion and please don't be so quick enough to delete speedy deletion nominated articles atleast give let the Creator get time to overcome it's shortcomings. @GiantSnowman: thanks for your advice I'll surely follow the same. The thing made me here as another administrator pinged the deleting admin on the WP:UND#Phoebe Lin but there was no response. @Sphilbrick: I have now added sources to the article at every place needed. You may check out the current version of the article --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 13:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tiven2240:Unfortunately, it sounds like you missed the point, as you have remonstrated against Anthony Appleyard for deleting too quickly. It was not deleted too quickly.In retrospect, my statement that it was not deleted too quickly was a conflation of my view of best practices, with official policy. I regret the error. Please make sure to follow best practices if you undertake to create another article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: thank you for your comments. I hope the issue is resolved and thus shall be closed --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 13:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hold on Is everyone here serious? Why are we slamming Tiven2240 (talk · contribs) for an unreferenced BLP when WP:BLPPROD has a 7-day grace period? This article didn't qualify for CSD A7 in the first place. The article contained an assertion of importance. @Anthony Appleyard and Skamecrazy123: could you both explain why this article was tagged and then deleted as A7 when it is not a candidate?--v/r - TP 14:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Hold, per TParis. @Sphilbrick: Re: "An article in mainspace must be compliant with basic requirements the instant it is created." Is that actually the case, now? I'm trying to find supporting policy and discussions, but I'm drawing a blank. Attack pages certainly have long been eligible for (and richly deserving of) immediate deletion, but when did we start immediately deleting unsourced but otherwise innocuous bios? (I don't mind if that is the current standard and process, but I'd like to know what ground I'm standing on.) When an editor does create such a page in mainspace, wouldn't it be better to move it (or offer to move it) to Draft: if it can't be immediately repaired, instead of kicking them in the shins? Deleting a good-faith, non-attack article within three minutes of its creation seems rather harsh, and unlikely to encourage editors to build content.
  @Skamecrazy123:As an aside, that article certainly wasn't an A7 at the time it was created, as it did contain an assertion of notability (listing three films in which the actress appeared). Skamecrazy123 should review the usage of the A7 template and criteria before applying it to additional articles, especially when doing so on an article only one minute old. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• No, that's not the case. The article was tagged incorrectly and deleted incorrectly. BLPPROD tagging would have been the correct (if hasty) process. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to turn it on its head and say that we have a number of requirements for articles in mainspace and I don't recall seeing specify grace periods but let's just treat my statement is my personal opinion. Given that an article in mainspace, as soon as it is patrolled (which is an exceedingly low level of review) Is indexed and appears in Google searches often within minutes, it ought to be our best practices that we take steps to make sure that such articles aren't spoofs, hoaxes, alternative facts, fake news or other problems that I'll jump up and bite us. There's only so much we can do, and obviously, some things will slip through, but given the extreme ease of creating articles in draft space, and moving them to mainspace when they are ready, I think we should take a more aggressive stance against inexperienced editors who start out in mainspace. There's almost no upside and there is potential downside to allowing this.

Regarding the specific example, I concur that a better approach would have been to move it to draft space, but I argue that an even better approach is that these things should be started in draft space.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPPROD: "If the biography remains unsourced after seven days, the biography may be deleted."--v/r - TP 14:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should not have been speedied and BLPPROD was the way to go. Now regular PROD or AFD. GiantSnowman 14:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

BLPPROD might be an acceptable option but I'll argue it is not the best practices option. As someone who is active in OTRS, so I see Wikipedia through the eyes of readers, a BLP prod template (actually almost any template) is seen as a badge of shame. We may argue, as I have argued that it shouldn't be viewed that negatively but that doesn't change a widespread perception that it is a badge of shame. Many people write in about articles in draft space, but their queries are invariably related to Google searches — I don't ever recall a single person identifying it as a badge of shame. For that reason, as well as the obvious, I think draft versions of articles should be created in draft space not mainspace.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Your feelings, and your representation of the feelings of article subjects, are valid. But they aren't codified in policy. This wasn't a CSD A7 candidate. CSD was misused. BLPProd or AFD were the only recourse for deletion. But a Draft space move would've been an awesome idea too. Any of these ideas but CSD would've worked here. I don't think your feelings are contradictory to the statement that CSD is inappropriate.--v/r - TP 15:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

BLPPROD is the policy based option. A7 speedy was not. If you want to get rid of BLPPROD and replace it with "move to draft space" I think I'd support that but that needs to have community consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

(outdent) Would temporary marking of embryonic BLPs with a "noindex" tag be a sensible approach to take in these cases? I think it might, as long as someone remembered to take of the tag once the article is further developed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, unpatrolled articles are noindexed for 30 days. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not realize that, although I see now that it's mentioned here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I think the core issue still exists. Someone slaps a BLPPROD tag on an article and marks it as patrolled (as they're supposed to do). NOINDEX disappears and an unsourced BLP appears in search engines' listings. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

BLP Prod is no indexed too.--v/r - TP 15:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Tiven2240 is still a relatively new editor and GiantSnowman and Sphilbrick should not have used such aggressive language towards him. He was raising a perfectly valid concern. This snarkiness and plain nastiness is exactly why Wikipedia loses constructive editors. CSD is being routinely abused and over-used by admins. WP:A7 is for articles that "do not indicate why its subject is important or significant...The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". A7 was meant for cases like John Smith the local plumber not actresses who have been nominated for awards at international film festivals. To paraphrase GiantSnowman this is basic and you should know better. Sphilbrick has literally taken to making up policy and misleading a new editor by stating "An article in mainspace must be compliant with basic requirements the instant it is created". AusLondonder (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: Aggressive language??? I provided some useful advice, for which I was thanked. I agree my personal opinion, which I think should be policy, is a personal opinion, but empirical evidence suggests that many patrollers act like it is policy. I fully agree we need to do a better job of communicating with editors. Telling them that anyone can create an article is bad advice, and in my opinion (not policy) this is one of the reasons many editors give up on Wikipedia. We are giving them bad advice. The opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Your first article says "Jump in! Be Bold." Possibly the worst advice ever delivered.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The language used was not aggressive. If one is told what one can do better, that in itself does not aggression make. It is a good practice to inform people how to stave off deletion for their article creations. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: I think by this point, we all get it. The A7 issue has been sorted, Sphilbrick and I discussed the issue to death, and OP is satisfied. I think we're done here. @Drmies: Perhaps an uninvolved editor like yourself could close this thread for good measure?--v/r - TP 15:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@TParis:--do you want words of wisdom to go along with that close? Drmies (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll trust your judgement.--v/r - TP 17:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

To summarize, then...

• Ideally, new articles – especially BLPs – should be created in the Draft: namespace and should stay there until they're properly sourced and ready to go 'live'. But if they're not...
• New articles that haven't been marked patrolled are NOINDEXed automatically and will not appear in (for example) Google search results. Don't panic!
• Articles with a {{blp-prod}} template are also NOINDEXed, and will not appear in Google search results. Don't panic!
• Since articles that haven't been patrolled, or which have been patrolled but carry a {{blp-prod}} template, aren't indexed by search engines, we aren't protecting anyone by deleting these pages within minutes of creation. Unless such articles clearly meet one of CSD criteria, neither Wikipedia policy nor community expectations support such rapid and out-of-process deletions.
• You can consider moving the article into the Draft: namespace. If you go this route, be sure to notify the article's creator of what you've done in a polite and courteous way.
• Remember that we want to help good-faith contributors to do a better job, not frighten them off. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This should be an essay.--v/r - TP 16:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that new unpatrolled articles are only invisible to search engines for the first 30 days, and they they become visible. Our current new page review backlog is over 20K articles and is roughly 6 months long, see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Backlog 20,425.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • This article shows up on the first page of a Google search on the topic. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
      • That because someone FUBAR'd the process resulting in a patrolled article without a BLP PROD tag. Process is important.--v/r - TP 19:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Admin's failure to respond

• @Anthony Appleyard: has failed to respond to the inquiry about their deletion of an article that didn't qualify per CSD as required by WP:ADMINACCT and they've have 8 edits since I pinged them.--v/r - TP 21:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Would not the undeletion (as noted by Anthony at 10:19, 1 May 2017 above) be a sufficient response? I would definitely understand that if Anthony refused to undelete and did not elaborate, that's a problem, but as an implicitly read in the reply to the OP above, seems that Anthony recognized it as a mistake? --MASEM (t) 21:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. But, if this happens again, how does authority distinguish between (1) deliberate refusal and (2) him being perforce away from his internet link for a few days? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Am I missing something? The admin restored the article 8 minutes after the request. That's incredibly responsive, and removed any issue about urgency. We are now debating best practices but that can be done leisurely.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • You are missing something. We're not discussing best practices. We're discussing tool misuse in violation of policy.--v/r - TP 22:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Get a grip, TP. A hard-working admin made a simple mistake with an admin action and rectified it within minutes of being notified. And now we're getting some sort of "burn him" witch-hunt? Seriously, just listen to yourself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hey, perhaps we could resurrect WP:NEWT and really piss everyone off again. That'd be a great idea. Yeah OK, no it wouldn't. Having said that, this wasn't an A7, but no harm done. Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: He hasn't at all acknowledged, even once, that the A7 deletion was improper. All I want to know is that it won't happen again. No stakes or flames necessary.--v/r - TP 23:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• With the amount of work Anthony does in this area, it's probably going to happen again at some point in the future. But I bet he'll be taking an extra couple seconds beyond whatever he spends now to think before pushing the delete button. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• I concur with the idea that AA's quick undeletion was sufficient response to this incident, and nothing further needs to be said by him about it. This is not the Jondel case, there is no reason to think that Anthony isn't now suitably educated on this subject, so WP:AGF is the proper operative mode. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• TParis is right most of the time, but not on this occasion. An article restoration was requested, and done, in a quick and efficient way. We don't need an overt statement of apology or correction; absent reasonable evidence of an ongoing problem, the restoration on request is sufficient to wrap this up and move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed. Anthony is one of our hardest-working admins, and even the very best will make a CSD mistake now and then - I certainly have, and I doubt there's an admin working CSD who hasn't. Quickly rectifying a mistake and then getting back to building our encyclopedia is the correct way to address it, not whipping up a shitstorm over it because an admin has dared not to be perfect. This sort of overreaction is exactly the kind of thing that drives our hard-working contributors to stress and leads to quits, and any editors or admins who have themselves ever quit through stress and/or frustration should understand that. As for "He hasn't at all acknowledged, even once, that the A7 deletion was improper" - of course he's acknowledged it, by restoring it! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is funny. No one says a word when Sphilbrick scolds OP, who was right, but the moment someone holds an admin to any level of scrutiny, the bandwagons get circled.--v/r - TP 12:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well hold on, that's not fair either. I know I said lots of words. And I wasn't the only one. And I know that I personally learned (or was reminded of) a fair bit of useful and relevant technical details regarding now NOINDEX is implemented for new and/or deletion-templated articles. I hope and expect that Sphilbrick has also learned from the discussion. I don't see any constructive purpose to demanding he come here and self-flagellate, but I do expect that he has taken this information and criticism on board, and will respect the community's established policies in this area going forward. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:RFC/N opened on admin formerly known as ^demon

I have opened a WP:RFC/N on another administrator, User:😂. I think this matter has extra considerations related to the expectations of administrators . Do avoid a discussion fork, please comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#.25F0.259F.2598.2582_.28.F0.9F.98.82.29_.28formerly_.5Edemon.29 in regards to the specific instance. A more general conversation may be warranted as well. The last community discussion I can find related to these types of usernames mostly died out at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_151#Emoji_usernames Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to comment on that name then what about User:Lourdes's alt account? It is a heart emoji - maybe that could be brought up? For the record, I am in agreement with you that it is disruptive. Thanks, Patient Zero^talk 12:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Just as an update on the situation, the RFCN has been closed as "allow username". The advice for anyone objecting was to start a RFC to discuss the existence of all emoji usernames. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Vipul's paid editing enterprise, again

The Wikipedia community has had a lot of very trying and very lengthy discussions to try to deal with the paid, COI, POV, and meatpuppeting edits made by the pyramid-scheme consortium of paid editors that Vipul has brought to Wikipedia. (I'll try to list a few of the discussions later, for the uninitiated.)

My current point, however is that something very strange just occurred: Andrevan, a mostly absentee admin [133], has just unblocked Riceissa [134], who was indeffed per this discussion [135], without a single unblock request in sight. The request to unblock Riceissa was apparently made somewhere, somehow, off-wiki, by Ethanbas [136], another of Vipul's paid editors who is already under threat of a siteban for repeated extremely disruptive behavior. Pinging MER-C, Kudpung, Doc James, Bri, Jytdog, JzG, DGG, for review. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I unblocked Wikisanchez because I saw some productive edits in the past on healthcare related articles that I've edited and watch. I unblocked Riceissa after receiving an email from Ethanbas pointing out the parallel case. My understanding is that the block is in order only if we have undisclosed paid editing or promotional editing. If there has been some sort of Arbcom precedent or discussion of this, please point it out. I can't see how these blocks are valid under the current policy, but I am happy to rescind the unblock if someone can explain why an indef block for these cases is merited. Andrevan@ 02:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It also seems like User:Vipul himself is not blocked. The edits to Rockefeller Sanitary Commission, which I created, seem like good faith and productive changes. I'm not sure why User:Vipul decided to pay these users, but as long as they disclose their COI I think it is within the policy that they not be indef-blocked. Andrevan@ 02:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This was a community imposed block, as is very evident on the user's talkpage. A community imposed block cannot be undone without community discussion and consensus. Moreover, Ethanbas is a complicit editor in the Vipul paid-editing scheme, and under no circumstances should he have covertly emailed a sympathetic and largely absentee administrator with no understanding of the matter; this in my eyes is grounds for a siteban for Ethanbas, who has been under the threat of one for quite some time (discussions available upon request). Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, since when do we get banned for emailing? Ethanbas did not ask me to unblock Riceissa, but even if he had, is this what we're doing now? What policy is that under? Andrevan@ 02:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You have absolutely zero understanding of the entire affair, and you are indeed digging yourself in deeper with these self-justifications. Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: We have community imposed bans. Blocks are imposed by single admins. At least that's what policy says (i.e., there's no mention of community imposed blocks). Any uninvolved admin may review and unblock without consulting the community (again, according to Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking). That being said, it is a phenomenally bad idea to lift a block which came out of a community discussion without consulting anyone, especially the blocking admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That is fair @NeilN. Andrevan@ 04:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, there is no wording to that effect in the policy What the policy says is (emphasis mine):

Unblocking or shortening of a block is most common when a blocked user appeals a block. An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted. Common reasons include: the circumstances have changed, a commitment to change is given, the administrator was not fully familiar with the circumstances prior to blocking, or there was a clear mistake. See "Block reviews" below for additional steps to take.

[....]

Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

Administrators reviewing a block should consider that some historical context may not be immediately obvious. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: See the "should" and "recommended" in there? Nothing to support your assertion about "A community imposed block cannot be undone without community discussion and consensus." If you want that as policy, you need to write it in the policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Neil, if you are going to be a policy wonk, all of your statements need to be airtight and you need to actually quote the policy. There's nothing in the policy to this effect: "We have community imposed bans. Blocks are imposed by single admins. At least that's what policy says (i.e., there's no mention of community imposed blocks). Any uninvolved admin may review and unblock without consulting the community (again, according to Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking)", which you said above. Did I in my haste mistake a longstanding tradition and accepted best practice as policy? Yes. But when refuting things like that, please quote policy rather than making inferences and interpretations. I also think this is worth noting, in WP:CBAN: "In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'". Lastly, it's very common for the community to impose, by consensus, blocks of various lengths, and the enacting administrator who assesses consensus and performs the block is acting for the community, not as an individual agent. Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to mistake accepted best practice as policy, and represent it as policy, then I'm going to point it out as a mistake but agree with the core sentiment. And WP:CBAN did not apply (yet) as the community was not given a chance to discuss the unblock request and decline it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your final sentence, and I noted the section because, in my humble opinion, when it is the community itself which has enacted the original indef block (rather than it being a unilateral action by a single administrator), the same procedures should apply, and generally have applied as best practices. (Maybe I'm reading that wrong and maybe that section is referring to both kinds of original indefs -- both community-imposed indefs and admin-imposed indefs). Softlavender (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Holy cow that is awful on just about every level. Instigated in secret, no discussion with MER-C apparently, and done without even reviewing the extensive community discussions about the paid enterprise and Ricessa's role in it, nor the specific rationale for this block This is cowboy adminning of the worst kind. You have put your foot in it Andrevan, and I suggest you self-revert and back away from your defense, pronto. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• It seems that every once in a while I get accused of cowboy adminning, but I am simply following common sense. MER-C's block didn't include any diffs of a community indef block. I don't see where that would be either. You need to cite a policy that was violated, and the paid editing policy allows for disclosed paid editing, does it not? Andrevan@ 02:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The diff of the block does not have to include mention of the discusion when the editor's talkpage clearly does. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any diffs in the AN/I post of these editors introducing promotional or COI content. It's well within discretion to be overturned by an uninvolved admin. Folks can feel free to disagree. According to User:Vipul's user page he is no longer paying these meat puppets or whatever they are, so the original rationale of the ANI discussion would be invalid. At any rate, what axe is there to grind on fleshing out these articles about healthcare and malaria and stuff like that? I don't understand what the political goal is that these users are being accused of advancing. Andrevan@ 02:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"I don't understand" -- exactly; you do not understand; you made no effort to review, understand, inquire, or check with the blocking admin. Nor do you seem to understand policy about reversing community-imposed sanctions. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Andrevan, please consider your next post very carefully. Please take your time. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

For reference, this is the ANI discussion that lead to the initial block. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If another admin happening by upon review feels that my action was wrong, feel free to revert my action and there will be no hard feelings or sticks held. However, I don't intend to revert the action myself as I believe there was no good policy reason for indefblock here, and should have been scrutinized better to come up with policy violation-containing diffs. Andrevan@ 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's me, then--Andrevan, I have restored the block pending this discussion. I would have preferred it had MER-C included a diff, but this unblock was uncalled for. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

All of twelve minutes of considering. OK then. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Andrevan violated community consensus by unlocking Riceissa without at least contacting MER-C and giving him a reasonable time to respond. WP:Guide to appealing blocks If they are considering unblock, administrative etiquette requires they inform the blocking admin and allow an opportunity to comment. But I am trying to identify the specific policy that was violated in unblocking because it is a community imposed block. I see special exceptions for an WP:AEBLOCK or users banned by the community WP:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Banned_users, but I don't see any exception for users blocked by the community. Can someone point me to that? -Obsidi (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblock_requests wasn't followed in that a) Riciessa did not post an unblock notice so nobody was even aware that an unblock was under consideration, and b) As Andrevan noted above, they just glanced over some things and did not independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted. That's about it. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Andrevan, you stated above that "I unblocked Wikisanchez because I saw some productive edits in the past on healthcare related articles that I've edited and watch. I unblocked Riceissa after receiving an email from Ethanbas pointing out the parallel case." Your unblocks of Wikisanchez and Riceissa are less than three hours apart: [137]. Moreover, even if Ethanbas were watching Wikisanchez's talk page (odd in itself since they have not edited closely alongside each other [138]), that is a massively quick turnaround between a supposed email and the unblock of Riceissa -- another sign that you did no checking on this matter; you simply took Ethanbas's word for it that, like Wikisanchez, Riceissa had been blocked for "malaria" (as the edit summary of your bock says [139]). Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  I don't see why that series of events is suspicious. I unblocked Wikisanchez, then I received an email, then I unblocked Riceissa. I believe there was nothing improper about the email I received. It didn't ask me to unblock, it was merely pointing out pieces of the story that have been recounted here. I still haven't seen any bad diffs posted for either of these users. Andrevan@ 03:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've already posted the final warning Ethanbas received, which contains the diff to the discussion that led to it. The link to Riceissa's ANI discussion (which was merely the tip of the iceberg) has already been posted, and as we have repeatedly stressed here, this situation with both editors has an enormous back-history that you are ignorant of. Remaining determinedly ignorant and self-justifying in the face of several good-faith longterm experienced editors and admins who do know the background on this situation is very bad form. And it's not a good idea to take the word, in an email, of an editor who is seeking the unblock of a third editor and who is giving a completely incorrect rationale for the parallel, and then spouting that editor's incorrect rationale in your block edit summary (which makes it abundantly clear you merely took Ethanbas's word for it and made no attempt whatsoever at an actual review of the situation). Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's separate out Wikisanchez from Riceissa. The latter was blocked at ANI, the former was blocked unilaterally. Therefore, the latter unblock was wrong, the former wasn't (or at least, is borderline). Some weeks ago, I asked Wikisanchez if they wanted to appeal; and they said they didn't want to, at the time. They may have changed their mind; I don't know. It's better to talk to them first; they may not want to be run the AN gauntlet. It's not a pleasant experience. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethanbas -- proposal

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

---

Ethanbas, who has been by far the most egregiously disruptive and blatantly defiant of Vipul's editors, received a community-imposed and administrator-enacted final warning [140] on 26 February 2017 that he would be indefinitely blocked if he stepped out of line in any capacity. I feel this newest action more than meets and merits this sanction. Therefore I propose that Ethanbas be indef blocked.

• Support, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as there has been no diff offered of disruption or policy violation. Andrevan@ 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no diff, because the behavior was the surreptitious email to you, a sympathetic admin completely ignorant of the situation and of Ethanbas's egregious behaviors. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the policy you think this email violated exactly? Do you consider this WP:Canvasing, specifically WP:STEALTH? -Obsidi (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't be naive; sympathetic admins are pinged all the time on Wikipedia. It's the duty of the admin involved to familiarize themselves with the matter, not the person who pinged them. As I say in the section below, Andrevan should have taken more care before unblocking Riceissa. For Wikisanchez, their actions were more justifiable, though still not ideal. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• support that was pretty much a last straw for me as well, after all this mess. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, this is not how we operate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

*Comment I would like to note that under WP:Appealing a block#Other_methods_of_appeal it does say that In highly unusual cases, you may wish to utilize the dispute resolution process while you are still blocked. To do so, you may contact other Wikipedians by e-mail..., but I would want to know more as to why this is a "highly unusual case" that necessitated using email over the standard unblock request system. -Obsidi (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that it is, apparently, not the blocked editor who sent the email, the editor we are here discussing is another editor than the editor that got unblocked. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support a Site-Ban for the apparent end-run here. However, this case should be taken up by ArbCom to look into administrative misconduct and into whether special remedies are needed for systematic paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sending an email is not the same as making a disruptive comment on-wiki. That/if the other editor was unblocked incorrectly is not this user's fault. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethanbas has been instructed time and time again not to meatpuppet with the other Vipul editors, yet this was a blatant example. Moreover, it's apparent that he gave an admin a completely bogus rationale for the unblock, apparently claiming that Riceissa had been like Wikiscanchez merely doing productive editing on malaria articles. He knew very well that what he was doing was surreptitious, out-of-process, misleading, and in violation of his no-meatpuppeting restrictions. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can really go on speculation about the contents of an email that we have not seen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Ethanbas did nothing wrong. Sending an email is not something we need to ban people for. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly a deceitful route taken by Ethanbas to work around his/her restrictions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment/Question The unblock was a plainly bad idea for a variety of reasons, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable giving someone an indef block for sending--at worst--a misleading email. Has there been other disruption in addition to this event since they were giving their 'final warning?' Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there has been continued disruption and bad-faith activity from this editor since their final warning. This is really the final straw. Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Sending an email is, as pointed out above, no reason to ban or block someone. And, in general, I oppose WP:WITCHHUNTs. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I understand the annoyance here and the problems with this Vipul paid editing thing, sending an email is rarely a valid reason for an indef block (especially not one whose contents we haven't even seen). There might a last-straw action somewhere sometime, but I don't see enough evidence that this is it. Let's not forget that the actual fault here was the unilateral overturning of a community-imposed block without conducting a proper check. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. No policy appears to have been violated here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - To ban a user because of an email is an extreme action which I don't think we should take. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Quick note for those opposing saying "just an email" - Ethanbas was part of the whole Vipul enterprise and was one of the key benefitors of the pyramid scheme, having recruited several other high school kids to join. As a WP editor, they edited aggressively to defend other paid editors, edit warring per MEAT for example, and narrowly escaped an indef in the ANI. The paid enterprise itself was a mass advocacy exercise at minimum, adding inappropriate content advocating for libertarian causes and "effective altruism" and several editors strongly suspected SEO aspects as well. Ethanbas has since the ANI closed, been skulking around writing snarky things about the community's reaction to the paid editing enterprise. I have to run and cannot bring diffs for all this, but much of it has been documented at ANI and COIN. The stealth unblock request really is a "last straw" for me at least. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

And edits like this don't bode well. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose The onus was on the reviewing admin.--v/r - TP 14:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose No basis in policy for such a block. Sam Walton (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Ethanbas was warned against disruptive editing. Sending an email is not disruptive editing. As long as his emails weren't harassing or abusive, I see no reason why he should be blocked for this essentially off-wiki behavior (however inappropriate it might have been given the history). --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not seeing the policy violation. -Obsidi (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Andrevan

I formally propose a trout for Andrevan, with a warning that he or she should look a lot closer at the entire history of a stuation before unblocking based on a third party's request and explanation. There is such a thing as taking AGF too far, especially in the face of a community-imposed sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• I don't know what a formal trout means, but Andrevan should have taken care to talk to the blocking admin before unblocking. There was no urgency. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed. That said, not sure this subsection's going to do anything more than pile on criticism, which I'm not sure would be helpful. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as pointless. Is the AN thread itself not a sufficient trout?--v/r - TP 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Considering Andrevan's proposal below, no, this thread is not sufficient, and, in fact, considering the entirety of the thread, including their proposal, something even stronger than a trout may be required.
  I am, generally, quick to praise and support the actions of admins who do good work, and, similarly, I believe that those who screw up need to be told that they did so. Andrevan screwed up, without a doubt, but his behavior in this thread shows him as being extremely reluctant to admit that, and even less understandably, reticent to do the research necessary to understand why they screwed up, despite their being given the necessary links. Their attitude is defensive and their behavior battlegroundy and retaliatory. A trout is the absolute minimum that should be considered. (And a "formal trout" is simply a trout that is not issued by a single editor, but is the result of a community decision.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Whatever, but I'm fairly astonished that an experienced admin - a bureaucrat no less - thinks it's OK to undo a community-agreed block without either investigating the situation or even informing the blocking admin. Pretty shoddy work, that, especially as they still don't seem to understand what they've done wrong. Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. As administrators, we are called upon to use our individual judgment in a wide array of situations. There is nothing so beyond the pale in an administrator determining a heretofore blocked editor to prospectively be a net positive for the project if unblocked that is requires any trouting beyond the usual community review. That said, I get emails from time to time asking me to take administrative (or editorial) action, and I typically respond, if at all, by asking the editor to make the request on my talk page. For a blocked editor, I suppose I would ask that they ping me from their own talk page. I recommend this to any admin receiving requests by email. bd2412 T 02:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Vipul-related editor general sanction

• I propose that any admin may enact a community sanctioned block, in the style of AE sanctions, on any editor under Vipul's enterprise if that editor's edits reflect advocacy in contravention to Wikipedia's purpose. Those editors may only be unblocked by community discussion at WP:AN.--v/r - TP 14:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this TParis. I support this. After the COIN thread and its escalation to ANI, I had contemplated doing an RfC to get more definitive community response but my ~sense~ was that the community was sick of dealing with the matter so I didn't. This would be a reasonable way to handle the matter. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there one convenient place where anyone who wants it can get the backstory on this overall situation? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad, the big one is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 113. Pour yourself a cup of coffee first. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

El_C had included a bunch of links to other discussions in the close of that COIN thread; I just updated them as everything has been archived. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's something that I'm confused about. I understand that these editors were being paid. Nobody, as far as I can tell, has yet been able to show me a diff that these editors were engaged in paid advocacy. My review of their contributions was that they were making good faith, informational edits, not padding the resume or credibility of a specific person or cause. Frankly I don't understand what they were being paid to do, but it seems they were mostly making productive content contributions. Can anyone offer any diffs of actual advocacy? Andrevan@ 20:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the many threads about this or actually looked at their edits, even now, after you caused all this drama. But I will spoonfeed you like you are a newbie. Have a look at this or pretty much any of these. And that is just one topic they worked on. Vipul actually has a page where he explained the whole enterprise and its goals. Please go read before you write here more. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No, please give me diffs, since you still haven't. Andrevan@ 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I gave you a link to an old version of an article they built. Here i will give it to you again: have a look at this. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking for a diff that shows edits which push a POV. GiveWell is a notable organization. I don't see the problem here. Andrevan@ 21:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No, we're not going to make everyone rehash the same old conversations. You can read the discussions that already happened.--v/r - TP 22:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I did read the conversation, and I did not see the diffs I was asking for. Would you like to offer any evidence or merely beat me with a rhetorical bludgeon? Andrevan@ 23:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is this provision necessary? "Advocacy" as a criterion is so broad as to be meaningless. Not to mention that Vipul has suspended their operations indefinitely, so there's no "enterprise" to speak of. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That's kind of valid. The locus is effective altruism, libertarianism, and silicon valley, and the advocacy mostly manifested in hijacking Wikipedia pages to turn them into webhosts, cited mostly from EA or company websites or blogs, with hyperfine detail about exactly who gave what to who, when, and why, and what some blogger in that universe thought about it, and what some other blogger in that universe thought about that, and WOW aren't we all fucking amazing such that every time we fart it should get written up in Wikipedia. And edit warring in MEAT fashion to maintain all that. It is a pretty clear locus. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason I said "yes thanks" is that we never really came to a resolution as a community about Vipul's enterprise (not sure what else to call it, sorry if that term bothers you). I have no idea if Vipul intends to start it up again and there have been a few ANIs that have broken out as clean up has gone on. The kind of measure proposed by TParis might help.... Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's so obvious and clear where are the diffs? Andrevan@ 21:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not responding to you any further and your demand that the community recapitulate the work it already did is beyond the pale, especially when you should have reviewed all this before you unblocked Riciessa. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, fine, but the record shows I asked for diffs to support your allegations of meatpuppetry, etc and you provided none. Andrevan@ 21:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

My really last reply. For the record, you have now made it very clear that you did not review the already extensively documented record of all of this. There are about six diffs now showing that lack of diligence clearly. You deserve much more than a trout. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I don't understand your comments at all. The proposal as written is meaningless because the enterprise no longer exists; Vipul has suspended operations. Is the measure supposed to handle old articles? If so, the measure as written is useless. You are correct that there was no consensus in the ANI discussion, perhaps because it covered so many topics. But the solution to that problem is not to have an AE-style remedy without having an ArbCom case. You are free to think that the articles created were crap, but plenty of them survived CSDs and AfDs; I've been involved in a few of these discussions myself. The Vipul enterprise was not a secret; indeed it was unusually transparent. I have mentioned it myself on Wikipediocracy and other sites; and last September Doc James was interested in their model of paid editing. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I was and am intrigued by the model of someone paying others to edit. The thing was very transparent in some ways and in some ways that were admirable. There were some significant problems with the execution which fatally flawed it. I don't know that here is the place to go into all of that, but as brief as I can make it..

1. they didn't give everybody a heads up and get consensus ahead of time anywhere, which is generally best practice when you intend to do something big like this, and especially something that might be controversial
2. the mission was unclear, mashing together stuff that is obviously public good-ish like public health in the developing world, to profiling EA organizations, to profiling tech companies, executives, and VCs. the further you go along that list the more spammy/"classic paid editing" the articles looked
3. Vipul hired a bunch of high school/young college kids who didn't edit or behave very well; a lot of the editing was poor
4. They didn't disclose at the article level, and they didn't put their stuff through peer review
5. They were all fired up with effective altruism zeal, and the advocacy shows up in edits and behavior
6. Vipul's day job at a big data SEO company and the pay-per-click model that the enterprise used, combined with high-schoolers' poor sourcing judgement and immersion in the EA bubble of blogs, led to tons of low quality refs being cited... and all that adds up to something that smells a lot like on-wiki SEO work to many people (I am not sure, but some are very sure). And please recall that the thing Riciessa did that got them blocked, was putting badly sourced stuff that had been removed from article space, into his userspace, and tagging it for indexing which really smells of SEO.

But the problem(s) that Tparis' suggestions solves are a) some of the paid advocates are still around, and are still advocates, and b) the enterprise might come back, and c), effective altruism is a topic of low level disruption that flares sometimes, and I am worried about more as I get back to cleaning up after Vipul's folks. Mostly (ac). Like the stuff that kicked off this thread. I would not be at all surprised if the suggestion does not gain consensus. DS without an arbcom case would be something.. novel. Probably too novel. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC) (redact per great question below Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC))

What is the evidence for (a)? And if Vipul is not paying them, why should he be responsible for their actions? Any why should any of the people in this arbitrary group be responsible for the actions of anyone else in this group? What is wrong with the normal procedure of bringing these "advocates" to ANI and sanctioning them, if they have indeed done anything wrong? As for (b), firstly one can cross the bridge when one comes to it. Secondly, there needs to be a determination that what Vipul did was wrong and deserves sanctions. There has been exactly one sanction about this mess: Riceissa (if we leave aside Wikisanchez). In my opinion, Riceissa committed suicide by admin due to frustration more than anything else, because they were obviously not going to get anything done. I have no proof of this, but this is my impression from what I know about the case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions, KingsIndian. Have redacted. Ethanbas is really the only active one, and as noted he has mostly been grumbling on the edges of things. Vipul is quiet per his contribs. So I have no good answer for (a) and have struck. I should have thought more carefully before I wrote. My concern is c mostly and b a little. About c, like other groups that have active online communities, effective altruism folks have been a source of ~some~ disruption. Last April there was some ruckus off-wiki that led to this, which re-flared in October (see here, and of course Vipul's thing started in Jan 2015 but just blew up the joint a month ago. And as noted elsewhere the efforts to clean up after Vipul's folks has already lead to 3 ANI threads, I think, from AE folks who were already around... some of them I think drawn by off-wiki discussion of this stuff? And there is much more cleanup to go. That is my actual concern. Had an initial minor blow up at Giving What We Can that ended up working out nicely, but then bled over into Memphis Meats which blew up in its special (in the Tolstoy) sense way, and at that point I paused my efforts at cleanup to let uproar die down, in part because I was kind of burned out of it and my sense was that the community was sick of it. I am trying to get to back to resuming the cleanup, and TParis's suggestion just sounded attractive in the face of what I fear. That's where I am coming from. but I totally hear you in your procedural objection to to the motion. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support, and also support a no-meatpuppeting restriction for the entire group. The group as a whole tends to meatpuppet -- supporting each other in AfDs, edit wars, noticeboard discussions, and talkpage discussions. It's bad enough to have undisclosed advocacy and unclear/murky paid editing; it's even worse when there is an entire pyramid-scheme group doing each other's dirty work without disclosing their connection to each other. We've warned them about this time and time again. Ethanbas's entirely misleading email to Andrevan on behalf of Riceissa was another egregious example. I propose the individual editors in the group may not edit on the same article, talkpage, or discussions of any other of the group, nor advocate for each other in any way. Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blocks are not punitive. Paid editing seems to be at the very least paused, anyway, due to community outcry. Users should be evaluated on the specific effects of their contributions and not prejudged based on what movement they belong to. Specific diffs of harm being caused have not been offered to defend such a block. Andrevan@ 22:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Provide diffs, do not cast ASPERSIONS on users without evidence

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Users discussed above should be unblocked due to WP:AGF until diffs of their malfeasance are provided by the individuals seeking they be blocked. These diffs should explain why the user had violated a Wikipedia policy. Support: Andrevan@ 21:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Please provide diffs of editors casting aspersions like you've just done.--v/r - TP 22:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC) I am not asking for an editor to be blocked, I am asking for editors to be UNblocked. Andrevan@ 22:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Strong Support People really need to provide extensive diffs as a function of the seriousness of the charges they make. It is rare that we can error by having too much evidence.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Comment - This section is merely a diversion from more pressing matters. Andrevan created this "proposal" because he refused to research the background of this issue before unblocking, as Jytdog pointed out to him/her several times already.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Well yeah, point. And not just diversionary, but certainly able to be considered retaliatory. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 23:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Far from it, I'm asking for a single reason why this punitive block should stand. I seek no retaliation. Andrevan@ 23:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC) No one is required to spoon feed every single person that asks for the entire issue to be debated again. You can read the history. Short of that, you're admitting to being reckless with the bit.--v/r - TP 00:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Like I keep saying, I don't see an argument there or any diffs there to advocacy-pushing. Feel free to point out a single one. "Admitting to being reckless with the bit?" Drop the stick, dude. Andrevan@ 00:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC) There is an open admission of advocacy on that page. So, I'm really not buying that you've actually read it. And no sticks are being held. You've refused to read the links given that provide the history which explains clearly why your action was undone. I don't care one way or the other, we buried our hatchet a year ago. But no one here has to justify an admin action, you do. And you've failed to acknowledge you acted hastily. In fact, you've doubled down and now have gone on the offensive.--v/r - TP 00:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC) I'm asking what is the justification to continue blocking this user. I already allowed my unblock to be reverted per WP:BRD, so I'm not doubling down at all. I'm asking for a single good reason to keep this punitive block in place. I have read the link you are offering, and it does not offer the argument that you say it does. Andrevan@ 01:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Let me come at the issue from a different angle. I'll concentrate on the Riceissa case. Andrevan's unblock has already been reversed, so there's no issue there. Andrevan wants evidence of problems with Riceissa, for which they were indeffed. See this ANI for the proximate reason, though there are other reports scattered around in this section. Andrevan is free to disagree with the result of the ANI (I am not happy with the ANI result myself, the primary reason being that the ANI report was open for less than a day); but the sanction was carried out after a community discussion. In addition, one should consider that paid editing is controversial within the WP editor population. With this background, perhaps Andrevan can appreciate that their unblocking was hasty, and shouldn't have been done without consultation or familiarization with the background. What's the use of a community sanction if any admin can come along and reverse it on their own say-so? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC) I think you've summed it up fairly.--v/r - TP 01:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Sure, me too. Andrevan@ 02:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Can someone clarify for me what "aspersions" are being referred to? Please provide diffs. In terms of the currently blocked editor, that editor is welcome to avail themselves of Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Alternatively, anyone is welcome to file an official Block Review here at AN or at ANI. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Oppose as non-serious, retaliatory, and battlegroundish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Oppose, retaliatory. One of the users you unblocked unilaterally was blocked because of an AN/I thread (User_talk:Riceissa#ANI). You are not to overrule that by just deciding that you do not agree with the community support for the block. If you disagree, you bring it to the community, address their concerns and let the community override (if that is then the decision). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Oppose--This is plain retaliatory.Kind of NOTGETTINGIT behavior.Pretty sad to see an admin cum bureaucrat continuing with these type of pathetic monkey-business, instead of admitting his/her mistake and giving in to the fact that it was a horrible un-block--as told by a magnitude of editors and admins.Winged Blades Godric 09:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion

Please see WP:VP/Pr#Unblocking after community-imposed block. To my surprise, undoing a community-imposed block isn't addressed in the blocking policy, so I'm proposing that we add a piece that addresses the subject. Please add your opinions there. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Nyttend. I found that surprising too--I have always acted and advised as if that's policy; it seemed common sense to me. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies: My understanding comes from a close at ANI where a senior admin pointed out blocks come from a single admin, bans come from the community. I'll have to trawl through the last two years of archives to find it but technically it seemed they were right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocks, in general, for cases that aren't clear vandalism/policy violation or based on ArbCom sanction, are reversible. A community ban didn't always exist, and it should be regarded as a last resort in a case of serious behavioral issues and/or disruption, not given on a whim. You can say that I jumped the gun to unblock without raising a discussion or contacting the blocking admin, but we have policies of boldness and of admin autonomy to conduct block reviews (and make/adjust blocks). As part of that autonomy, you as an admin have reversed my bold action, which is also fine. Now we have a discussion to hash it out. I don't really understand why the "effective altruism" movement decided to start paying Wikipedia contributors, but if they are as their name suggests, being altruistic by making good faith edits AND disclosing their "paid editing" scheme, I don't see that as prima facie basis for blocking. Andrevan@ 22:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I have no horse in this race, but I feel moved to counter this nonsense that Andrevan in any way overstepped his authority; he did not. If admins have the authority to unilaterally indef block editors, then they damn well have the same authority to unblock. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

DracoEssentialis's user rights

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

---

Greetings. I've seen that this user User:DracoEssentialis has many user rights, but it blocked with an expiration time of indefinite. So I just wanted to let you sysops know in case they should be removed. --SimmeD (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No, we normally don't remove user rights from indef-blocked users, simply because they won't be able to use those rights unless the block is removed, in which case it should be fine for them to use those rights. Doesn't apply to admins, of course (we have the ability to unblock ourselves), because we'd be desysopped if we were indef-blocked for bad behavior. Nyttend (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason I ask is because I was an sysop remove all rights when a suckpoppet got blocked, so I was thinking the same rules was applied here. --SimmeD (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is a different question, since there the user quite likely got the rights through a violation of SOCK. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Rights are dependent on the behavior behind the reason for the block. If the behavior would indicate a problem with the rights if they are unblocked then they probably would be removed. ~ GB fan 12:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Needing more than one to close RfC discussion at WT:V

The discussion "Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Recent changes to policy about verifiability as a reason for inclusion" started in April. Then the discussion got larger and larger, making the discussion very complex. I discussed it with the proposer S Marshall, who says that several closers are needed. I welcome at least two volunteers. --George Ho (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho:--I am willing to serve as a closer.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Godric, and I welcome that. I also need another or more closers for teamwork closure. --George Ho (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I created the subsection Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#How to best close this discussion? for team closers to discuss preparing the closure. --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Shneur Odze one long BLP violation

It's quite possible that nobody cares, but the recently created Shneur Odze article spends much of its word count talking about recent scandals and the subject's perceived faults, sourced to a variety of poor quality sources including Breitbart, the Sunday Express and the Daily Mail among others. It could be a speedy deletion candidate. (1)AnotherNewAccount (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shneur_Odze Govindaharihari (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Introducing the Community health initiative on Wikipedia

Community health initiative

Helping the Wikimedia volunteer community to reduce the level of harassment and disruptive behavior on our projects.

Hello! Today we'd like to introduce the new Community health initiative, the people who will be working on it, and most importantly how you can get involved. See the post at Village pump (miscellaneous), Cheers, Caroline, Sydney, & Trevor of the Anti-Harassment Tools team. (delivered by SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC))

• "This initiative addresses the major forms of harassment reported on the Wikimedia Foundation’s 2015 Harassment Survey" - I look forward to seeing how you deal with the revenge porn harrassment that is rife, RIFE I say on wikipedia. Or you could put that grant into funding the prosecution of identified banned users who constantly engage in harrassment of wikipedia editors, instead of feel-good initiatives based on faulty research. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Only in death Revenge porn is that bad of an issue here? I wasn't aware it was that prevalent. And I'll add that there need to be a way to limit the banned editors that have targeted specific editors for continued harassment, I agree. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• There's been all kinds of obnoxious and vengeful behaviour on Wikipedia but I hadn't heard of actual revenge porn being an issue. Hmm, I can think of some specific off-wiki incidents of some years back, but calling them revenge porn in the usual sense of the term is a stretch. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Take a look at the actual survey, it's results and the subsequent talk page discussions. Basically it was technically flawed which made all it's results suapect. One of the clear indicators being the unfeasibly high amount of revenge porn victims. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Followup: After looking at the VP post I'm pessimistic. While there are definitely some incidents of acute harassment, there's a more grinding problem of overbearing and bureaucratic behaviour ingrained in Wikipedia culture that is much harder to fix. It's like living in an oppressive police state punctuated by the occasional stabbing (or harassment). Occasional stabbings happen everywhere in the world but most of us don't live in fear of them. It's better to get rid of the police state and take one's chances with the stabbers, than the other way around. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)