Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Chicbyaccident continued editing issues

This editor has been a disruptive editor for quite some time. Every time I turn around, he's done something else problematic. The below are just examples - read the move logs. Some of this is old in terms of editing, but some changes I just found today, because no discussion was ever held on any of these edits. If proper editing behavior had been followed, I would not have had to find these routinely months later.

The key move, however, is this: he moved a pre-existing dab page that was six years old to another dab page [1] along with several related moves including a related cat on June 11, after being warned not to do so a week earlier. he fact that no one caught it doesn't mean it gets a pass. More evidence is collapsed below if needed.

More supporting evidence of the pattern of long-term, unilateral, undiscussed editing

Template:Infobox Grand Lodge - unilaterally moved longstanding template [2] Template:Freemasonry - unilaterally moved longstanding template [3] created Category:Masonic orders and moved everything from existing Category:Masonic organizations into it, then made the org cat a sub [4] - now at TfD moved Order of the Amaranth to Order of the Amaranth (freemasonry) for no reason - no other one exists. [5]. Had to request a move back, which was done. Created "Orientalist fraternalism" with no basis to do so - TfD is here Created an empty cat for another organization we didn't have an article on, TfD here [[6] - redirected the "sail types" template for no apparent reason other than caps; no reason was given. moved the category "Grand_Masters of orders of knighthood" to "Grand masters of dynastic orders of knighthood" [7], with no explanation of the need to disambiguate. This TfD is the result of Chic creating a template despite no consensus being gained to do so. Tried to merge Franciscans to a new page Franciscan orders in Protestantism, but was reverted [8] Unilaterally moved Template:Rosary to Template:The rosary sidebar [9] - as I've just found this, I've asked for it to be reverted. There was also a unilateral move of Template:The Rosary footer to Template:The rosary footer) eight hours after [10] rosary sidebar was moved to rosary footer.

Did editors discuss adequately? I think so:

• June 2015: Talk page discussion on a change was basically met with "go ahead and put it back if you want" [11]
• October 2015 ANI: I bruoght this to ANI, where it was classified as "content disagreement" [12]. Some of the material there I have provided here, but there are other items listed in there.
• November 2015 talk page discussion (by someone else) on CbA's page regarding an edit where Chic dropped 12 categories out of an article with this edit was also dismissed: [13]
• December 2015 ANI started by someone else about the unilateral moving [14] was dismissed.
• A discussion on talk in June 2016 was basically met with "I edit by BRD and you can fix what you want", [15]. As can be seen, that was when he was also finally warned to stop moving pages.

More telling is that there is very little discussion held between this editor and any other editors, period. The editor has no interest in collaborating with other editors; he simply wants to be left alone to do what he likes, and that would be fine...if the edits weren't a problem, if the user didn't expect others to clean up his mess, and if the same behavior wasn't ongoing despite multiple people saying otherwise. BRD is not an acceptable basis for moves of anything (or any other edits that require outside assistance to be fixed), nor is it acceptable when the moves and edits are spurious. The editor is not willing to edit collaboratively, has shown this over a long stretch of time, and clearly will not stop doing what he is doing without being made to do so. MSJapan (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

For someone who has been here 4 years, they should know better than to keep charging on ahead when other editors are raising objections. @Chicbyaccident: I suggest you make a statement here as this constant moving and being reverted is going to be seen as disruption. Blackmane (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. Sorry for any inconvenience occured in minority of edits. I hope you enjoyed all the rest! I am happy to try to help according to the best of my ability. Thanks for letting me know when and were perfection is possible! For the record, it would be refreshing to have this controversial user see any positive contribution in that of others for a change. Chicbyaccident (talk)

Honestly? I'm not seeing it. You make no major edits except to bulk change established categories and page titles to those of your choosing, and you do so without consensus or evidence to support it, like this: [16]. Why is this distinction important to a general reader? Why create a cat with four entries? You've effectively stripped almost everything out of the generic Category:Franciscan orders to make subcats like Category:Franciscan_Friars_of_the_Renewal and Category:Third Order of Saint Francis? This is only an example: here's the discussion where you were once again told to stop what you were doing, and others editors had to clean up the mess. This is what you do almost exclusively - I'm simply choosing not to paste your entire edit history in here to prove my point. This isn't positive contribution - it's you deciding on your own that your preferred method of organization is the one that everyone else needs to follow. Your user analysis is very telling - thousands of edits a month, and 6% on all talk pages combined. You're not here to collaborate with others - you're here to do what you want, and everyone else has to live with it. MSJapan (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Chicbyaccident - Thank you for responding and for taking the feedback so positively and in such a civil manner. Looking at your logs, it's clear that you do a lot of page moves. While many, I'm sure, have been good moves, it appears that many of your page moves and edits have been made without discussion and has caused some frustration with other editors. If a significant portion of your page moves are constantly being left for others to undo or fix (especially if a discussion wasn't had and one could have avoided creating that cleanup work, which is usually the case), this can be seen as disruptive to the project. I won't poke or pile on any thoughts about your far past; that's not fair to do. But ignoring objections and continuing to carry on as if they don't exist is problematic behavior. I highly recommend and encourage you to slow down a few notches, seek discussion and consensus with others in these areas first, and collaborate openly and constructively with others that disagree or have objections. Nobody is perfect; we are completely okay with mistakes. It's a normal part of learning. But when we don't make efforts to correct those mistakes, that is where the tolerance will typically end. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident, on Wikipedia we collaborate with other users. For a collaborative environment, it is also very important to hear what others are saying. While other editors might assume that your changes were done in good faith, it also important for you to demonstrate good faith. As a step forward, may I suggest that from now on, instead of moving pages yourself, you restrict yourself to requesting page moved (following the instructions on WP:RM#CM)? In addition, for changing long stable templates, you could inform the Wikiproject first (or discuss with editors who have previously contributed to the template)? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - it seems the editor in question is going to hide until the matter disappears, and that's not fair to the community. There has been no admission of wrongdoing by the editor despite the comments from others that there is a problem, and more importantly, no statement by the editor that the behavior will not recur, nor even a statement that the editor will actually collaborate with others in the future. MSJapan (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Damage done by declining AFC

I have previously complained to LaMona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) about her rejection of the draft A.T.M. Wilson at WP:Articles for creation on grounds of notability.[17] This was ignored.

More recently LaMona rejected Anthony Charles Robinson on grounds of notability.[18] The comment was:

• The references need to be about him, and substantially about him. Entries in lists do not support notability, nor do quotes nor short mentions. A number of the references do not support the text they follow. You should begin with the content of sources and create the article from that, rather than creating the article and then shoe-horning in references that don't have the same content.

There are 32 references in that declined draft; not all are for the purpose of establishing notability. Nevertheless, some are press articles about awards that Robinson received such as:

• Lifetime Contribution award for small business mentor Tony Robinson

Some are articles on Robinson from a national body, such as National Enterprise Network:

• National Enterprise Network gets behind #MicroBizMattersDay

Some contain a short interview with Robinson, such as this on the UK Government site:

• New investment for business mentors

There are entries in lists, such as his entry in the 2001 New Year Honours List, when he received the OBE "for services to Training and to Small Firms":

• Order of the British Empire

But anybody who complains that a reference to an Honours List doesn't imply notability really needs to get a grip on what WP:Notability means.

The stated purpose of AFC is to filter out drafts that probably won't survive a deletion debate. I do not believe that any experienced editor who reads the 32 references in that rejected draft would possibly conclude that Robinson is not notable.

I am now seriously concerned by the damage being done by LaMona to new editors who are producing acceptable articles that are being rejected on such unreasonable grounds. She maintains that she can hold back articles "until a higher quality is reached". That's not the purpose of AFC - it has never been the intention to place a single editor in a position to reject a draft because of their opinion on article quality. I believe that administrative action is needed to insist on her adhering to the purpose of AFC; or failing that, to topic ban her from the area of AFC altogether. --RexxS (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I have notified the AFC wikiproject, which IMO should be a first step in resolving this issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, this has been a somewhat systemic problem with AFC. The bar over there is often set extremely high, far higher than the new page patrollers patrol for or AFD deletes at. They do a good job of filtering out the COI and promotional submissions, but often fail to address the good articles properly. This case looks egregious, but it is coming from the AFC culture of declines and extreme standards. The culture there is the problem, and this is a symptom. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The bar should be higher than NPP. After NPP there is CSD, PROD and AFD to catch things. The goal of AFC is to have an article that never gets to that point. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The bar should be set at "probably likely to survive AfD", because that's precisely what AFC was created to do. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Mobile, so perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see notability. Other than the OBE it's the usual puffy Chamber-of-Trade awards. EEng 15:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (people): "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". It certainly looks like notability to me. Of course you could always take the the article to AfD, but I think you'll merely end up proving my point. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Just my two cents here. I do understand where the worry about AfC's coming from. There are systemic issues that need to be addressed, and it is my personal opinion there shouldn't be an AfC to begin with. Regarding these two particular articles, ATM Wilson does appear to pass WP:PROF without any major hurdles (especially taking into account he was an academic back in the 40s). AC Robinson, on the other hand, is one of over 100 thousand recipients of an OBE, the most minor of the honours in the system. Heck, my neighbour has an OBE just for being involved with my local British Society! This award is considered a personal one and is by no means a criterion for Wikipedia notability. Other awards are, such as the Medal of Honour or some knighthoods, so please do not use this as an argument for inclusion. The subject is a run-of-the-mill entrepreneur as far as I can tell, with the usual number of references amounting to "he worked for this" for so many years, or he "was a member of such and such organization" and "attended this round table" last year, etc. I would not have accepted this article either without requesting further claims of notability and their accompanying evidence. There simply isn't extensive coverage on independent and reliable sources about him, at least that I can find. Look at his website, for crying out loud! As it is, AfC reviewers make a choice: accept decent articles that meet general criteria, accept some and risk them being deleted at AfD or suggest improvements otherwise, or finally simply decline them cause their subjects have no place on Wikipedia. The lines are often fuzzy on which path is best to take and often times people will make completely different determinations based on their own interpretations of WP:GNG. This appears to be an isolated case and does not constitute widespread recklessness by said editor. They have made valuable contributions to the project and this has been dealt with in a particularly abrupt and aggressive manner. Always refer to the project and the user first before making a fuss on an admin board. Anyway, those are my quick thoughts about this after seeing the AfC notification by Sir Joseph. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the VAGUEWAVE paste-in of the general criteria everyone here knows. This isn't the place to debate notability, though I'll mention in passing that 500 OBEs (and 1700 other Queen's honors -- where does she find the time?) are awarded annually, so I doubt that's an automatic pass for notability, though again I could be Missing something. Given this, and the puffiness of the other sources, I can certainly see why notability was questioned at AfC, which was your complaint. EEng 18:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a better argument for passing by OBE than anything else in the list - the majority of it is fluff, and to speak to AFC, the idea is to keep out fluff pieces. I can clearly see how Robinson is borderline, so I fail to see any real issue with the decline there, although the article was created anyway, I would note. As for Wilson, there's not a single source on him from during his lifetime - everything in his bio is from his obituary, and everything else appears to be brief mentions in larger works. AFAIK, WP:BIO requires notability during life, and if that is not the case, WP:SIGCOV hasn't been met - his "famous paper" is mentioned in only one source, and there's no indication that there are any more than passing mentions anywhere else. Again, this appears to be just the sort of thing AFC is designed to prevent going live. So I fail to see an issue with either action. MSJapan (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. The user that's preoccupied seems to have been enchanted by a simple copy edit and all those lovely useless links. By the way, it's not the Queen that decides who gets the honours, she merely approves a premade list, I believe. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but she still has to do all the knighting and tying-on of ribbons and so on. They say she does a good job -- has a bit of conversation with each recipient showing that she actually knows something about what they've done -- "how are those potbellied pigs doing nowadays, Farmer Brown?" and so on. EEng 18:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan: WP:BIO certainly does not require notability during life, otherwise we'd have no article on Vincent van Gogh, or any number of people who came into the public eye only after their death. Wilson was FRCPsych, FBPsS and FRSA - that's WP:NACADEMIC #3 in the opening sentence. The fact that he also meets NACADEMIC #1, #2, #7, and arguably #5 is apparent from the sources. Wilson was also Hon Sec of the Royal Society of Medicine - just how eminent does someone have to be as an academic to satisfy you? --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We've already established he passes WP:PROF. At least I did on my first post above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The OBE contributes to establishing notability, but in my experience only the top three classes of the Order of the British Empire (GBE, KBE/DBE, and CBE) are considered to satisfy WP:ANYBIO; the lower OBE and MBE are not. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Three other experienced editors declined the draft when it had 24, 31, and 29 references, either for failing to demonstrate notability or for sounding like an advertisement, so LaMona is not alone in being concerned that the topic would more likely than not be deleted at AfD. The fact that after being accepted, it was promptly marked for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising by yet another experienced editor suggests that LaMona's concerns were reasonable. RexxS is welcome to encourage AfC reviewers to decline fewer drafts. Administrative action is not needed. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• I second those two comments by Worldbruce. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have noticed this same problem with LaMona setting the bar too high by declining articles that were clearly notable and well written William B. Taylor (historian) - indeed even articles written by a topic specialist with fine wikiknowledge (I dont know why the editor in question keeps using AFC). IN the particular instance she was implementing an extremely strict interpretation of WP:BLP stating that "we dont allow unsourced statements in BLPs" even when the staments were completely pedestrian and unlikely to be challenged (and could be easily sourced). I mentioned this concern at her talkpage[19]. This is a serious problem because it is the place where we should spend time recruiting and not time excluding- it is of extreme importance that users who participate in AFC are helpful, supportive and not overly critical.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Much ado about nothing - the obvious and simplest solution for an unsatisfactory review is the "Resubmit" button. There are multiple reviewers active at AFC. There's an "unwritten rule" that the same reviewer should not repeatedly review a draft - the agregate of multiple opinions is more likely to be unbiased and fair than any one reviewer. If a submitter is entirely unsatisfied with the reviews their draft is getting they are entitled to simply move the draft to mainspace, AFC is not compulsory. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The submitter had not even attempted to ask for advice or assistance at the AFC Help Desk. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"AFC is not compulsory" Honest question: do you think most AfC submitters really know that? My understanding is that a lot of them are there because they can't pass CSD, but now they've jumped from CSD to GNG, with most likely not understanding either. TimothyJosephWood 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I have every reason to believe that AFC submitters know that AFC is not compulsory. I may be mistaken, and there may be a few editors who do think that AFC is required, but I have no evidence to that effect. Many AFC submitters come in after already having had their first article draft speedy-deleted, and then resubmit it via AFC, and then it is declined rather than deleted. Yes, it is true that they come in because they can't pass CSD on the first pass. I agree with Worldbruce that there is no need for administrative action, and that the filing here should just be closed as ignored. The original poster didn't even try to discuss the decline with LaMona. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I have just as much reason to believe that most AFC submitters believe that AFC is compulsory, and a glance at LaMona's talk page will reveal numerous examples of submitters at their wits' end asking what they can do to have the article accepted. But that's not the concern that I brought here. I tried to discuss the same concern with LaMona just a few weeks ago and I was ignored. I'm now getting rather sick of the (Redacted) you're peddling, Robert McClenon. If I have a concern that is rebuffed, the next time that concern shows up, I'll escalate it, as I have done. I don't need cheap jibes from the peanut gallery when all I'm doing is following Wikipedia dispute resolution policy. --RexxS (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I take very strong exception to the personal attack by User:RexxS. I had not seen evidence of a conduct issue until now, although RexxS had sought to portray the issue as a conduct issue on the part of User:LaMona, and LaMona has complicated things by making it into an issue about sexism and systemic bias. There is now a conduct issue, namely, a personal attack against me accusing me of lying. What I can see now is that RexxS has gotten to the point where he appears to be ready to insult anyone who doesn't agree with him. At least that is how it looks. Accusing other editors of lying isn't a useful way to advance any valid concerns about AFC or about an AFC reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

As an addendum, the last post at the help desk was a response to the feedback of "This reads more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article". And...well...that's probably the least helpful that feedback can possibly be, especially to a new user. If there's an AGF multiplier, it should probably be the people going to AfC and trying to conform. TimothyJosephWood 00:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• When are we going to do something to really make people think twicethrice before opening ANI threads on minor issues??? EEng 20:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• When editors start responding to reasonable concerns in the first place - that was the same concern just a few weeks ago. Since we scrapped WP:RFC/U, this is the next step in dispute resolution for conduct issues. Have you got any bright ideas on how else to escalate DR when direct contact is ignored? I'm sure we'd all love to hear them. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Ask at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk
• Ask your friendly neighborhood admin to take a look

ANI should be the final step. EEng 21:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution #Resolving user conduct disputes: "the first step is to discuss the issue with that editor, politely, simply, yet directly, on his or her Talk page ... If discussion with the editor fails to resolve the issue, you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI)." In case you'd missed it, this is "Ask your friendly neighborhood admin to take a look". Wikiprojects have no place in user conduct disputes. Per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution #Last resort: Arbitration, I think you'll find that the final step is ArbCom. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Obviously that text is out of step with actual practice. And Arbcom isn't a step, it's a tumble into the abyss. You asked what you might do before coming here, and I answered. This isn't an admin issue. EEng 01:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Your assumption is that this is an administrative issue, when we've all pointed out it isn't. It's a difference of opinion between two editors. The reviewer in question hasn't broken any policies. There has been no vandalistic behaviour, nor should there be any aministrative action taken in consequence (or am I missing something?). Please AGF and engage in a positive manner. Common sense would've dictated a little nudge on the AfC talk page. Again, reviewing guidelines are a recurring topic on Wikipedia. I would also like to direct you to read up on AfC's reviewing process, which you seem unfamiliar with. Talking about this is worthwhile and should be pursued. We often engage in such debates. I agree with you that there should be a clear message about AfC not being binding nor compulsory. Finally, let's please wait for LaMona's response before passing on judgement. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think LaMona does a pretty good job and I wish some of the other AFC reviewers would do the same as well. Our work here is to improve the encyclopaedia and write good quality articles. The WP:BURDEN of demonstrating notability lies on the article creator, not on the reviewer. What's the harm if we get a good quality article from the start? AFC is a pretty good mechanism if used well. I have seen LaMona review a lot of articles created by editors with a COI/paid editors and many were rejected. If these articles were accepted without doing a strict check on the notability and article quality, it would simply clog up AFD and sometimes COIN. More importantly, volunteer editors would need to fix the issues (promotional content, removing non-RS sources etc.), a WP:BOGOF situation - volunteer time gets used by these articles leading to a systemic bias. It is much better solution to ensure good articles from the start. As far as I am aware, the same submission is usually never reviewed by the same editor again, so I don't see how it is problematic if an editor rejects a submission on valid grounds. The article creator can simply submit it for review again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Lemongirl942: "The harm" is that new editors get bitten and possibly frightened off in a forum where they are coming to get help and mentoring. We cannot afford to discourage new talent joining the community. See my comments below in the "back on track" subsection. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Lemongirl942, I suspect that you didn't mean to link to WP:BURDEN, since it does not mention notability at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Surely my opinion is worth but a pittance, but in my limited experience there will always be "edge-case" drafts that lead to disagreement. Anthony Charles Robinson appears to be one of them, and many editors have weighed in about the notability of the subject in this very thread. To be sure, I have not always agreed with LaMona's reviews, just as I'm sure she (or any other experienced editor, for that matter) would not agree with every single one of my AfC reviews. But this is why we discuss, refer to policy and guidelines, apply common sense and consult with knowledgeable third parties. In my opinion, there are often a range of reasonable alternatives open to AfC reviewers, and, as the revision history of the article in question suggests, LaMona's decline of Anthony Charles Robinson seems reasonable to me. /wiae /tlk 03:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• An OBE is significant in the UK and notable. I would be concerned there is some US centric positioning here. My real concern is that AfC is becoming a kind of preliminary good article step. It was never meant to be so. AfC is more of a collaborative situation where editors can if they want to have input into whether an article will end up in an AfD situation. When a highly experienced editor comes to AfC definitely collaboration should be a given. LaMona beavering away in this area seems to have inadvertantly crossed a faint line between unilateral judgment and rejection and offering suggestions as to how an article can avoid RfD. She might have done better to respond to Rexx and his concerns as collaborators do.If the article is judged to have promotional bits those can be trimmed. I see also there is paid editor concern. Editor behavior and article quality should be delineated. (Littleolive oil (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC))
• As a British person, I would not say that an OBE automatically confers notability. About AfC, there was some serious chatter a year or so ago about disbanding it, but it hasn't come to anything yet – pinging Kudpung whose input in discussions about AfC is usually valuable. BethNaught (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

And there are those who would disagree and that's fine; its a needed discussion rather than a more unilateral decision-making process. My point and thought anyway. (Littleolive oil (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

• Comment - If it is intended that OBE (or any particular degree within OBE) should confer ipso facto notability, then there should be a guideline, as there are to various other criteria for ipso facto notability, such as state legislators and Olympic athletes. I note that User:LaMona hasn't edited in 24 hours, and we should wait for her reply. As noted above, there wasn't any effort to discuss with her prior to coming here, and some of us know that WP:ANI is a last step in dispute resolution, but, unfortunately, a few editors know that all disputes should be brought to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a guideline, WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" but I accept that it's open to interpretation, and others are entitled to think that the OBE is insignificant. That's OK. But when you add that to coverage which is far from insubstantial in two major newspapers, The Guardian and The Press (York), it's becomes a mistake on the part of the reviewer - and you can read here of other problems where she has held back perfectly good articles. The effort to discuss with her was last month about A.T.M. Wilson, which was ignored completely, and I resent the implication that I had not previously raised the same concern with her previously. Fortunately I have brought very, very few complaints to this board previously and your judgement on my propensity to make use of this second step in dispute resolution is flawed. --RexxS (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - In this case, the filing party is a relatively experienced editor and could have moved their own article to article space. Of course, that would have left it open to AFD, and avoiding AFD is one of the reasons for using AFC. As noted, any registered editor can move a draft to article space. AFC is really a service to new editors, which is another reason why administrative action is a little extreme. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The article had already been moved into article space, which is indirectly how I noticed it and realised it was the same reviewer who had ignored my previous concerns. It has been open to AfD for the last couple of days, but I see that no editor has so far taken the opportunity to take it there. AFC is a disservice to new editors and the encyclopedia when it keeps reasonable articles from mainspace, where there is at least a chance that other editors will polish up the flaws. Raising the bar at AFC in an effort to reach "high quality" is wasteful on resources and frustrating for new editors. --RexxS (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks Beth, for pinging me, but there's not much I can say. When I was a little nipper in short bags and scabs on all my knees there was this huge lady with what looked like a dead fox hanging round her neck who looked like something out of a Wilde play or a Wodehouse novel who would sweep into our little classrooms in our little wannabe expensive prep school smelling of lavendar water and gin. We were told, "Don't pick your nose when she talks you, she's an OBE". Not that at 7 years old we had the foggiest what an OBE was or that we should be awestruck by the revelation. I'm waiting for mine for being clever enough to stay out of the UK for 45 years, and I bend to the wisdom my very good friend RexxS who is still waiting for his for still being there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • What kind of school smells of lavender water and gin? EEng 23:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
    • EEng#s, you would need to be British, born in the 1940's, andbrought up in an arch-conservative upper middle-class town to understand tat ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
      • It was always my impression that one had to understand tit for tat. EEng 14:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• For those who think I should reply, I actually have no reply because there is really nothing to reply to -- and the most reasonable replies (above: resubmit or move to main space yourself) have been ignored. The reason that no reply would answer the accusations is that the supposed arguments here are not the real message, because this is essentially about men being offended that a woman has "taken the measure" of a man and found him wanting, rather than agreeing that men are always notable because they are men. This is more of the sexism that occurs on Wikipedia, disguised, of course, as an argument about policy. Should these same accusers show the same indignity for an article about a woman being rejected, I would change my opinion (but I'm not holding my breath). The only reasonable thing to do is ignore this type of behavior, because answering it as if it really were about policy, just perpetuates the behavior. And I have much better things to do, and therefore choose not to engage. LaMona (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ...Wut? TimothyJosephWood 15:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ...Wow, what kind of a response is that? I'm genuinely asking, no sarcasm. I have no idea how this went from a complaint about the way somebody does AfC to "sexism". Mr rnddude (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. See WP:NPA

**...Here I was all set to conclude RexxS is overreacting. Then along comes LaMona to act batshit crazy. Best bit: "this is essentially about men being offended that a woman has 'taken the measure' of a man and found him wanting." Oy gevalt! EEng 23:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• • ...Singularly the most sexist thing I have read on the internet today, LaMona. Valeince (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • At no other time has the "well that escalated quickly" meme been more appropriate. Blackmane (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a shame that you editors can't take a moment to be introspective about how your actions might be sexist. AfC is a helpful aspect of article refining. Also, as an editor who has been censored before I think you all should reconsider being so harsh to a valuable female editor, which are few and far in between because of similar discussions on this very wiki. PS: Calling someone “batshit crazy” for being critiqued is a clear sign of being sexist. Tod Robbins (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, hold on. <instrospects momentarily> No, it's nothing to do with sexism -- I'd call any editor, male or female, batshit crazy who was acting batshit crazy. The sad thing is that until then there was general support here for LaMona's actions at AfC. EEng 22:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't criticize female editors because their feelings might get hurt? That above all else sounds like actual sexism to me. clpo13_(talk) 21:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • For a change, I agree with EEng#s assessment. It's nothing to do with sexism, this is just not being able to take criticism. Everyone here knows I am a woman editor and a feminist, the behavior of LaMona sets back other women. You edit wikipedia, you need to either have tough hide or a flamesuit. We should be civil, and we need more civility, and places like AfC need it most of all. Montanabw^(talk) 23:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

To keep things consistent, I'd like to change my position to oppose Montanabw. EEng 00:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

LOL, I was thinking more along the lines that if we both agree on something, EEng#s, it's gotta be gospel! I mean, who could possibly declare us both wrong? Montanabw^(talk) 05:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

back on track .. LaMona's behaviors are the issue

• Comment: (uninvolved editor, don't know RexxS or LaMona as far as I can recall) It seems to me having just read though ALL of this that the OP's main concern (as per the title "Damage done by declining AFC") has become missed/lost by some editors in the discussion of notability. I was under the impression that ANI was never for content disputes yet much (but not all) of the text above is dealing with just that and ignoring the prime issue brought to ANI:

• "I am now seriously concerned by the damage being done by LaMona to new editors [..]" -- RexxS
• "What's the harm if we get a good quality article from the start?" -- Lemongirl942

The bottom line is RexxS is not asking this forum to agree or disagree with "Was the article notable?", but rather the issue he has raised is "Has LaMona been biting newbies via the power of the AfC review?" If his references show that LaMona's behavior is problematic ([1] exceeding the mandate of the AFC process, [2] systematically discouraging multiple new editors, and [3] being unresponsive to discuss the matter) then that is a valid ANI issue. If the wider question ("Is the whole culture at AFC exceeding the mandate?") needs to be resolved then I think that needs to be discussed at a separate discussion at WP:VPP or some similar forum and wide-spread community consensus needs to be established since AFC affects the entire community, not just the AFC helpers. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction: I now have just read through all of this, seeing LaMona's reply came in while I was in edit mode. I think adding a new behavior issue is now in order since her rant on sexist discrimination is by her own hand a huge violation of AGF. Frankly I thought LaMona was a man since one of my best friend's is a guy with the last name of Lamona. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I may be guessing here but "La" Mona <- the feminine form for "the" in French gives it a way that we're talking about a woman here. If it was Le then we'd be talking about a male. I forget was Les is. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You can't take anything for given nowadays, just look at LaShawn Merritt - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Replying to the section OP, just to be clear. No, it's not about content, but it has to be - when one complains about someone declining at AFC being a "behavior problem", you have to look at the underlying content to see if that is the case because of "AFC's mandate". AFC is not there to approve every piece of unsourced garbage someone writes and shoves in there - we get enough of that in mainspace anyway. AFC's role is to see that only articles that meet policy (and would survive AfD because of that) are created via their area. I don't think either article was an open-and-shut case, and thus I fail to see how acting within mandate equals a behavior problem. The fact that there is sexism on Wikipedia isn't a secret, and complaining about it is not really pertinent to this discussion, nor is a reaction to it a sign of "poor behavior." I don't even particularly see a pattern of behavior here that I would find troubling. This is an editor dispute, and I don't see why any admin intervention is even necessary. Moreover, as this really comes down to one article that wasn't created, is there a pattern of articles LaMona declined that she clearly should not have? If that is not the case, this discussion serves no purpose, because no behavior issue has been shown. MSJapan (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan: I'll address your latter point first, to wit: "The fact that there is sexism on Wikipedia isn't a secret, and complaining about it is not really pertinent to this discussion, nor is a reaction to it a sign of "poor behavior.".

(A) Complaining about sexism in general is not an issue, but accusing the OP and other editors in this ANI discussion of sexism without evidentiary refs to back that up is both a massive violation of AGF and a clear and outrageous personal attack on the character of the OP and other editors here.

I have excerpted the following three sentences from LaMona's "non-reply" and [compressed them to their essential meaning] to eliminate the signal-to-noise ratio:

Here LaMona clearly identifies she is targetting her remarks to the OP (the accuser) and blatantly attacking him as being sexist.

* " [...] no reply would answer the accusations [because] the real message [is that the OP sexistly believes] men are always notable because they are men. "

Here LaMona is countering that this entire ANI report is a subterfuge for sexist behavior. She goes on to make personal attacks on other editors by implying that anyone who frames this discussion as a policy debate is also sexist.

* " This [ANI complaint] is [...] sexism [...] disguised [...] as an argument about policy. "

Here LaMona demonstrates she is applying her own personal standards for editorial behavior, disregarding WP:AGF, based on her personal perceptions of sexist bias. Additionally this argument is hypocritical since she would be willing to "change her mind" if the article was about a woman but since it is about a man it must therefor be rejected on her sexist views that assume it is only being defended because it about a man. (Yes, sexism cuts both ways.)

* " Should these same accusers show the same indignity for an article about a woman being rejected, I would change my opinion (but I'm not holding my breath). "

These are all self-inflicted evidence of unacceptable behavior issues that are appropriate to bring to DR and in this case ANI. LaMona makes it clear in this rant that she will not engage in any DR discussion at any level about her behaviors as long as she percieves such discussions to be "disguised" sexism, and so ANI or ARBCOM are the only options left if she will not discuss the problem. Additionally these particularly agregious behaviors require no "pattern" for an ANI to be appropriate.

Unfortunatelty I do not have the time now to address your other statement that LaMona is "acting within mandate" since I am coming onto this issue cold and that will require substantial research into the history of the article in question and the discussions around them. I will say that her comment "[...] bad refs (as in this case) are a good reason to keep them back, IMO, keeping the editor working on it until a higher quality is reached." is not consistent with the AFC mandate. There is no mandate to make the articles "higher quality" as a condition of acceptance, and the official Review Instructions make it abundantly clear that an imperfect article should be accepted as long as it will "probably survive" AfD. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 23:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Koala Tea Of Mercy, I'd just like to address that last excerpt you took as I believe you have somewhat misunderstood what she meant. I am referring to the below;

• " Should these same accusers show the same indignity for an article about a woman being rejected, I would change my opinion (but I'm not holding my breath). "

You've misunderstood this to mean that she'd change her mind about the article if it were about a woman. What I read this to mean is that her opinion of the OP and us (the systemic sexist bias of Wikipedia) would change if we'd shown said "indignity" towards an article about a woman being declined. Something I have no intention of doing based solely on a subject's gender. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I can see that interpretation as plausible, but even so it still shows a tendency towards a reverse-sexist worldview. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 14:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I wholly agree, just that her opinions and feelings towards sexism on Wikipedia isn't an actionable offense here. By contrast if she cannot keep neutrality towards an article due to the subjects gender, she really shouldn't be at AfC in the first place (Note I do not think this is the case). Currently her conduct at AfC seems to be fine, if slightly restrictive.. Turns ut, there may be neutrality issues. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: It seems pertinent to flag that this type of escalation is equally, if not more so, damaging to the new editors the OP has raised concern for. Wikipedia has a reputation for being hostile and this thread does nothing to dispute the problem. Not only has the validity of bringing the issue to this forum already been rightly called into question, responses regarding LaMona's actions and comments have been framed as a 'rant', 'batshit crazy' and a violation of AGF when the issue at hand was based on assuming poor faith. Is this the example we want to be setting for new editors? Is this how we counter systemic bias? I agree with previous editors that the original issue could have been resolved by resubmitting or moving the article to the mainspace rather than arguing point by point over issues that were previously identified by other editors for improvement. At this point, any behavioural issues as they pertain to new editors stem directly from how this discussion has unfolded. --Dnllnd (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I second MSJapan and Dnllnd's comments. This escalated quickly! A few last points I'd like to make are the following: 1) I urge you not to dig deeper into the sexism row, this is not the time nor place; 2) people seem to be forgetting what AfC's workflow is like; reviewing is often not a clear-cut scenario, wherein users need to improve articles that would otherwise be quickly PRODed, etc as soon as they're accepted (if they're notable, of course) - this is precisely why I believe LaMona declined the draft {what would the whole purpose of AfC be if there wasn't an option to temporarily halt an article's way to mainspace?}; 3) again, I'm unaware of endemic disruptive behaviour from LaMona's part, in fact I've often encountered her good rapport and guidance towards new users - I therefore suggest this post be closed and other means of discussion be set forth. Finally, when will we ever discuss the pertinence of perpetuating the disaster that's AfC as a concept? Can we finally snowball this into a cause for its disbandment? That would certainly be this post's silver lining. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of AfC is to simultaneously get promising articles that would be deleted in mainspace improved enough to be accepted, and prevent articles that would not be approved from even getting there. It's not meant to discourage good faith newbies but to help them--either by getting the article improved, or by explaining why it was not a viable topic. At present, most of the articles submitted there are hopelessly unviable, and most of those seem to be from COI editors. This gives reviewers an inclination towards rejection, especially if they engage in the common but unfortunate practice of reviewing many article in a row. (I've learned not to do only a few at a time myself, just as I patrol only a few New Pages in a row for the same reason.)

It is the accepted guideline at NPP that the key factor is judging whether it will pass AfD. Some reviewers in the past, and even a few in the present, insist on the article having no significant defects--a few have even insisted on GA quality. This is not the intention--articles get improved for things like reference format better in mainspace where many people can work on them. All I think necessary is that the quality not be so low as to give people at afd a prejudicially bad impression. There is no accepted numerical rule for "likely to pass AfD" -- it would be meaningless anyway , because AfD decisions are sometimes quite erratic. To the extent a number makes sense, most reviewers seem to use something like 66 to 80% likely--I'm at the higher end usually, but if someone asks in good faith and is trying and there's a decent possibility, I will accept, and let AfD decide: I'm not infallible. At least in principle, all AfC acceptances go through NPP anyway.

I have noticed that some of LaMona's declines have been overly restrictive. I deal with this very simply by accepting them. Similarly, people have accepted drafts I've rejected. I usually let them go, but if I really object, deletion process is available.

I don't think we need to make too much a fuss about this. I know that I go through periods of accepting too much or rejecting too much; people usually tell me, and I often realize I have indeed been drifting, and I re-calibrate. I hope LaMona will take this in the same spirit. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternatives to Go Forward

I will try to summarize the alternatives for ways forward from here. This was filed at a conduct noticeboard as a conduct issue, but various issues have been raised. First, this was filed as a complaint supposedly about the conduct of User:LaMona. In my opinion, no evidence whatsoever has been presented of any conduct issue on her part. However, that is my opinion. Obviously the filer thinks that there is a conduct issue. Second, the reply by LaMona was over-the-top and bizarre, but I also don’t see a conduct issue in the usual sense on her part either. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but perhaps a bizarre filing is offset by a bizarre reply. Third, there has been a conduct issue on the part of the filing party, at least in lashing out with allegations of lying. I am not however asking for an actual boomerang. Fourth, there are questions about whether LaMona as a reviewer is too harsh. I see no argument that this allegation rises to the level of a conduct issue. Since the filing party says that discussion on her talk page has not been successful, take this to the AFC WikiProject. Fifth, there are questions about whether AFC in general is too demanding and is rejecting too many valid submissions. (I disagree with that argument; reasonable editors can disagree.) This is not an administrative or conduct issue. Take it to Village pump (policy) or to the AFC Wikiproject. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: you said above "The original poster didn't even try to discuss the decline with LaMona." to which the OP replied " I tried to discuss the same concern with LaMona just a few weeks ago and I was ignored. I'm now getting rather sick of the lie you're peddling,". This ignored attempt was one of the foremost refs provided in the complaint at the top of this thread. Looking through the history that request for discussion was ignored for 15 days before being archived and her very next edit following it makes it abundantly evident she knew the OP's request for discussion was there.
Why did you say he did not even try when the evidence was provided from the beginning that he did? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant that he didn't provide any evidence of a conduct dispute. I still don't see any evidence of a conduct dispute. It was pointed out, after the original filing, that there had been a request, ignored on her talk page; I did see that. I still don't see evidence of a conduct dispute. Failure to respond to a request to reconsider a decline is not a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It may be that is what you meant to say, but what you actually said was the OP did not "try to discuss the decline" [emphasis added]. Based on your exact words the OP was right to call you out for being in error -- granted he could have used more diplomatic language -- but he was obviously frustrated and in the heat of debate we make all make mistakes (like saying one thing and meaning another ). Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 11:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No. The OP was wrong, in that he didn't say that I was mistaken. He said that I was lying, and he had no right to do that, and I will ask you to call him out on that also. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It is time to close this thread. Should it just be closed, and/or closed with a warning to anyone, and/or closed and referred to a policy discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not my fight, but out of curiosity, I sampled the last five drafts LaMona was involved in, in light of the...unique...reply above. These may not be representative, but this is what turned up:

• Olive Christian Malvery: Accepted submission, biography of female subject, 3 sources, all seem to be books, all non-linked to online content
• Havening, Declined submission, therapy developed by male, 15 sources, seems to cover books, news, and scholarly publication
• Vermiifilter, declined submission, process developed by male, six sources, all scholarly, non-linked
• Marc Liebeskind, declined submission, biography of male subject, 12 sources, many/most in French
• Micko Westmoreland, biography of male subject, 41 sources, some/many of dubious reliability

This may not mean much, and is, of course, a very small sample. But it does seem a bit off. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

If I may, sticking up for La Mona she also declined these [20] with 43 refs about a female and this [21] with 8 references also a female subject and also this [22] with over 100 references/citations for tone and NPOV issues. I don't think her standards have waned in favour of women. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a 'fight' and framing it as such is inflammatory and continues to perpetuate a clearly exhausted conversation. More importantly, it further calls into question the contributions of an editor working to ensure articles meet a standard we can all agree is important to aim for. Beyond ensuring quality, the value of the Afc process is instructive in nature - namely how, when and why to improve drafts. Splitting hairs about reviews that can be easily resubmitted for consideration by another editor is unnecessarily adversarial and, again, indicative of the biased and hostile reputation Wikipedia has established for itself. Finally, print resources (like the one used in the Olive Christian Malvery page) are completely valid resources, particularly for historical figures of non-Caucasian backgrounds written about prior to the internet. As already illustrated above, there are myriad online resources that add no significant value to a page beyond adding to the ref count. There is nothing 'off' about this sample of LaMona's page reviews beyond it being completely speculative and, whether intended or not, harassing. Shut this thread down. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"Not my fight," also, "no dog/horse in this race," is an idiom intended to express having no personal stake or interest in the matter at hand. TimothyJosephWood 14:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment; Up until yesterday I would have been fine with a close with no action, other than maybe opening a discussion about AfC if others wanted to and with RexxS taking their grievance to AfC to be dealt with by the WikiProject (editors/coordinators/whomever). However, with La Mona's response, which was not "bizarre" but offensive; a personal attack on the characters of both the editor who filed the grievance. Being called sexist because they disagreed with La Mona's decision and called into question her ability to perform AfC functions (which I will state was wholly over-the-top). And with other editor's, who had responded with their own comments, being told they were perpetuating sexist behaviour if they had disagreed with La Mona's decision (which was the minority of editors here, from my reading of the thread most editors agreed with La Mona's actions while a few referred to AfC, as a whole, being to strict and not just La Mona). That said, I'm still fine with a close of this thread but I recommend that La Mona be warned sternly that her comment was an absolute horseshit and offensive thing to say to so many editors (at AN/I and in general). I wasn't even involved in this thread prior to her comment and was still offended by the notion that because some editors disagree with her judgement that that makes them sexist "men" who are "offended that a woman has "taken the measure" of a man and found him wanting". With the new information, above or below, I'm measuring your AfC work and am leaning towards "wanting", but, no official judgement yet.

Sorry, I was in edit mode when you posted your comment TJW, hence why my post was above yours. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Close with warnings and also Close with referral for policy discussion as follows:
  • - Warning to LaMona that all editors are expected to participate IN and WITH good faith in early DR discussions to prevent escalation.
  • - Warning to LaMona that presumptions of sexism violate WP:AGF and accusations of sexism targeted at individuals require evidence refs.
  • - Refer for community-wide policy discussion the question of the mandate for AfC. Where are the lines of "required improvements" drawn for submitted articles?
  • I am not suggesting warnings for RexxS only because I think his desire to address the larger "damage to new users" issue was in good faith even if done poorly. Additionally if LaMona had discussed this with him earlier when he asked her to we probably would not be here at all. Lacking her willingness to respond, his using of ANI was a logical (though not best) choice for next step DR.
• One last thing, and this is offered as a friendly advisory for @LaMona:... I do not know you and you do not know me, but sexist is the last word that would describe who I am. I have gone into battle against sexism time and time again over the past few decades and sometimes paid a very high price for my uncompromising stands against gender bigoted (ex-)employers, both chauvinists and misogynists. Having said that -- and having only this very brief interaction with you on this page -- I am honestly concerned that you may have fallen victim to Maslow's Hammer which is summed up by the quotation "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Translating this for the context here I offer that if your first and best defense against accusations (valid or not) of editorial misconduct is to cry "sexism" then pretty soon that defense becomes your Hammer and good faith editors' concerns are soon only seen erroneously as Nails. As for myself, I am a sonic screwdriver thank you very much! Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your references to "nailing" and "screwing" are obviously crude sexual talk meant to intimidate women. EEng 15:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• • A problem exists not if it exists in reality, but if it is perceived to exist. In short, if one of two parties think there's a problem, there is, because there's something going on to give that impression. It's not to say it's an error in thinking that can be corrected easily, but that's "solving the problem", isn't it? MSJapan (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @MSJapan: Your logic is brutally flawed. Hypothetical example: Lets say that I perceive that your username means you are the official spokesperson for MicroSoft-Japan and that therefor everything you write at Wikipedia must be a subtle promotion for your company's software products. By your logic a problem exists because there is something going on to cause that perception. Horse pucky! Your username is just fine and your words are not advertising. The first two letters of your username could just as easily be your first and last initials or the honorific "Ms" to indicate your gender. The only "problem" in this hypothetical is my erroneous attribution of flawed perception as to the meaning of your name and the self-inflicted coloring of my interpretation of your actions based on my flawed perceptions. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 01:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Then there is a problem, isn't there? It's just not where you thought it was. :) MSJapan (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
        • While I appreciate the humor, my point is that the problem is not the cause of the perception as you proposed, the problem is the faulty perception itself. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 10:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Close - This is literally about one article - if it's such a big deal, approve it and see what happens. There is nothing here worth punitive warnings, and nothing is going to be solved by them. No systemic conduct issues on the part of any editor have been shown, and no one is acting in bad faith. MSJapan (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. One of the proposed warnings is directly tied to a behavioural allegation that was disproved and the other stems from a comment in a discussion that never should have happened in this forum. If it is decided that the above, or any, warnings are warranted, RexxS should equally receive one for assuming LaMona's poor faith and for escalating an issue that could have been resolved by resubmitting the article for review. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • "never should have happened in this forum" is not true, as explained above, and even if were, that's not a free pass to make unfounded personal attacks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Dnllnd: Which "behavioural allegation" was disproved exactly? If you are referring to the OP's claim that LaMona refused to respond to a request for discussion about a decline (a form of early DR) that was quite adequately proven (15 days with no response to a request on her talk page). Add to that her statement above of "And I have much better things to do, and therefore choose not to engage." is an unacceptable attitude for someone in a quasi-authority role such as AfC Reviewer. As a wise person once said: "With great power comes great responsibility." The proposed warning is nothing more than a reminder of the rules we all are supposed to live by.
      As for your "stems from a comment in a discussion that never should have happened" argument that is pure fallacy. World War I was the "War to End All Wars", so then World War II, the Korean War, the Gulf War, etc all should never have happened. But they did. By your logic that would mean we should just have ignored all the dark things that came from these wars because they never should have happened. LaMona's "comment" was a major violation of at least two major policies, offensive as Hell, and is an action that should never be repeated. She can protest the general state of WP sexism all she wants (and I'll join her cause) but accusations aimed at individuals require evidence. The proposed warning is the least restrictive solution that could be proposed. For example it could be proposed that she be topic-banned from reviewing AfC bio articles on men due to a lack of ability to remain unbiased, but that would be extreme and probably unwarranted. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 13:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      • No, thanks. This has turned into a witch hunt and I'm done. I respectfully ask that you refrain from pinging me in any further comments regarding this matter. I won't be commenting further. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Close without formal recommendations or warnings. No case has been presented with regard to a conduct issue on the part of User:LaMona. The original filing by User:RexxS, the reply by LaMona about sexism, and RexxS's allegation of peddling a lie were all sub-optimal, but we don't always need to warn for sub-optimal conduct, and getting hung up on who to warn for sub-optimal conduct is sub-optimal. Whether AFC standards are too high can reasonably be discussed either at WP:WikiProject Articles for Creation itself or at Village pump. My own thinking is that the AFC process works reasonably well, but I am not impartial there. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Close. AfC is discouraging to both reviewers and newbies, but that's not going to be fixed here. Further discussion should be taken up elsewhere. Jonathunder (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Close with an admonition to LaMona to remember WP:AGF and a firm reminder that AfC is only to review articles by AfD criteria, not GA, not FA, and not one's personal whims. If they are start class and sourced, if they will pass WP:GNG, they are done. Montanabw^(talk) 20:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Break

I am the editor who published Anthony Charles Robinson from draft, and I immediately raised my concerns on LaMona's talk page. It is her response to me that Koala Tea' quotes above. I therefore take it that the accusations of sexism were in part directed at me, and I utterly reject them.

This was not the first time I have raised concerns about her over-strict interpretation of AfC guidelines and her misrepresentation of them to editors submitting drafts for review.

The previous case was about LabArchives (not a man or woman), and as can be seen here, she relied on a specific quotation of AfC guidelines ("one of the rejection criteria is precisely 'Reads like an advertisement'") which does not in fact exist in those guidelines, and when politely asked her to give a source for this precise quote, she was either unwilling or unable to do so, responding "Are you finished doubting me? Really, this is all pretty standard AFC and I don't feel I have to justify myself to you.". The article languished in Draft space until I published it a couple of days ago.

The same day that I published the Robinson bio, I published Hickies (shoes) (not a man or woman), which LaMona had also rejected at AfC. Her comment in doing so was "I hope you are aware that WP does not allow promotion or advertising".

I had earlier published the A.T.M. Wilson bio mentioned by RexxS. This was, I note, written by a relatively new, woman editor [Declaration: one who was first trained at an workshop I ran].

I suggest that these examples show a clear pattern of behaviour which is likely to deter new editors, and have a detrimental effect on the project.

The previous AfC articles I moved from Draft, after they were wrongly rejected by other editors at AfC, were both about women: Margaret Lefranc (written by "Karenfrank"; declined as "Almost entirely based on unpublished orginal [sic] research...", and then "Nothing significant has been done to address the concerns of the other reviewers"; and Hilary Paynter (written by an IP who wrote only about women; rejected as "a person who does not meet notability guidelines"). Both articles have been unchallenged for over a year.

I suggest that these examples, together with those above, show an issue with AfC in general which is likely to deter new editors, and have a detrimental effect on the project.

I am also concerned to see that some of those defending LaMona on this page have been canvassed (encouraged to post here) by her, off-wiki. I am prepared to evidence this, but am concerned not to breach our policy on outing. I would appreciate guidance on what I may say in that regard (here or in email), but in the meantime invite those who have posted after being canvassed to declare so here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

On the topic of both Hickies and LabArchive, La Mona is correct they do read a little like advertisements. A mild example "LabArchives collaborated with many educational institutions" <- the weasel is strong with this one. Unless you can identify those "many" educational institutions then this sentence is completely useless to the reader. Other examples (from LabArchives) of meaningless phrases include "Several studies" (which ones?), "are now a common" (measured comparatively with?), "used by over 120,000 scientists" (meaning what exactly? that its popular?) and "on 6 continents" (I can safely assume that the seventh one is Antarctica and what a random piece of trivia to include). To be honest, I'd have failed both articles if I'd reviewed them at AfC myself. As for Hickies, its less promotional in nature, but, what on Earth is this; "The name HICKIES is from the cheeky term for a mark of affection." (like I know what a hicky is alright, but, why would you call it a "cheeky term", I can't even, it's actually adorable more than anything to be honest). Is she fairly strict, yes I think so, is she overboard with it, no probably not. As for the off-wiki canvassing, no comment I'd need to brush up on outing policies and may do that now. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you give us a pointer to the "rejection criteria [which] is precisely 'Reads like an advertisement'"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I was writing this up when you responded, the unedited version; Yes an article should fail AfC if it reads like an advertisement, if it would fail at the hurdles of CSD (blatant advertisement for example), PROD, BLPPROD, or AfD, then it fails at AfC. This is not a quote, just common sense and what AfC is for. Here's the actual quote and I can direct you to the correct page if you'd like "If the submission is a blatant advertisement decline the submission as such." and is located on "Reviewing instructions" under "Quick fail criteria". So yes, it does exist in the guidelines. Should she have referred the editor to the correct place, yes that would have been far more collegiate than her actual response. Andy Mabbett Mr rnddude (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

So no "rejection criteria [which] is precisely 'Reads like an advertisement'", then. I note that Enterprisey has given us the actual criterion, below, and it says nothing like that; it requires "more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia". The articles in question passed that, by a country mile; and are far further from being "blatant advertisement". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Precisely as in letter by letter, no, precisely by definition, yes I think that's quite obvious. You're splitting straws here; "reads like an advertisement" is an abridged form of "Reads more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia". How could it possibly read like an advertisement, yet, still read more like an encyclopaedic entry than an advert; short answer, it cannot. Both the quotee I provided from the AfC Wikiproject page (which is an actual criterion, but, whatever) and the one provided by Enterprisey would cover precisely what La Mona is referring to, I can safely assume that she was referring to the helper script though since it's far more in-line with what she said. I gave my opinion with examples from LabArchives, and I agree with La Mona's assessment, it read like an advertisement and peacocked as hard it could. I've been through a bunch of GA assessments recently, so, my expectations may be exceeding that needed for the article to exist. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't me who chose to use the word "precisely" to defend a misreading of the AfC guidelines; that was how LaMona chose to dismiss the concerns I tried to raise with her, which attitude is why we're here. So far as teh quote you gave, you seem to have overlooked the word "blatant". But no, AfC is not supposed to set the bar at the same height as set by GA. That's also part of the reason why we're here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

By straw splitting I was referring to Enterprisey's quote and what La Mona said, the quote I gave is more restrictive as you point out. In-so-far as La Mona is concerned, her declining of the article is the least issue, I agree that the dismissive attitude that she seems to take with editor's concerns and her attribution of this thread to "sexism" are far more concerning. I have only had one interaction with her outside of this thread and it wasn't in the most pleasant of circumstances either. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

As a side note, the actual criteria/decline reasons that the helper script uses are at {{AFC submission/comments}}. The "advertisement" one (under advert) goes like this: This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I note that this criterion has been around since at least September 2008 with no changes. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 15:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That guideline is fine as long as the reviewer reads all of it including the Encyclopedia articles ... should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. The article on LabArchives has 15 references, 1 of which is to the LabArchives' own blog, and 3 are to BioMed Central blog, which leaves 11 to independent sources that certainly don't look dodgy at first glance. I really think reviewers that reject such an article (which is almost certain to survive AfD) need to understand that if articles "do read a little like advertisements", but have decent sourcing, they ought to be published so that more eyes can be on them to fix up the flaws. If someone removed "many" and got "LabArchives collaborated with educational institutions" (followed by refs that attest to that), would you still say that is weaseling? The same goes for the other peacock phrases - as long as the sources are there, the article needs editing, not deletion. Look at Hickies (shoes): 15 references, not all equal quality, but include Forbes, Bloomberg, Footwear News, USA Today - all significant coverage. The sources are there, whatever happened to WP:SOFIXIT? It's never going to happen while articles with clear potential are kept locked up in limbo by reviewers far outreaching their brief. When reviewers get complaints that they are holding back reasonable articles, they might at least consider the possibility that it's not a conspiracy with a hidden agenda out to get them, but a genuine concern for new editors and articles. --RexxS (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You're half right there, yes publishing a flawed article does allow more eyes to see it and potentially fix it. However, you're forgetting that we have deletionists in our ranks as well. There's a chance that the flawed article will be seen and fixed, and, there's a chance (quite possibly greater chance) that it will be seen and put up for deletion at AfD or just quietly PRODed. That's why these articles are stopped at AfC, it is a rather annoying process and relatively strict in nature, but, as has been said, if it fails an AfC check and you disagree with the assessment you can publish it yourself by moving it to mainspace or ask somebody else to look at it as well. As to your comment about removing "many" would it still be weaseling, yes it would, just more subtle. My question would still be "which ones". If for example it said (and was reliably sourced) "LabArchives collaborated with educational institutions, including University ABC, College BBC and Whathaveyou Tech (or some indication of what institutions it has collabed with) then I would go back and say, okay it's not weaseling anymore because something meaningful and potentially useful has actually been said. As to the last bit of your statement; correct, and I think La Mona responded incorrectly here. I do note, however, that being taken to AN/I is stressful to most people. Keep in kind that AN/I is for conduct issues that often result in administrative action, and, you came here with the intention of administrative action being levied against her (should she refuse to co-operate). I'll repeat it again, if you disagree with her assessment and she refuses to communicate with you, either move the article to mainspace or ping another active reviewer and get their take on it. Editors should stop taking our guidelines and policies to mean laws, there are no hard and fast rules on Wikipedia. Everything, from NPA to Notability are just best practices that an editor should consider adhering to. If a policy gets in the way of you contributing to Wikipedia "ignore it", WP:IAR. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I'll agree with 98% of what you just said. The first 1% I disagree with is that you are overlooking the fact that many editors submitting at AFC are newbies who do not understand when it appropriate or not to use WP:IAR. Most of the time their primary concern is with WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:COI. If we were to advise newbies to "ignore the rules" we would be inviting the Apocalypse. The second 1% I disagree with is your statement "there are no hard and fast rules on Wikipedia." Any rules that require WP:Oversight are rock solid, especially those related to defamatory material, copyright vio, and deliberate user outing. Many of the rules stemming from WP:Legal are bloody fast and WP:WMF decisions are pretty damned hard. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:Oversight and WP:Legal are in the defence of actual laws in the U.S. that are applicable to Wikipedia and not so much any law that Wikipedia has itself made. I take your point though. Not all rules can simply be ignored, the ones that ensure that laws are not broken must be met. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That is untrue. No one has been canvassed by me. I have made clear on social media that I am under attack and will be leaving Wikipedia. I have asked for hugs. I have not linked to this discussion and have not posted my username (which few people know). I have every right to speak out. You cannot silence me because I will not let you do so. LaMona (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

At least two people have posted here in your support, after discussing the matter with you in public, on social media. No-one is trying to "silence" you; you were invited to respond first on your user page, resulting in the exchanges RexxS and I describe, and then invited to comment here. Your response to the latter began "I actually have no reply because there is really nothing to reply to" and ended "...I have much better things to do, and therefore choose not to engage". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No one discussed it with me, and I never advised anyone to participate. But thousands of people read the post. It was even retweeted internationally. Here's what I said: "I have been gamergated off of Wikipedia. It's ugly. Very ugly. I need some hugs!" If anyone decided to come here, it was at their own volution. This is so ugly that I would not subject my friends to it. I'm kinder than that. LaMona (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"gamergated"? (For the record, LaMona's claim of no discussion is false.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Not only that, but I did give you the information that "reads like an advertisement" is one of the options in AFCH, and that if you disagree with that you should discuss it on the AFC notice board. That you bring it up here again to use against me is less than honest. It has nothing to do with me, it is a commonly used option. LaMona (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I included a link to the full discussion in my OP. Anyone who cares to may follow that link, and see for themselves whether or not my comment is accurate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

More to the point, no experienced editor —legit or UDPE—uses draft space or AfC. Only innocent newbies who think it's a rule. Then they get their heads bit off. Montanabw^(talk) 05:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, that's why I took to reminding RexxS that AfC is an optional choice and that the editor doesn't need to adhere to it so strictly. I get the function of AfC and that it is intended to help new editors create an article, but, it seems, to some degree, to be having quite the opposite effect because a start-class article will be declined through the AfC venue whereas it should be accepted. The requirements that some reviewers have are overly strict and it seems that an expectation for a pass are at the B-class or even GA-class standard for a brand new article. I've seen an article with well over 100 citations be declined due to the tone of the article, yes the tone of the article could be improved and no this does not have to come from the creator of the article. It's an article that couldn't possibly be deleted through AfD (let alone CSD or PROD) and is still being declined. AfC is quite a burden to get through for some editors and doubly so if they are new to Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I have seen non-innocent newbie paid editors use AFC. As to innocent newbie editors, I will agree that they don't deserve to be bitten, but I will add that most, not all, of them are clueless. Some editors come to AFC after their articles have already been speedy-deleted, often for no credible claim of significance or for blatant promotion. It isn't true that only innocent newbies use AFC. (If new editors think that AFC is required, then I agree that the wording should be changed to remind them that it is only strongly encouraged. It should be encouraged because it is very hard to a newbie editor, even after playing The Wikipedia Adventure, to create a new article with proper references. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC))

I also disagree. I am by no means a "newbie" (having a long history as an IP-only editor) but I recently started some new articles and have found the DraftSpace a safer place to get my article off the ground without having to fend off hordes of CSD/PROD/AFD tags. I edit slowly and intermittently as time allows. Before, when I was an anon editor, I had started a couple articles in MainSpace with the help of a couple editors who created the pages for me. In one case I was gone for a few days and came back to find it died by CSD execution, and in the other case I was away almost two weeks and came back just in time to save that one from the firing squad. The first one had to be resurrected and for an anon that is a pain since userfying the page is not generally an option for an IP account. I guess what I am saying is that AFC is a great tool for slower-paced editors like me who need a little more time to develop the article. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Question About This Thread

Is there a reason why this thread needs to continue here, which is a forum for administrative action? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Actual fixes

• Some things everybody can immediately improve

only a few of the experienced people here actually do reviewing, which tends to leave it for the relative beginners. Everyone concerned with any aspect of article quality or attracting and helping new editors or removal of spam should participate a little in this also.

• Some things are already fixed

We established a moderate but practical edit requirement for those wanting to do AfC reviewing (the credit for this goes mostly to Kudpung

We cleared up the immense and discouraging backlog from 2 years ago

We established a speedy criterion for material no longer being worked on

A few people who monopolized the project and preventing minor improvements have moved on.

• Some things are being done

A variety of technical and interface improvements are being devised, some requiring just local programming, but some requiring the Foundation-- to make suggestions go to WT:AFCh or WT::AFC

The list of incompetent or vanished editors who use the script is gradually being purged

• Some things can be easily done, and probably will be done

An increase in the edit requirements for reviewing

Consistency in instructions for starting articles

Elimination of various devices used to bypass review of new articles and drafts, used mostly by promotional editors

• Some things are more difficult and will require considerable planning and consensus in the near future

A unification of AFC and NPP, with a high requirement for both, and an integrated landing page for new articles

Dealing with a few established editors who use unacceptable standards, such as not accepting stubs or even requiring GA quality

• Some things can never be done

Consistency in reviewing standards, any more than there is consistency in AfD. Every editor at WP is basically free to do what they like, and we have no way of asserting authority except in gross deviations

Consistency in what articles actually make it into WP. AfD is erratic, and its incurably erratic, for it relies of the local consensus of whoever wants to join the discussion.

Stability in the rules. Since we make the rules, we can interpret them however a consensus may please, and we can make whatever exception have consensus. The only alternative is deciding content by a top-down hierarchy, or a dictator. Both can be done, but neither would be Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 13:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Nicely organized DGG! I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as where this discussion goes from here per my proposed action #3 (close and refer for policy discussion). How about taking your above text in this section and copying it over to start a special subpage under either the AFC WikiProject or the Village Pump for a community-wide discussion. Personally I think the Pump is a better choice because AfC affects the entire encyclopedia. Of course that discussion will bring out the anti-AFC opinions as well and perhaps at least some of those concerns can be successfully addressed in the process. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 16:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

DGG's list is being discussed at User talk:DGG#AFC redux. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Who I am

Since you've all been talking about me I thought it might be good for you to know who I am. Much of this is visible, but I have been on Wikipedia since 2006 and have nearly 20,000 edits. Many of those are through AfC where I regularly made formatting and other fixes to first-time articles. I reviewed less than 4000 drafts, but that is because I often spent at least a half hour on a draft trying to get it closer to acceptance. I am a librarian, with about 45 years in that field, and am in my 6th decade. I have written two books, scores of articles, and have given dozens of talks, including such places as Singapore, Tasmania, Copenhagen, Rome. My blog has had over half a million views; my twitter feed over 1000 followers, mostly librarians. They all now know about this incident, although not the details, just that I have been attacked. My website gets hundreds of hits a day, mainly people downloading things I've written and made available, because I believe strongly in open access. I have been an advocate of libraries participating in Wikipedia, but obviously I am no more. Ironically, this week was to be a major meeting between the Wikimedia Foundation and library groups. I have informed them of this attack, its nature, and that I no longer advise anyone to engage with Wikipedia - at least not until there is a mechanism to prevent this kind of thing happening. Those of you who like to destroy will not care, but I believe others will. I have advised the library group that they must make a strong statement about safety, especially safety for vulnerable groups, before they will see Wikipedia as an ally. Libraries are strong advocates of freedom and equality. If those of us who care about equality make a stand, it is possible that changes can be made. I would welcome that new, kinder Wikipedia. For those who have not seen it, I highly recommend this article [23] written by a self-proclaimed "CIS white male" about Wikipedia's sexual politics and how they affect article content. In the world we have today, with a rise of white power and a political and personal war on women, quick change may not be possible, but we must at least start the ground work for a better future. An important part of that groundwork is speaking out. This I have done. LaMona (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh ffs, Wikipedia is not a battleground and you know this has nothing to do with sexism. Against whom are you speaking out here, not one person has done anything even close to deserve the label of sexist. I have no issue with equality and sharing with the opposite sex and no bloody issue not being a sexist twat. If you cry sexism at every little argument what will inevitably happen is that the word sexist will become a dilute meaningless label, and those who suffer from sexist behaviour from actual misognyists will have no platform to stand on because too many people have been crying wolf. Get over yourself, this is beyond sad. I defended your reviews on the grounds that they were appropriate, and still believe you did the right thing with those reviews, but to come here twice and cry sexism, is ludicrous and shameful. Feel free to take whatever actions you think are appropriate, but, try to remember (and I mean this sincerely) we're all volunteers, I don't want you to walk away any more than most other editors here. Stay and accept that other opinions exist, or, walk away and live in your bubble of "everything is sexist, everything is racist, everything is homophobic, and you have to point it all out." And then throw the label of Not All at everything else. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Funny, I didn't use the "S" word - I talked about safety. Safety from attack. Safety for everyone. There ARE sexual politics, and we know there are, and the article (if you would read it) has to do with the content of articles. I don't know why the "S" word is such a trigger. We also care about racism, equality for for those with disabilities - equality for everyone, and safety for everyone. Yet you continue to attack. That in itself is proof that this is not a safe place. Not for anyone. And why would I want to stay with people who respond to me as you did? You would rather that everyone be silent, and is the saddest bubble of all. LaMona (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You didn't need to use the s word, your tone coupled with your previous comment told me everything I needed to hear. "political and personal war on women" <- what else is this but a reference to a system of biased sexism against women? No, I don't want people to be silent, go for it, join the 3rd wave feminism movement and be as active as you like about it. I won't render any opinion on it. Wikipedia is not the platform to try and push your beliefs. Sorry, I may have reacted to fiercely to your comment and with my own personal biases, but, I stand by what I said. I don't hate you, nor am I so sour as to not move on, I feel you labelled quite a few innocent people as sexist and a threat to the safety of women who didn't deserve it with your posts. If you honestly believe that this community has slighted you in some way, then what other choice is left but to say goodbye to it. Sorry, I don't see what your complaint is, I understand AN/I is stressful and that you feel hurt by it, and no, other than a warning no action was even on the table against you (and that warning was solely for your comment here previously), you could have read it for what it was - a complaint about your strictness at AfC - and moved on. If I may also add ever so slightly, a question for you to ponder. You asked why the S word is such a trigger, well I respond with a question. If I casually labelled you a racist (as you did us as sexist only a couple days ago) because of your belief that white power dominates all facets of life, would you feel any less triggered? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@LaMona: Open access is built on the principal that all information should be free to all people, not restricted or filtered by arbitrary decisions. You say you told people about the incident but not the details. Why not the details? Are you afraid those same people will find that given all the facts they might disagree with your interpretation of events? You say you "believe strongly in open access," yet you deliberately filter the facts while at the same time telling a one-sided story of being attacked and then instigating an anti-Wikipedia campaign within the librarian community. That is the textbook definition of wikt:hypocrisy and you know it. Shame on you! Did you also tell your community of librarians that you violated one of our most essential rules of collegiate behavior by assuming in bad faith the motives of editors strictly based on their gender? Did you tell them you further violated WP collegiate behavior policies by making personal attacks against other editors without evidence? Did you tell them that you deliberately exceeded the mandate and guidelines of the AFC process to achieve your own personal agenda of "higher quality" articles? Did you tell them that you ignored the official dispute resolution process by contemptuously refusing to engage in open dialogs with editors who had concerns -- not about you the person -- about your behavior as an editor? If not then you are a hypocrite of the highest order. Yes that is a personal attack and I welcome any admin to discipline me as they see appropriate but at least I have the evidence to back up every single word of it. I strongly encourage the WMF to share links to this discussion with every librarian they are scheduled to meet with and let those librarians make up their own minds as to the truth of your claim of being attacked. Part of the groundwork of "open access" is encouraging full disclosure and that is exactly what I have done. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• FYI If anyone should continue this attack off-Wiki, I am letting you know now that I will make all such communications very public. It seems only fair to warn you of this ahead of time. LaMona (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Publicize away. Maybe someone in broader cyberspace will help you see how crazy you seem. You're not being attacked, other than for your nonsense insistence that you're being attacked. EEng 19:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• • LaMona I am also a woman, and a feminist over 50, and a 10-year editor with OVER 90,000 edits, having creating over 200+ articles and having 50+ articles at GA or FA status. My real life resume is also just fine (I choose not to engage in On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog games here), and I happen to really love libraries. So, having done the dueling resume review, I'm calling you on your nonsense; you clearly are not one to judge what quality content looks like on wikipedia. I think it's high time for you to listen up and stop the blame game. Looks like you have created about 22 very short, start-class articles, and I am not finding anything you've done that is GA or FA class. 20,000 edits in 10 years? You have no clue how this place works with a low edit count like that! I have tapped the edges of the real Gamergate problem, I work frequently to address the actual systemic bias problem on Wikipedia, and I can tell you — quite firmly — that your problems are entirely self-inflicted and have ZERO to do with sexism, "white power", or a war on women. You need to let go of this red herring and stop playing the victim here, because you aren't. (Now, if you are being harassed off-wiki, that is another matter and a serious one, but I am not seeing it in this thread or elsewhere on-wiki). You are being called out for holding AfC writers to an inconsistent and at times ridiculous standard, by criteria that you don't properly comprehend, and then when criticized you don't look at your own behavior, but instead point fingers at others. Users such as RexxS and Pigsonthewing have often been good supporters of women on-wiki and supportive of work to add women's topics into wikipedia's article space. You are picking on the wrong people, attacking allies, and generally sending out red herrings. Time to stop. Now. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    • LaMona, as someone new to this squabble I don't think you are helping your case here. This began as a discussion in which people were unsure if you might have been too snippy and bad at interacting with new editors, a discussion in which many people felt that your actions had merit. You have a lot of experience here and good actions to do would be to demonstrate your ability to keep cool and defuse tension, by explaining your position and (if necessary) acknowledging that you might have made a mistake - which is fine, I think most people who interact with new editors look at their actions and think we could have handled them better in retrospect, I know I do.
      Your response has been to lash out with ad hominem, debating-society tactics and accusing your critics of sexism in a discussion that had not mentioned your gender once before you brought it up. This does nothing but confirm your critics' views that you are unstable and not the right person to present a public face to Wikipedia to new editors. I don't recommend that you leave Wikipedia, as goodness knows we need talented editors from a range of perspectives, but I do urge you to just take a break from it all. Blythwood (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

User BjornBriggs posting promotional material

An account has been created in the name "Bjorn Briggs", apparently solely for the purpose of promoting promotional material with antagonistic edit summaries (BjornBriggs (talk · contribs))

[redaction]

See here for diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Short_form_cricket&diff=prev&oldid=733836680

I removed the material and he immediately reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Short_form_cricket&diff=prev&oldid=733972737

I left him a warning and he removed it and left an aggressive personal attack in its place: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BjornBriggs&diff=prev&oldid=733977638

This is an open and shut case. A ban is in order, it may be worth considering whether a sockpuppet investigation and IP ban and we have had similar problems like this before with users such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Murraylastmanstands1

Thanks Py0alb (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree mostly with the above report - this is a clear cut case of a SPA edit warring and a block may well be in order shortly. However, why is the section "Last Man Stands" even in that article? It's currently written in a tone which can hardly be described as a neutral point of view and is verified by a single, primary source (which, coincidentally is the only source in the entire article). I'm going to remove the entire section, it's not notable and really doesn't have any place on Wikipedia. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I dont think anyone should be banned for their first three edits. The reasonable thing to do here is note that a CEO of a company feels that the company is inaccurately portrayed, then make sure that the content is accurate and remove anything that is promotional - and then engage civilly with the editor who posted it and explain our rules and policies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Indeffed, nothing but promotional editing + a personal attack on the editor who warned them. Bishonen | talk 10:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC).
• Though I know I may well face the fiery wrath of Bishzilla (_ROARR!!), I disagree with you about this, Bishonen. BjornBriggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not given a {{WP:COI}} notice. There was no discussion on the article's talk page about this. There is no current {{WP:SPI}} about that editor. Shouldn't they be able be given a chance to argue their case? Pete "Cricket Tragic" (google it) AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I don't see why they can't do that in their unblock request, Peter. I don't like this kind of thing. But feel free to unblock and speak nicely to the user about COI and the like. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC).

• Bishonen is right. Promotional editing is promotional editing whether it's intended that way or not, and I don't understand why we ought to be tolerant of it. BethNaught (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• If I'm understanding things correctly, Shirt58 is not advocating tolerance, but is simply wanting to make sure we've made our best efforts to explain to the user why they can't do what they did, since at the time, no COI or personal attack notices were on the user's talk page -- although for what it's worth, based on the user's comments on other pages and his own, he may not be too receptive. Also I see that a COI informational template has been placed on the user's talk page now. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 16:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm of two minds on this. Before I got far enough in to see Bishonen's action here, I was prepared to propose a three-month block, expecting some might view that as extreme. Like Bishonen, I particularly do not care for the trollish PA, and I'll even go further to say I doubt very much, from the evidence provided by their contributions to date, that this editor is equipped to change their approach and become a productive asset to this project. That being said, as a principle, and looking at indeffs as the kind of mechanism deserving of a high level of pro forma process, I question if it is appropriate to throw the ban hammer at the situation before even approaching the editor about reforming their behaviour--even if this effort were intensely unlikely to bear fruit. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

User: JLOPO

User JLOPO has after going by 10 months with only on edit, come to my talk page wrongly accusing me of adding spam links, I then deleted the links (which i moved around but didn't add), and explained to him to carefully check the edits of users before accusing them of wrongdoing. He has then threatened to get an admin to ban me while undoing the edit he requested in the first place and stating he wasn't even talking about the article he mentioned before on my talk page.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm struggling to see any additions of external links (which aren't refs) by yourself ShadowDragon343, so I would be keen to see what JLOPO was referring to. Although a little full force, I don't think JLOPO has done anything actionable here -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. I was thinking of another user.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLOPO (talk • contribs) 12:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Back in October 2015 ShadowDragon343 created Clermont chain of lakes, a perfectly reasonable article about some lakes. A few days later, JLOPO tagged it for CSD-A1 (diff), which was inappropriate and was promptly declined. JLUPO then tagged it with a bunch of inappropriate cleanup tags (diff) and then tagged it for BLP sources, which is nonsense (diff). All of this was promptly removed by other users, as it should have been. JLUPO also warned ShadowDragon343 for NPOV (presumably on the lake) (diff), which again is nonsense. The user interaction analyser tool shows no other interactions between the two (report). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 12:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Then he basically does nothing for 10 months, returns, issues a 'spam' warning, deletes a huge chunk of content SD343 is working on, immediately replacing it again, unchanged. Next he wanders over to SD343's talkpage, issues a bizarre series of baseless, contradictory warnings and threats, explaining he's been 'monitoring' him. Then this ANI is started, he says "oh, sorry, wrong user", apologises, and deletes the warnings... Perhaps JLOPO can explain this sequence a little better? --Begoon ^talk 12:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving discussion from wikimedia research mailing list

I'm bringing this to ANI from the wikimedia research mailing list; the thread is at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2016-August/005324.html I've taken enough positions on the mailing list to count as an interested party.

Summary

Researchers used a bunch of accounts to create a bunch of articles using natural-language understanding techniques to attribute every sentence to a web page. Many of the web pages are unreliable and/or not useful for encyclopedia building (i.e. definitions of specialist terms in general-purpose dictionaries). They published the research results at https://siddbanpsu.github.io/publications/ijcai16-banerjee.pdf The pages may need an uninvolved eye over them.

Reported usernames

• Brownweepy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Theatremania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bhopebhai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dicdac123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My take

Other than any potential cleaning up of the articles I'm not sure that any action is warranted against the editors, since they were acting in good faith. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I just picked four new articles from three of those usernames at random, and they all looked okay if just a little weird. Do you know whether they have had offending articles deleted yet? 184.96.133.183 (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

All appear to have article and content-related discussions on their talk pages, but the line where normal editing stops and the research starts is unclear. Some have clearly been deleted, see for example Mazaua, Miss Tourism Queen International, Buddhism Today, Mobile Marketing Association, New York Model Management and Johnny Klimek. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just WP:PRODd Talonid, which appears to be medical information. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It's so bad, that I've just deleted it as G1, nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I've PRODd Sonia Bianchetti Garbato, Formula Opel ‎, Randy Stradley and Amiens International Film Festival . I think I've now looked at all the recent stuff. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am deleting some of these, in whole or part, with the edit summary "created by irresponsible machine editing by sockpuppets of a researcher [24]" Any admin who wishes may restore them without asking me if they want to take responsibility. I am not yet blocking the sockpuppets, but I encourage any admin who wishes to do so. And, the experimenters should note that their program used as sources several Wikipedia mirrors, well know n a such to all experienced human editors. Most were already removed by the time I got there. DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

their results

The authors say "We also created several articles using our approach in the English Wikipedia, most of which have been retained in the online encyclopedia." They claim if one looks more closely "The entire content added by our approach was retained only in 12 articles, "

They have no statement that their work has been approved by our research committee, and I do not see any statement that it has been approved by their university's research committee. Tbe presumably think they have dealt with any objections by their statement that the articles "are constantly monitored".

I consider this irresponsible editing, They admit they did not attempt to find our rules. That they thought there were no rules about this is no more a defense than a sockpuppet claiming that they did not know of rules about sockpuppettry. True, the only rule we actually display to people is about copyright. We could put a mandatory link to a list of policies or even to a page containing the key policies, but this would only be seen by a contributor as the usual click-through boilerplate.

The real problem is what it shows about our own failures. Not just that the articles were not detected, but that many dozens of bona fide editors worked on these articles without realizing their nature. This matches what anyone can see in the history of articles at AfD, that too many people make cosmetic fixes or fill in references without looking at the context. Some are of course explicitly bots, bot some are humans doing bot-assisted work who have the responsibility of checking what they do, and a depressing number are purely manual edits. As a positive note, the first WPedian to see the article I just deleted did very correctly add a template for "cleanup|reason=Poor grammar, unprofessional tone, better sources needed" . DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I regret to say I am one of the humans who performed inadequately, for I accepted an AfC with weirdly written but decipherable content at Faustus (Mamet play) and merged it into Faustus (play), without even fixing the weirdness. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the main problem concerns the research ethics of these researchers. Their computational approach to creating articles clearly failed, generating obvious nonsense. Yet, they uploaded these nonsense articles and took advantage of the often long time it takes for us to find them or that instead of deleting such articles, we try to fix them. They then use these issues with how we respond to claim their research was successful when in fact it was an utter failure.--I am One of Many (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am one of the usernames associated with the incident. I removed one of the userlinks as I realised that it was not used in this experiment. We made some edits using that username but most were as-is content , hence there was copyvio, which a reviewer had reverted in most cases, and we edited manually in a few cases. We did say that several edits were retained on Wikipedia in terms of quantity, but quality is still a problem as evident from the text. Moreover, we did use a human eye to check the content generated before posting it on Wikipedia. We did not want to use a bot to randomly go and create articles. Also, we ccould have deleted the articles after creation, but we saw several edits being made to multiple articles to improve them and it seemed they were adding some value. Furthermore, the rules were unclear -- however, as we are not conducting anything else now, I will make sure that I inform all researchers in this area about what's acceptable. I agreed to give away all the usernames I used such that the cleaning can be done. - Brownweepy (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a clear attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia for the researcher's own aims. I think that a site ban is the appropriate response.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a misrepresentation to say that their aim was disruption; the disruption was clearly just of incidental concern to them, which is problematic enough. In any event, I also support site bans in this instance, without reservation. Further, in light of their apparently complete lack of effort to engage with the research community or the WMF and approach their research process through proper channels, their research institution definitely needs to be informed of their behaviour here, and the disruption it has caused. They clearly used this project as a testbed for their work without the consent or foreknowledge of the community, creating a mess our volunteers will now have to spend numerous editorial hours attempting to clean up.

Frankly, I find garden variety vandals markedly less offensive than this. The professional ethics of these researchers need a serious check; their efforts to explain above, while apparently honest, are seriously lacking. Any experienced researcher should know better than to leverage (and potentially disrupt) an open project in their research without first clearing it with the institution managing that project. This is seriously amateur hour and might be comical if not for the work created out of their fumbling. Let's make sure this gets addressed at every relevant level. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, as I have mentioned earlier, disrupting was never the goal. I am trying to address this with everyone of you from the Wikipedia community. The thing is previous work on this: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P09-1024 was done long back by other researchers. Given that they worked on critical categories such as diseases, nothing about such research was mentioned on Wikipedia. Moreover, our similar work was covered by Wikimedia newsletter earlier [25] and nothing was mentioned as to get things checked about this kind of work. We would definitely have involved the wikimedia research community had we seen any related information on such issues. We definitely did not want to do anything of this sort which this research (https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/127472) claims to do by forcibly randomizing content. I completely understand that the articles would need edits from editors, but we tried to keep the number of articles to bare minimum level. I am just gaining experience now as a researcher (doctoral student), but want to make sure these things do not get repeated. Most of the things mentioned here have been covered in the research mailing list, I would request to please keeping it there, so that I can get an entire set of information at the same place and bring it to the notice of the research committee (the committee to whom I presented my proposal to conduct this work). My advisor would also be posting on that thread within a few days as he is travelling now and he would provide his thoughts on the same. Brownweepy (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should hack into your dissertation the night before your defense and add some facially reasonable-looking garbage to the footnotes and bibliography. What in the world is wrong with you? EEng 07:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Apparently, "disrupting was never the goal". Brownweepy, this masterpiece was one of the gifts brought to us by this exercise. Approximately how much volunteer editor time do you think it would take to fix that, if it is fixable? What would you say the threshold for being disruptive is? Was any consideration whatsoever given to the volunteer hours this exercise would waste or the trouble it would cause? Don't feel you have to be too detailed in your answers - the questions are largely rhetorical. Randy Stradley is a real person, by the way, was that a consideration, at all? --Begoon ^talk 07:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Brownweepy, I am just an ordinary Wikipedia editor who has tried to improve this encyclopedia pretty much every day for the past seven years. I only have a 35 year year old bachelor's degree and am far from the exalted status of a PhD candidate. I am surprised that a PhD candidate like you writes in such a muddled fashion and would set out on a "research" project that would end up disrupting the #6 website in the world, creating really poor content and making extra work for volunteers who will get no academic credit for cleaning up your messes. Your "research" seems to be both without value and actually counterproductive. Ponder this, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)l

• Brownweepy, there seems a general view that (a) your machine-generated articles are below the minimum acceptable standard for Wikipedia contributions, and (b) you don't seem to care that your "research" is predicated on other random strangers cleaning up after you. So we can move forward, will you and your fellow researchers agree not to create any more machine-generated articles, and to go back over your previous creations to fix the more nonsensical parts? -- Euryalus (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Euryalus Yes, I have mentioned this that we did not add any content after Feb 2016 (6 months before) and we will not add anything new. If we do anything on generation. we will get it evaluated thru a diff crowdsourcing technique and not 'disrupt' content on Wikipedia. I will go over the old created content (already have edited many when earlier reviewers said content has issues) and fix them as far as i can. Also, if content that seems totally garbage, I will request deletion of entire articles.If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I understand that content was below acceptable standard, and I do care that time was needed to fix the content in several cases by editors. Edit: I made small reverts to the content that was added from our machine generated content in 3 articles. Could you please check if the changes seem fine with the reasoning? I will proceed with the others in that case a few hours from now.Brownweepy (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Brownweepy: thanks for the assurances; if you could review and rectify all the content created as part of this research, that would be great. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Euryalus: I have corrected the issues for the first account, removed content in several cases, fixed grammaticalities and also validated info from sources (removed if the source ceases to exist where the information was not relevant). I will continue working on the other accounts. If you see anything wrong with the edits I made recently, please let me know. Brownweepy (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Brownweepy, I recognize your desire to attempt to rectify this situation, and it is appreciated, but you must understand that you've put the volunteer community in a bit of a spot here. The problem is, for someone doing research on how to generate content on Wikipedia, you seem to be remarkably unfamiliar with the project's procedures and policies. You've said a few times now that you didn't realize you were violating any guidelines by conducting this research as you did. But that's a pretty wild assumption--it doesn't seem you applied even cursory diligence in exploring what our rules might be on such matters. Did you contact so much as a single person at the Wikimedia Foundation or our volunteer community before coming to this conclusion and then bowling through with generating and adding large amounts of junk content through multiple accounts? That's a pretty basic step to ignore in conducting research in an ethical and effective manner and in failing to make that effort, you not only denied the community the opportunity to decide whether we wish to allow/participate in this research, you precluded any efforts we might have made to minimize the disruption and affect a quick clean-up of this machine-generated nonsense material.

This is all the more galling for the fact that you clearly anticipated that you would be generating work for editors here; part of your metrics for judging the success of your process are predicated in whether editors retained or removed the content added. Which, by the way, huh? The fact that you felt that you could draw a strong empirical correlation between a) whether an article was retained or deleted and b) the coherence and general quality of the generated content, is just further evidence that you are woefully unfamiliar with the topic you are conducting research on; otherwise you would have understood the vast number of procedural and systemic issues that make drawing that conclusion from that result a ludicrous assumption. And it's clear that drumming up this "evidence" of the success of your process (when compared against other methods for creating machine-generated content) was the only reason for adding the content to Wikipedia, as otherwise you would have just analyzed the results of your content by applying your heuristics, without uploading the content at all (which, if you weren't going to reach out to the community before adding that material, is exactly what you should have done).

So, again, this all puts us in a tough place. You violated both multiple behavioural and editorial guidelines (and the trust of the community broadly) and have created a lot of work for our volunteers, most of which probably could have been avoided if you'd done basic diligence in reaching out to the community before rushing forward. Even with your willingness to engage with the material to remove that which is unsuitable, there simply has been/will be a lot of effort to sort all of this out, both in article and talk space. So if we don't address this situation, we risk inviting a repeat with the next researcher working on computational approaches to natural language who wants to use us the site as a testbed without working with the community to minimize disruption.

Now, in light of the fact that you genuinely seem to want to eliminate the consequences of your previous approach here, I expect you'll avoid a ban (though it's hard to say; some may take a very dim view of the socking). And despite the above, I'm leaning towards this option, if only because we can clean this mess up faster with your help than without. And who knows, maybe we'll even get a new regular editor out of the whole mess. But I would be prepared for the community to also see the need to examine this whole matter in detail and to observe this as an obvious example of how not to conduct outside research on this project. Because researchers and institutions need to realize that this project is not a laboratory for their work, not unless they make an effort to work with the community. Sorry to be so hard-nosed and blunt about all of this, but in the event that this gets more community attention than you were hoping for, I think you should be told why, so that you can appreciate that this is about fixing the broken content and preventing future disruption, and not about punishing you for mistakes you already recognize. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Snow Rise: Snow Rise, thanks for your note. I understand what you have written here.I would request a delay in the ban such that I can clean up all the mess (should not take more than a couple of days as most of the articles in the usernames have already been deleted). I agree that it is necessary to fix this from a research perspective. I am planning to write a summary of all the learning in the research mailing list and would request you to please add anything that I might miss. I want to bring it to the notice of everyone somewhat related to my research (university, research committee, advisor) and also to other researchers I know who work on similar areas. I admit that the community was involved unknowingly and it is important from an ethical point of view. While we tried to post minimal articles, other researchers might try generating a lot more and this certainly needs to be addressed and stopped. While no justification can be provided in this case, our assumptions (based on our prev work being written about in an initial research newsletter and also existing work in this area cited above) kind of made us believe in things that were inappropriate. It is important to decide with representatives from WMF on what can be /not done. The premise of this kind of work(even the previous ones) rests with the belief that if content can pass on as written by humans is a success, which is a highly invalid claim. I think a major section in the upcoming newsletter would help get better community attention on these aspects. Brownweepy (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Is the list of accounts at the head of this thread complete? EEng 16:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @EEng: Yes, it is. There was one extra account that I listed earlier, but it was already fixed long back to resolve copyvios. I fixed contentin all articles from brownweepy account. Will proceed with the others. Please let me know if you find anything wrong with my recent corrections. Update: Second username articles checked and errors corrected. Brownweepy (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have made corrections and removed several content that looked garbage in the articles from my above mentioned accounts. I was not sure during the start of this discussion whether I should go and edit it myself as people in the research list were actively participating in a discussion. Thanks to a couple of notes yesterday, that made me go and change/revert/correct the edits. Also, several of the articles from such users have already been removed by other administrators. In some cases, the references that I used did not seem reliable and I have removed content and such references. I have gone through all the articles. I would request people of this thread to take a look if possible to the recent corrections I did and if anything looks wrong, please let me know. As I have mentioned earlier, my advisor will participate in the discussion in the mailing list. But I want to summarize all that came up in the discussion and I will post that experience on the mailing list soon -- starting from multiple account violation to the lack of informing the Wikimedia research community. Brownweepy (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

IP User: 99.194.49.63

99.194.49.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

IP: 99.194.49.63 has engaged in edit warring at the [26]. The content he is attempting to add has already been discussed in the talk section and has reached a consensus. The material he is attempting to re-add is against consensus. Aside from that, the use has made no attempt to reopen the discussion in the talk section and just engages in edit warring. Was about to add a warning template to his talk page, however, it is already full of warnings, so it is nothing that has not been communicated to him already. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This user made some questionable changes to Luxury yacht without any edit summary, which I reverted. I checked the IP's contributions and found several unexplained removals of sourced material, for example [27] and [28]. Removal of sourced material with no edit summary or misleading summary seems disruptive to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

IP-only SPA reverting changes done to DataCore page

Few unpleasant facts were added to DataCore Software page. Funny enough they are referenced by same sources singing diphirambs to DataCore before. Few IP-only accounts traced back to Fort Lauderdale where DataCore HQs are located now are trying to revert changes instead of rephrasing them or whatever. Sock puppets and Conflict of Interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DataCore_Software

Please help to keep Wikipedia tidy and unbiased. Thanks! NISMO1968 (talk)

Third IP-only SPA joined ;( NISMO1968 (talk)

 Question: which Ip's are you referring to?  Note: you are required to notify them of this discussion using the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

List

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:64.129.87.118

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2601:58B:100:4B0B:484F:1CD8:FBD1:9E1D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2601:58B:100:4B0B:6958:6F7:F5E4:BC21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:209.60.65.6

Cameron, I've notified all 4 throwaway SPAs. Thank you for your time and help! NISMO1968 (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A few additional points: 1) Those are all simply IPs, so it's difficult to call them throwaway WP:SPAs. I wouldn't exactly call Special:Contributions/64.129.87.118 throwaway anyway even if an account although the editing history is slightly concerning.

2) You've called stuff WP:vandalism [29], but I suggest you take a re-read of the guideline as I'm not seeing any clear cut vandalism. In fact what I'm seeing looks a lot like a WP:content dispute which means all of you need to stop editing and continue discussing on the talk page.

3) If you suspect WP:paid editing or a WP:COI, it'll be best to notify the IPs of our policies and guidelines first, but at the very least you'll need to present any evidence here or at WP:COI/N for anything to come from that. (I've notified the longer term IP.)

4) While this isn't the place to discuss content disputes, I have to say the IPs come out more favourably in the core of the dispute surrounding the withdrawn results as I'm not seeing any suggestion in any of the 3 sources that the results were withdrawn because "actually using synthetic and incompatible configurations to cheat the benchmark". Instead the only info discussing the reason for withdrawal suggests the IP's version is correct. If you have sources demonstrating the contrary, you should add them to the article rather than just continually reverting to something which isn't actually supported by the sources. If competitors had expressed concern and this was widely covered in WP:RS, there may be merit to mention this in the article without implying it was related to the withdrawn results if there's no evidence for that. Again this is why you need to discss on the talk page.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention but as always, if you can't resolve the content dispute amongst yourselves, the solution is some form of WP:dispute resolution not edit warring or ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Nil thank you for wasting your time on this! Let's go back to your remarks one-by-one: 1) You're absolutely correct about User:64.129.87.118 and his (her?) posts history here Special:Contributions/64.129.87.118. All posts except the very first (IP shared?) one are about DataCore. IP address is traced back to Ft. Lauderdale where DataCore is based. Too many crossovers IMHO! 2) It's clearly User:64.129.87.118 used "vandalism" term to revert initial updates done by User:APS (Full Auto). Please check history here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DataCore_Software&action=history for more info. 3) There's clearly a WP:COI but as there are 4 separate accounts currently it's going to take quite some time to glue all parts together. Things are on hold currently! 4) I'm personally OK with the wording as long as it keeps User:APS (Full Auto) happy so I'm not going to argue here. I'm not OK with anybody using multiple throwaway accounts just to destroy contribution done by somebody else. If we'll keep things unchanged we'll create a very questionsble and a very dangerous precedent. Thanks again! NISMO1968 (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Small issue relating to creating new article

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

---

I tried to move User:Penbat/Guilt trip to mainspace but couldnt as guilt trip already existed as a disambig page. I renamed guilt trip as guilt trip (disambiguation) but am still unable to move User:Penbat/Guilt trip to mainspace because of redirect guilt trip. Can an admin kindly delete guilt trip. Thanks. --Penbat (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated impoliteness, baiting and uncivil behavior

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

---

Hi, after several days of being hounded by editor, Thomas.W I'm asking for help from administrators. This editor very directly pointed out to me on my talk page why he believes I should not be editing a certain page and despite my attempts to have a civil discussion with him it quickly devolved into him posting rude and condescending comments. When I went to his talk page and asked him to please keep his tone civil when addressing me and other editors on Wikipedia (I pointed out no less than 3 instances in the last 6 days when he had been rude to other editors on his own talk page) he then replied rudely again to me and essentially told me that those other editors he had been rude to had it coming. I believe that by ignoring the civility code Thomas.W is not following the 5 pillars. He also appears to be hounding me with talk page comments and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a similar pattern existed between him and other editors. Wikipedia should be a place where editors should not be freely abused and disrespected by more senior editors. Would an administrator please take appropriate action so that Thomas.W corrects his behavior and conforms to Wikipedia's standards of acceptable behavior. Thank youMonopoly31121993 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This is almost funny, since I'm the one who is being hounded, not Monopoly3112193. The background to it all is that Monopoly posted totally irrelevant material on Germans, an article that, as explicitly stated in the first sentence of the lead section, is about the ethnic group, not about people who live in Germany regardless of ethnicity and nationality, as the material that Monopoly added to the article is. Not only once or twice but three times, the third time several hours after I posted a message on their talk page page asking them to stop, and explaining why they should stop (the whole discussion there can be found here, including Monopoly's final comment telling me to "get a life"). They then posted a swiftly closed complaint at WikiProject Editor Retention (the whole disscussion can be seen here, including my response to it), followed by posting on my talk page today (the whole discussion can be seen here, including my response to it), and now complain here too, while I haven't done anything since last posting on their talk page, other than posting one response to their accusations at WikiProject Editor Retention and one response on my talk page. And now here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The term "Germans" seems ambiguous. Maybe change the article title? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Moving the article should be discussed on the talk page of the article, and the same goes for changing the scope of the article as Monopoly has repeatedly tried to do. But there has been no discussion at all on the talk page. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • I find the OP here to be the more problematic editor, as Thomas W. is not the one he is edit warring with. In fact. Thomas W. does not appear to be an active editor at all on Germans. Monopoly311... is the one arguing with other editors, and should be directed to WP:CONSENSUS. If an editor has a content issue with several editors, this sort of dramaboarditis is not going to help. Collect (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute, with both editors getting irritable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• • I don't understand how this became about my revert of an edit to a specific article? This was about uncivil remarks to other users (NOT JUST ME) by this editor. The 4th pillar of Wikipedia which is to be civil. In the past week alone this editor has sent the following messages to other editors: "Are you doing machine translations from Greek to English? "The Jaguars what it means" has no meaning at all in English, it's just gibberish. If you don't know enough English to communicate with other editors here you shouldn't edit the English language Wikipedia... " , "Thanks for the link to WP:Verifiability and your advice, which would no doubt be of benefit for a new user, but I have had this account since 2006, have made ~38,000 edits, check sources every day and know the rules better than most. I also know what the established practice here is, unlike you obviously, so I need neither your advice nor your links." These aren't even the comments he made to me, they're just ones I found on his talk page. I sent these as examples to him in a message on his talk page reminding him to be civil (he then crossed out but has since reverted this, he also told me that those other editors had it coming). All I was asking for here was for admins to take a good look at whether he was being civil and if they didn't think so, remind him to be civil so that he doesn't offend or intimidate other editors. Editor retention is a huge problem for Wikipedia and if editors interact rudely and aren't civil people won't want to contribute.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

My block

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

---

I blocked Shivayves (talk · contribs · count) for WP:NLT. The user made two comments on my Talk page in reference to my revert of the user at Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica. In the first long comment, they said in part, "Wikipedia is not extralegal territory and as a lawyer it is my opinion that you should give this some consideration." Shortly after in a second comment (I hadn't responded), they added, "I also want to make clear that I will file an official complaint to Wikipedia if you keep ignoring the facts. In addition, I am also open to take legal measure." In my view, the first comment wasn't sufficient to constitute a legal threat, but the second, in particular when combined with the prior comments, was.

I was busy doing something else, and I blocked the user fairly quickly. In hindsight, I probably should have reported the user here and let another administrator take action. I know that WP:INVOLVED has the following "loophole": "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." However, honestly, I didn't give the matter enough thought before blocking.

I can't quite bring myself to unblock, although I will if that's deemed to be the best course of action. Instead, I bring the block here for review. And my apologies for creating more drama than necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Good block. He should stay blocked until (or if) he recants and disavows those comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block No question. Katie^talk 20:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block I saw the post and would have brought it here had Shivayves not already been blocked. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse Block- Pretty clear legal threat.--Church ^Talk 20:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block - The 2nd comment is a legal treat no doubt about it and should be blocked for it. –Davey2010^Talk 20:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block: Clearly a legal threat. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 21:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Legal threats should not be tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block - A pretty explicit legal threat there. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Proposed deletions 11 days old to 7 days old

Hello - requesting admin(s) close stale Proposed deletions. For example, for 2 Aug 2016 there are 27 pages still not deleted [30] and for 3 Aug 2016 there are 35 pages still not deleted [31].

Below are the others

4 August (31 pages) [32]

5 August (53 pages) [33]

6 August (67 pages) [34] and I noticed that some on this date have not passed into 7 days but other articles have.

----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, it is up to the admin or admins doing the closures to decide the particular fate of each article - hopefully that goes without saying. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 Doing... but this will take a while to get through (additional volunteers welcome). -- Euryalus (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

James scranman Kelly (disambiguation)

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

---

On this newly created page, there have been several accounts editing the page at a time. The following accounts are:

• Oohohoho (talk · contribs)
• JKelloScranManFanClan (talk · contribs)
• Reece24 (talk · contribs)
• JKelloScranManFanClan2 (talk · contribs)
• Walmsletscranman (talk · contribs)
• AdamBR24 (talk · contribs)
• Doggryuryryryry (talk · contribs)

I've tagged the page under the "A7" criteria for speedy deletion, and multiple of these accounts have contested the deletion and have been removing the speedy deletion template. There may be more accounts that I have not seen yet, but this could be a meat-puppetry mass attack... Can an administrator please look into this...? Thanks. 73.96.113.65 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I rather doubt that this is meatpuppetry. I also rather doubt that this is worth the effort of an SPI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The statement "James is an a musician and the lead guitarist of unknown metal band Dog" deserves to be enshrined as an example of WP:NOT. MarnetteD|Talk 00:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Article deleted, moles whacked. —Cryptic 01:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

AfD disruption

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

---

Editor: Special:Contributions/Avento55

Concern: Editor is persistently redacting AfD comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJ Atencio:

• diff 2
• diff 1

User has been warned several times about inappropriate editing on their Talk page: User talk:Avento55. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Previous warnings, while they've gone all the way up to level 4, were for removing the afd tag from the page, not for removing comments from the AFD. As it happens, the same series of templates is used for both, so though I'm not going to block immediately (any other admin is of course free to), I'll watch the AFD and do so if he tries it even one more time. —Cryptic 03:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• The AfD is closed. Cryptic, you were correct in your comments at the AfD: typically, admins really don't need notes about SPAs and stuff like that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

90.217.128.130 need talk privileges revoked

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

---

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

Please revoke blocked user 90.217.128.130's talk page privileges. I have not notified the IP. Jim1138 (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, a bit of WP:RVDL might be in order. Jim1138 (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Iryna Harpy wants to ban me

For evading a ban that has already expired, in addition to removing uncited material, something she considers disruptive. I would like someone to look at the article for Arab Christians. She is reverting my good faith edits for no good reason. -2601:546:8103:290:44EC:F9B:A7C7:FD2C (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

She is perfectly entitled to remove uncited material just as anyone else is. It is you who keeps adding it who is being disruptive. I would watch out for any WP:BOOMERANGs that happen to be flying around. --Elektrik Fanne 13:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, absolutely wrong Elektrik Fanne he has provided reliable sources. and I have warned Iryna. VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Online} 13:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. My agolopies - I had the interaction the wrong way around. Though my point about deleting uncited material was valid (whoever does it). --Elektrik Fanne 13:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup and thanks Shall we close this case?VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Online} 13:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Has User:Iryna Harper actually filed at WP:AIV or WP:SPI? If so, let it run. If not, this may still be a content dispute. Read the dispute resolution policy, discuss on the article talk page, and, if that does not work, follow a content dispute resolution procedure such as Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Iryna should have a chance to respond. VarunFEB2003, please do not close threads at ANI as based on what I've seen, you need more experience editing here before doing so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Eh, No. Don't close the case yet, far too premature. If I may add, your warning, was a bit subpar. You started off by stating that you were going to "give you some advice" before finishing off with "remember my advice or you might regret" which came off very much like a threat. If you're going to give a warning be explicit about it, such as; your reversion of good faith and correct edits at such and such article have become disruptive, please desist and take the discussion to the talk page if you disagree with the edits. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Neiln, I have never closed an ANI case! And yes Rnddude I'll take care with my english usage and see to that I end with what I started to say. Thanks. VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Online} 17:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the IP editor has created him/herself an account. I asked him/her to create an account.[35] And shortly afterwards, a message appeared on my talk page saying that one had been created.[36]

I think that both editors have acted in good faith, and tried to do the right thing. Both have been told that they have reached their limit on reverting that page for today (Iryna Harpy[37] IP editor[38][39]) Both have respected the warning. This is a good sign.

I see that another editor has reverted the changes made by the IP editor.[40] If LebanonisArab (the former IP editor) wishes to change this, then he/she will have to explain his/her reasoning on the article talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Kazaro

This user has been disrupting articles related to GMA Network. This includes adding non-factual, misleading and unsourced information to the articles (e.g. changing the picture format of GMA Network television programs to 1080p HDTV, adding GMA Films, APT Entertainment, OctoArts Films, M-Zet Productions, TAPE Inc., and Regal Films as affiliates/associates (subsidiary and division) of each other.) This user has also been deleting a portion of content on the Star Cinema article even though it has been properly cited.

These are just some of the proof of the user's persistent vandalism:

• [41]
• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]
• [47]
• [48]
• [49]

Hollyckuhno (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Mannerheimo and demographics articles

In the last week Mannerheimo has been revising articles about countries' demographics of ethnicity and religion by substituting reliable data, in many cases the most recent census data, with data from the CIA World Factbook which is not only outdated in many cases (even of 10 or 20 years ago), but frequently a collection of grossly imprecise estimates. I assume the good faith of user Mannerheimo, but he has been already adviced on his talk page and reverted by various users. I ask the administrators to watch over his edits.--151.36.25.60 (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Notifying the involved editor. Also they seem to have misunderstood the comment that another editor had left on their page, perhaps they need it clarified. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If one cannot use the CIA World Factbook as an sourch I think these idea dosen't favour the idea of Wikipedia. I have discussed with User:Nillurcheier about these issue and the result was that User:Nillurcheier dosent't have enyting against the CIA World Factbook. Seems that here is not an clear cut with other users useing the World Factbook as sourch. --Mannerheimo (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not what Nillurcheier said at all. They said the CIA Factbook was a good, general source, but often outdated for certain statistics by as much as 10-20 years, and that we should use more up to date statistics when available:- "In general CIA World Factbook is an acceptable source. However they don't do original research but collect carefully data from all over the world. Hence, if we have and know primary sources, they should always be preferred. Some data is on date, religious data however are quite often outdated. E.g. the religious composition for Germany in the Factbook says 34% Catholic and 34% protestants. Well this is a figure that was true in 1995. today it's 29% and 28%. I hope, we can agree on the preference or primary sources such as censuses or surveys (e.g. by PEW)"[50]. Begoon ^talk 14:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes User:Nillurcheier said also about outdated facts but User:Nillurcheier used Germany for exemple. But Germany is not hole story.Some countries the information from Factbook is outdated and some are not.So giving one countries argument for all is not just fare. Every country is diffrent issue seperatly. That is an fact. I expect the concensus policy in Wikipedia but not all issues are concensus. Updating is not under concenus. --Mannerheimo (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Mannerheimo, your English makes it difficult for me to figure out exactly what you're saying. Yes, all issues should be settled by way of consensus. "Updating" is one thing, but if you use outdated sources (as you did, apparently, in the example given above), then you are by definition not updating--you're downdating. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree about my English. But that dosen't make be an any worst Wikipedian than you or other. In English Wikipedia there are lot of non-english first language speaking users. The issue about outdating information is an issue but is not only My issue is the issue of All Wikipedians. I have not created the issue but I am only useing the information which I find from sourchies like Factbook which is made for public use. --Mannerheimo (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing there is not an world in English called downdating.--Mannerheimo (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright rapid fire address here; Simple way to deal with this issue, if there's a out-of-date reference attached to the article or if it is of dubious quality than consider replacing with the CIA Factbook, if the reference provided is recent and reliable (say 5 or so years) then don't replace it with the CIA Factbook. The term downdating that Drmies used is not meant to be an actual word, it's meant to convey an idea, it's comparable to upgrading and downgrading (both of which are words). Your English makes it difficult to follow you, that's not meant to be an insult, just a reality. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I will consider your idea. I have just done so. For updating Religious Demographics of Japan. The old information was from 2006 but the Factbook information was from 2012 . So which is older 2012 or 2006? I think the right answer is 2006. Link to the Factbook [51]. --Mannerheimo (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have doubts about the ability of Mannerheimo to distinguish a good source from a bad one. He seems to assume that data from the CIA Factbook is always good because it is produced by that agency, but actually it is not good data. In many cases the data collected by the CIA Factbook is outdated but the date of publication is not, and they never make reference to their sources. Based on what I have observed over the last few years their data tends to be very inaccurate, "guesstimated" in many cases. The same can be said about the Pew Research publications of 2010. Iryna Harpy could help explaining the problems of these sources. Mannerheimo could use CIA data where no other surveys are available. I personally would prefer to keep CIA and Pew data completely out of Wikipedia. --151.34.254.220 (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, he continues to delete census data. He should be stopped immediately. He has already damaged a lot of articles. I have been able to revert just the major ones.--151.34.254.220 (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I stop useing the CIA World Factbook. I don't want to make an editing war about these issue. Anonomous users versus registrated users is very odd arguement. But Just I want so say this. If two users Mr rnddude and User:Nillurcheier agree with Me that the Factbook is an good sourch of information but it seems that not all a agree with it. I think also that Pew Research data or any data outside from Wikipedia is suitable data. My edits about Demographics of Continents useing the Factbook was an waste of editing. I will continue editing some thing else because my editing about Demographics of Countries with the sourch of Factbook is not just ok for some over active anonomous users. Thank you for these discussion. I will end it here. --Mannerheimo (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

IP-hopper

86.187.170.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest IP of the disruptive editor described here. The account I'm using is an alt account to avoid giving attention to this troll. AccountForANI (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That's the third one in a week or so, how long has this problem been plaguing you (Seven years is the answer to question 1) and is there anything that can be done to address it permanently? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Little over eight years now, on and off. I've contacted the ISP a couple times, poked at some wiki bureaucrats for information regarding the availability of server-side logs; user-agent strings, connection logs, the stuff that the ISP might need to correlate traffic to a specific person, but the consensus seemed to be that without a court order, the Wikimedia foundation wasn't going to turn over logs like that, and likewise very slim chances that the ISP would play ball without any legal pressure. Tools like Twinkle weren't much use either. I took it past WP:EFR where it was initially denied, but has been picked up again now by a helpful editor here. EFR does seem to be the best option. AccountForANI (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Extra request -- Revdeletion for my accidental tagging of the the IP's userpage with a tag meant for my own user page. It's kind of important that they don't see the origin of these edits as it would alert them to my current strategy of dealing with them only through this alt. AccountForANI (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I honestly cannot fathom how somebody can dedicate eight years of their life to make one editor's Wiki-editing experience miserable, there is no description for this that doesn't involve violating NPA and Civil. You have quite the perseverance to still be at it after this much time (the IP too, but, in the worst possible way). I hope EFR can at least improve the situation somewhat, I note that even with the abuse filter it could still end up being a game of cat and mouse. Sorry that you have to deal with this nonsense. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@AccountForANI: With this and your previous ANI complaint: if I can work out what your main account is in not much over a few milliseconds, I am sure everyone else can. You were warned on your talk page not to abuse multiple accounts and you are doing precisely that. Even so: if you wish to use this alternate account, you must unambiguously link it to each and every other account that you use. --Elektrik Fanne 16:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ffs we're not a bureaucracy Elektrik Fanne. The faster we deal with the issue (Wikistalk and Harassment) the less of a sock issue this will be. The editor has a legitimate reason for having a sock, and you did not work out who the editor was in "the first few milliseconds" as you had no idea who they were on the last AN/I thread until it was pointed out. The regulars here by now know what we're dealing with and those who don't can easily be informed. Alright, turns out we are a bureaucracy as per the talk page. If the template won't give up the information then add it, if it will, leave it off. Nvm template has been added. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As I read it, this usage is not an acceptable use per WP:SOCK#LEGIT, as the alternate account is still not linked to the main account. --Elektrik Fanne 16:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You are for all intents and purposes correct. I am also taking into account the situation, as long as this account can by some facet remain separate to the main (meaning that the main account does not explicitly link to the sock, the sock can link to the main) then it would seem reasonable to take the appropriate action and place the correct tags/templates/ubx's so as to not confuse other editors into the belief that this account exists with the sole purpose of abuse. It, I would think evidently, doesn't but understand that from a strictly policy perspective it might appear as though it does. Especially if whoever comes across this is not sufficiently familiar, as editors have and will continue to. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not abusing multiple accounts. This is a legitimate attempt to avoid a stalker. I've dealt with this guy several times, including with rangeblocks, and the idea that the OP is being warned against sockpuppetry is almost nauseating. Are we going to help stop this abuse or are we not? If we aren't, let's go right ahead and blame the victim and block him for socking. If we are, let's apply a healthy dose of WP:IAR and get off our high horses. I'll see what I can do about a fresh rangeblock shortly. Katie^talk 18:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie, I feel more or less the same way, the only thing here is that, what if somebody who has no knowledge of the issue came along and drew an incorrect conclusion? it happened on the previous thread to at least two editors who apologized for casting Aspersions based on the little data they were given. Other than that, yes, let's help out here and drop the sockpuppet commandment stone for a second. Note, check EFR they're working on an abuse filter as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say we're working on an edit filter now, pretty clear given the ongoing harassment that this is the least we can do to help the editor -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with Katie, starting to accuse the OP of sockpuppetry for having legtimate worries about harassment that has been going on for several years is nauseating. I would also like to add that, as clearly stated at the top of the page, this noticeboard is for administrators and experienced users, and not a playground for new and inexperienced users, no matter how much they want to help out, meaning that Elektrik Fanne, a five months old account with 742 edits (of which just under 400 are in article space, and 48 here on WP:ANI, so far), has no business commenting here in threads that don't directly concern them, especially when the comments are so totally off the mark as in this thread. Go make useful contributions on articles instead, that's the main reason we're here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

User:DevilWearsBrioni is very disruptive and abusing OR and SYNTH

DevilWearsBrioni maintains a highly disruptive attitude and behavior, by raising multiple WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH accusations against other users, and maintains a highly polemic climate with his OR and SYNTH accusations to the point of having turned certain articles and pages within Wikipedia pretty unaffordable and unfriendly for the editors to contribute and work on.

First of all, he has raised a dispute in the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians, in which he kept accusing me and the User:Alexikoua for OR in spite of sources (provided both on the article itself and the article's talk page) proving that there is no OR or SYNTH, where he even edit warred with whoever objected to his accusations, in bid to impose his opinions. His refusal to be reasoned by the facts, has led him to drag us to the No Original Research Noticeboard, here: [[52]] with title "OR/SYNTH issues?" where the administrators ignored him as they found his claims/accusations very weak or unproven. However this couldn't discourage or stop him and thus, he dragged us to another noticeboard(!), this time to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, here: [[53]] with title: "Expulsion of Cham Albanians" where this time a DRN mediator, User:Iazyges, came and examined the case, listened to DevilWearsBrioni's claims, valuated the sources, and at the end, Iazyges told him crystal-clear that the sources contradict his OR/SYNTH claims and that his OR/SYNTH arguments have no ground and eventually the case on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard was resolved against him and closed.

If that Dispute Resolution Noticeboard's decission against DevilWearsBrioni wasn't enough, and if DevilWearsBrioni's insistence and stubborness with his OR and SYNTH accusations exhausting me and the other users wasn't enough of a grievance (we have been debating his accusations on 3 DIFFERENT PAGES for a VERY VERY LONG TIME, but to no avail!), he still insisted with his disruptive behavior against everyone! So after the case was finally over and a resolution came, and right when we could take a breather and move our attention to other Wikipedia articles that need our attention, he revived the debate by trying to cast doubt to the mediator Iazyge's handling of the case, by posting this: [[54]] with title: "Dispute not handled appropriately?" on the talk page of the said Noticeboard.

Eventually, mediator User:Robert McClenon came and adviced him either to "file a RfC" or "let the case go". Eventually, the mediator closed DevilWearsBrioni's "Dispute not handled appropriately?" topic. However, DevilWearsBrioni doesn't seem to let it go, and thus, he resumed his disruptive edits and now he has entered an edit war against me, mediator Iazyges, and the user Alexikoua on the Expulsion of Cham Albanians, where he is trying to add NOR tags to the article and restore his chronic NOR disputes, as seen by his edits here: [[55]], here: [[56]] and here: [[57]].

I have posted an warning on his talk page here: [[58]] with title: "Please refrain from putting more OR or SYNTH tags on Expulsion of Cham Albanians" because this is the best I can do, but given the long history of his disruptive behaviors against multiple other users and mediators, I do not know what else to do to protect my sanity against the odd nature of this case, and I am screaming for help.

I am very certain that the user DevilWearsBrioni has a full understanding of what exactly No Original Research (NOR) and Synthesis (SYNTH) are according to Wikipedia's rules, and I am certain of this, because it came to my notice that, in the past, he has raised even more NOR/SYNTH cases, on various noticeboards, as can be seen here [[59]] with title "No Original Research Policy should not take 8 years to grasp", where he raised a case against another user, and in the more recent past, at: [[60]] with title: "Trying to understand SYNTH"

Please, can someone help me and the others and stop that user DevilWearsBrioni from raising constant OR and SYNTH accusations against us? He has ruined our Wikipedia lives and I can't withstand this odd kind of persecution anymore. Lately I am seriously considering quitting the Wikipedia Project just because of all this, as the stress DevilWearsBrioni is causing with his disruptive attitude towards the other users, including me, has pushed everyone to the edge, as you can see from the tone of our messages towards that person who is not willing to ever stop.

Honestly, I seriously doubt DevilWearsBrioni will ever stop with his endless OR / SYNTH accusations. In fact, he just raised another SYNTH accusation, these days, here! [[61]] with title "Synthesis yet again".

Please, help. This user clearly does not intend to show any respect to Wikipedia's procedures and is not stopping with his SYNTH / OR accusations, even when there is consensus against him. In the light of all these disturbing actions and accidents, he should be permanently blocked from editing the page Expulsion of Cham Albanians or at least be deprived of his right of raising more SYNTH and OR accusations against the others in the future. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Could we have the WP:TLDR version? --Elektrik Fanne 16:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

tl;dr - Devilwearsbrioni constantly slinging unfounded and false WP:OR and WP:SYNTH accusations at other editors to force them to comply with their wishes and to justify edit-warring whenever possible. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

TLDR version: What Mr rnddude said above, plus: Edit warrings, 3RR breaches, failure to reach a consensus with other users in the talk pages, disruptive edits, abuse of Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms, prolongation of a dispute that could otherwise have been easily settled down, refusal to abide by the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard's decissions and acting against the consensus. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

And also: Abuse of OR/SYNTH tagging, which happened multiple times on the Expulsion of Cham Albanians. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Give me until tomorrow (or maybe later tonight) to respond to these accusations made against me. Thanks! DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

He appears entirely unable to accept the decision I ruled, I removed his OR tag after it had been made abundantly clear to him it was not OR, he reverted this, and, I reverted it back, I did inform him before closing the dispute that I could as per WP:M request that an admin to block, ban or otherwise sanction him, I have not given him the warning yet, He has however 3 times added in the OR tag after the dispute was resolved. Iazyges (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Question and Comments – I have a question. In the discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard talk page, the filing party, User:SilentResident, said that the subject party, User:DevilWearsBrioni, has repeatedly been raising issues about original research, and they have now brought the complaint here. What was not clear to me back there, and is still not clear, is whether this is a pattern of tendentious claims of original research on multiple articles, or whether this behavior is limited to one article, Expulsion of Cham Albanians (and possibly related articles). My advice to come here was based on the assumption, perhaps incorrect, that this was a pattern with respect to multiple articles. However, the evidence here is only about one article over and over again. If there is a pattern of tendentious or otherwise disruptive claims of original research at multiple articles, a topic-ban might be in order. However, if the issue is only about one article, I would advise that it be treated as a content dispute, and addressing content issues often takes care of conduct issues. The final step on a content dispute should be a Request for Comments. User:DevilWearsBrioni has asked me, at my talk page, for help in composing a neutral RFC. If the issue is only about one article, can we close this thread as being handled by RFC? Alternatively, if anybody really really really thinks that it is necessary to deal with this as a conduct dispute, it appears that Albania is in the Balkan region, and that Arbitration Enforcement is a more expeditious way to deal with disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, a RfC couldn't deal with the problem I am reporting here. DevilWearsBrioni's OR/SYNTH accusations take place on at least two separate articles (Fustanella and Expulsion of Cham Albanians I have noticed so far) and in 3 different Noticeboards, in three different time periods (the one at June, the other at July, and the last at August), and against different users, and for different content each time. So, what you are saying about RfC, this cannot be handled as one single content dispute. It is obvious that if the case here was a mere single content dispute, we could have waited for a RfC instead. -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Question - What administrative action is the Original Poster, User:SilentResident, requesting? A topic-ban on claims of original research? That seems extreme for two disputes, especially since Wikipedia does have a policy against original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Hm, I do not know exactly what silent resident is requesting, however that or a block seems necessarily as he seems to either have no or pretends to have no understanding of what OR is. Iazyges (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

ERHaxhiu

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

After I reported User:ERHaxhiu to ANI I was told by an admin (User:KrakatoaKatie) that He's off a one-month block, so it's time for some community discussion, with a reference to ANI, so I will start a discussion here.

The editor has a history of persistently not listening to other editors and keeps on making same edits over and over again, especially at Kosovo national football team. This despite consensus at article talkpage (for example Talk:Kosovo national football team#Edit war over flags for coaches for one of the issues), and discussions at his talkpage (User talk:ERHaxhiu#Kosovo national football team and User talk:ERHaxhiu#Kosovo national football team again).

After three recent blocks for 31 hours (16 June), 1 week (22 June) and 1 month (7 July) for the disruptive behaviour, he still made this edit today. In the edit he removed redlinks that are okay, he readded unofficial score in infobox, fake headers (using semicolon), changing to incorrect wikilinks to footballers and adding unsourced table of captains. All of this has been discussed and he has been informed about it on his talkpage.

User:Fenix down (an other admin) stated on 8 August that ERHaxhiu - this is the only warning you will receive. Do not under any circumstances revert the flags in this article without gaining consensus on the talk page to do so first. If you do this again, you will be blocked again, for at least three months] and although ERHaxhiu stopped changing the flags the disruption has continued. Qed237 (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• I asked Qed237 to come here because I think we're at the community ban level now. If I were to block him at AIV for another month or three months, I'm pretty sure we'll be here when that block expired. Qed237 does some yeoman work on these football articles and we need to give him a hand here. Katie^talk 19:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I.P. Vandal 216.15.21.210

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

---

216.15.21.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persistent vandalism of mainspace pages and my user/talk pages after multiple final warnings. He is currently of a 31 hour block from 18 June 2016. However he continues to vandalize pages like Ellicott City, Maryland and deliver personal attacks on My userpage and my talk page. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought I dealt with this at AIV ten minutes ago. For the record, talking to blocked IPs such as this is not usually a good idea. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Then for some reason, it doesn't show he is blocked anywhere on the talk page. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 18:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It is visible in the red box when you edit their talk page, or look at their contributions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't see that. Thanks. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 18:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User:176.24.32.210

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

• The aforementioned user is clearly a genre warrior. He or she has made several unreferenced genre changes on R&B and rap-related articles: [62], [63], [64], and [65]. Additionally, myself and Binksternet feel as if the user is a sock of either MariaJaydHicky or Chevyoncé, especially since the latter account has made very similar edits on the pages already mentioned. Something needs to be done to stop this vandalism. Carbrera (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)