Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Meaningless edits

Not sure if this is the right place – anyway: I've noticed that the new editor User:Pillzyx has edited various articles with what appears to be elaborate nonsense. After several reverts of unsourced edits, he/she has begun sourcing the edits with references to papers that vaguely fit the subject. However, as far as I was able to verify the sources don't support the edits but are used as alibi. Could someone please take a look at this or point me in the right direction? --Zac67 (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is difficult to handle but the edits I looked at certainly appeared to be waffle. Thanks for reverting and I guess we'll have to monitor the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. He's back – if he doesn't stop we should consider blocking him. --Zac67 (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this persists please report at WP:ANI instead. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 15:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of this user's edits cited any source?

User appears to be using a random text generator. Raise it at ANI by all means, but I've issued a final warning and am happy to block if (as I expect) this continues, and indeff seems appropriate as a vandalism-only account. Feel free to comment on my talk page or here. Andrewa (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No recent edits. Zac67, Johnuniq and other interested parties, please send me a heads-up (my talk page or email) if you notice this activity resuming. Otherwise we can probably let this auto-archive. Andrewa (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After the first edits and reverts he started citing only vaguely related journals that aren't easy to verify. I'll keep an eye out but let's hope he's gone and doesn't resurface as SP. --Zac67 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So they did, I missed that although you pointed it out in your initial post. If they reappear as a sock puppet after being indeffed, then they'll be banned. Andrewa (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pillzyx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The edits I checked were attempts to introduce pompous language into articles in order to "to maximize amusement, rather than coherence". The only question is whether the user will tire of the fun and think about contributing helpfully. A couple more edits in the same vein would be more than enough to justify a WP:NOTHERE indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There is perhaps even a case for an immediate indeff. Andrewa (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're back

A new MO, a flock of reverts. I have posted to a couple of Wikiprojects asking for specific comments.

If any one of these edits can be confirmed as vandalism, I will indeff. Andrewa (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are now blocked.

There was no attempt to discuss any of the four recent reverts, so no sources were given. As they have been demonstrably vandalism-only up until now, it seems wise to deny them the use of the undo tool.

Should they return, I recommend a community ban. I do not think there would be any problem arriving at consensus on this. Andrewa (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit which I have now undone introduced an inconsistency within the article, so I've concluded that it was itself vandalism. The most recent pattern of editing is that edits from IPs that were hard to check were undone, with an edit summary of probable vandalism or similar, and no justification given apart from that. I've posted heads-ups [1] [2] regarding the other three, and expect they will be reverted too.

ANI is the preferred place to propose a community ban if it proves necessary. Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking action. However, a community ban will not happen for such a minor case. If WP:DUCK socks appear, they can be blocked per WP:NOTHERE, but it is very unlikely that the disruption would rise to the endorsement of a communi]ty ban. You might look at this page for an example of {{uw-vblock}} being used because there is supposed to be information on appeals. Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnuniq, I've added the template [3] as suggested (please check that I've done it right... is it OK not to sign it?).

I hope you are right about the possible ban! I just raise it because the prospect of socks was raised above, to make sure we all understand the process. Hopefully, it won't be necessary. But a ban would make blocking the socks a lot easier, and I disagree that we would not get consensus for one. I could be wrong. Hopefully we will not find out. Andrewa (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A signature is normally included. I believe the full wikitext would be {{subst:uw-voablock|sig=yes}} and the template then includes the four tildes in the resulting message box. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that worked a lot better. I see these templates are both used by Twinkle and suspect that they aren't all that well documented for us non-Twinkle-users as they might be. Andrewa (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about referencing

I don't like to "make" other editors follow up my edits to make corrections to references simply because I think every editor's time is a valuable resource that shouldn't be taken for granted. I'm pretty sure that I am okay with actual reversions of content that I create, but that is not why I am leaving this comment and question here. I've contacted various editors who have edited some articles that I have created to apologize for creating extra work for them when they reformat the references that I have added to an article. I've not gotten even one response from an editor to explain what either my problem could be nor have I received any comments regarding why they feel a need to correct the references. I suppose it isn't a huge deal, but I keep coming back to the idea that each edit takes up someone's time and I would like to avoid creating work for others. I use WikiEd's Visual editor to create and edit content. I love the whole process of adding a reference by simply adding a web url or journal numbers to create a reference in WikiEd since it takes about 15 seconds. I have a good understanding of the policy of what constitutes an acceptable referencing style (which is pretty flexible). But not only do my references get reformatted, other editors sail on by to change one format to another. I'm guessing a citation can contain more information than what others believe is unnessary, but it leaves me a little confused. Even bots come by and change the references, adding parameters, taking others away and other random things. I guess I just would like something like an explanation or theory of how and why this happening. It starting occurring in the past 10 months or so. So for almost nine years I didn't notice this being a 'thing'. Please ping. Comments? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barbara (WVS). The Visual Editor does strange things when it creates references, including putting in fields that haven't been filled in, and formats them in ways that drive some of us nuts. Editors who clean up references use semi-automated tools, so it doesn't take much time. Bots come by to add additional identifiers, which I like because then I don't have to track down all of them myself. When I use the convenience of VE to add a reference, I go back with the source editor and clean the reference up, putting in spaces between the fields, removing unnecessary fields, etc. So don't worry about it. The most important thing is to get the references in there in the easiest possible way and you are wonderful for providing references carefully. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Can I ask maybe another, sorta weird I suppose. Do some editors enjoy correcting the references and look forward to making 'fixes'? If this is the case, perhaps I'm helping them?! I'm thinking that I might be the weird one. I am also a grandma and look at editing as something I can leave for my grandkids. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who's to say what some editors enjoy? You'd have to ask each one individually.
I have my opinions about ref formatting, although I've mellowed a bit about implementing them in my old wiki-age. Many other editors have opinions as well, and they are different opinions. Given Wikipedia's aversion to prescriptivism and WP:CREEP, there will forever be a lot of what I call "churning" in this area and many others. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're a gang of weirdos, thank goodness. Various editors care about commas, excessively long paragraphs, proper names of plants and aristocrats, "less" when we mean "fewer" and vertical formatting of references. Welcome them, if they're just following a weird but not disruptive obsession. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently non-neutral forum used to canvas keep !votes in AFDs?

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list strikes me as a really questionable concept. I get the idea in theory, but it doesn't even tell its users to make sure their message is neutrally worded in accordance with WP:CANVAS, or to disclose in the AFD discussion that there was a post made there. Apparently this is a matter that has been discussed, but it really seems like it should be again.

Disclosure: I only just noticed the page now because I looked back at an AFD I opened a long time ago that was 3-1 in favour of deletion for almost a week, then after seven days it was listed there by the one keep !vote and within 24 hours it shifted to 6-3 and was immediately closed (as 6-1, for some reason), and when trying to figure out how it happened I noticed that. That particular incident was a bureaucratic mess that I don't really care about (I can always renominate as it's been five years), but I still really don't get how Article Rescue Squadron is supposed to work, and I don't think I'd get a response if I posted on the talk page given the current direct level of activity there.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I saw this some time ago and thought something similar (too lazy to bring it up though). Ignoring the non-neutralness of the people watching, at the very least the notifications should be neutral.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I went ahead and BOLDly told posters at least to be neutral and to be aware that canvassing is bad. User:TonyBallioni thanked me for it, just in case anyone thinks my edit wasn't immediately endorsed by anyone. Pinging you, Tony, primarily to ask how you were aware of the edit. Given our history, I really don't mind you monitoring my contribs if that's what you were doing, but I also have seen no reason to believe that is the case; and if someone had the page watchlisted and didn't oppose my edit then that kinda restores a bit of my faith in the Encyclopedia that has been oh so shaken by the discoveries of the last hour or two. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARS used to be a canvass-keep squad ca 2007. Eventually they were forced to reform by the community toward a "you must have evidence that the topic at AFD meets WP:42" and since it has been quite quiet. I vaguely recall an RFC around the same time as those MFDs. If the page is still problematic, I doubt anyone would have issue with it being MFDd yet again. Generally, let the sleeping dog lie. --Izno (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the MFDs were in 2012 and the AFD I linked to (where they definitely messed up an AFD that had been filed in good faith and may be again) was in the summer of 2013, so it definitely wasn't fixed by that point. This message from a coupla weeks back definitely was not neutral, but was not apparently enough to stop the AFD from ending in deletion so no harm no foul I guess; some of the other messages like this one from two months ago are not great, although it's difficult to determine if they had a canvassing effect that tipped the scales against deletion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So basically what you are saying is that the page is problematic now because five years ago an AFD might have been incorrectly closed by a non-admin? From what I can see, there seems to be no problem with the list itself, only with editors. Even before your recent edit, the page required posters to Include [a] specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, and any ideas to improve the content. That some people did not follow this, does not mean the list is a problem. In fact, the list is a useful way to alert interested editors to articles worth saving, which is a good thing considering how often WP:BEFORE is violated at AFD. So with all due respect, if you cannot present evidence of current problems with list itself, I fail to see what's there to discuss. Regards So Why 13:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @SoWhy: Your indentation implies you are responding to my most recent comment, but the content of your reply looks more like you read my initial comment and had not read the one immediately above your own, in which I linked the diffs for two comments that virtually any reasonable observer would see as at best a weak form of canvassing. Two weeks a blatantly non-neutral comment was posted there; if the AFD had closed as "no consensus" that would definitely be a problem, but even if it never succeeded in preventing article deletions, that would just mean it doesn't serve a meaningful purpose. And telling people to include a rationale for keeping, but not to neutrally summarize the arguments of the other side, is a direct invitation to canvass. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant to reply to that comment. The post you mentioned was made by a non-EC new user in violation of the guidelines on this page. It's not an example of systematic abuse that is promoted by this page. The other post you mention is actually perfectly fine imho. It points out various reason why the subject should be considered notable and thus possible ways to rescue the article. And the article was kept, so purpose served. Since the purpose of this list is to inform others of possible reasons why an article might be served, it makes no sense to include the deletion arguments. They are already in the AFD and can be seen by anyone interested anyway. I think the misconception here is that the list is, as ARS might have been in the past, a tool to canvass people to !vote keep without reasoning. That's evidently not the case, it's merely a tool to improve collaboration. The rules are clearly laid out on the page, including The project is not about casting !votes, nor about vote-stacking. and Base comments upon Wikipedia's deletion policy.. Failure to follow the rules does not mean there are no rules. On a side note, since when is AFD about judging which side had the most !votes? The point of AFD is to improve the project and even most deletionists will not !vote delete for an article if its problems were fixed, so having another venue to help with that is a net positive for the project. Regards So Why 16:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: But you didn't say any of that in your initial comment.

Anyway: made by a non-EC new user in violation of the guidelines on this page What guidelines on this page? (This page?) The guidelines at WP:CANVAS explicitly ban non-neutral notifications in non-neutral fora, but until I edited the page last night that one's only guidelines appeared to directly encourage non-neutral notifications. Do you mean that it's a violation of the guidelines for non-EC users to post there? That would be a good guideline to prevent disruption by editors unfamiliar with the relevant policies, but I can't find it mentioned anywhere on the page. Telling posters that the project is not about vote-stacking doesn't mean that that is not an effect: it's roughly equivalent to me posting notifications, "neutrally worded" or not, about the mottainai AFD on both WP:RSN and WP:FTN; you and other uninvolved parties might wonder what the relevance of those fora is, but the regular contributors there generally treat "ancient Chinese secret" claims with less credulity than the community as a whole and would be significantly more likely to !vote one way than the other based on this bias. Clearly at least one watcher of the page in question is not an avowed "inclusionist" (in the sense that he doesn't appear to support preservation of articles that cannot be written in a style that doesn't push fringe theories), but I can't imagine this is true of the majority of project members.

And no one blanked, amended or criticized the non-neutral notification from two weeks ago. If someone posted a non-neutral canvassing notification like that on a WikiProject I frequent, I would probably either blank as inappropriate canvassing or post a rebuttal immediately below, but why was that not done here?

The Korean War vet article: yeah, you may be right that the page should not have been and so was not deleted, but the message was still non-neutral, and the near-unanimous consensus at AFD means it probably was never in any danger of being deleted to begin with.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding me. My point was that a non-experienced user might not know how to behave correctly, however, that does not mean their behavior is, as you seem to imply, sanctioned by the ARS project. Their rules are clearly stated on the page in question and explicitly forbid canvassing for !votes or vote-stacking attempts. Saying that no one did something against a certain message is a typical WP:SEP argument. No one here is forced to do anything and if no one noticed it, that happens. We have vandalism that is not detected for years, that does not mean all editors of the article approved of the vandalism.

I sincerely hope that all editors, no matter which areas they frequent, can agree that the outcome of an AFD is not based on the number of !votes but on the strength of the arguments and since WP:PRESERVE is a policy, all editors should be in favor of attempts to preserve information that belongs in an encyclopedia. And telling people who want to improve articles about potential articles worth improving and reasons why the effort should be made is imho not the same as saying "come to this AFD and !vote keep without providing anything new". Regards So Why 07:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rules were definitely not "clearly stated on the page" until my edit last night. At best, they had a code of conduct that appeared to be in conflict with the instructions for posting an article there: presenting a rationale for keeping the article while not presenting the arguments for deletion is posting a non-neutral notification, but the instructions said to do so. And if the project were self-reflective like WP:JAPAN, WP:CHINA and every other WikiProject I've worked with, they would either blank canvassing messages or respond to them by having a serious discussion about whether their forum is being abused for canvassing; I see no evidence that such a conversation was had. Note that I did not do an exhaustive search: this was also a non-neutral notification in a non-neutral forum, by an EC editor (more than 27,000 live edits on en.wiki) -- are you next going to argue that they are not a regular contributor to the project in question so their actions do not reflect on it, so that I have to go find another diff of someone who fits that description engaged in disruptive canvassing of an article that should have been and was deleted?

WP:PRESERVE being a policy is completely tangential to this discussion, as far as I can tell, since the AFD I linked was of an article that consisted (and still consists) primarily of poorly-sourced nonsense. The same spirit of "inclusionism" (regardless of the other policies) has led to the complete derailment of good-faith AFDs of blatant POVFORKs that included no (verifiable) information that wasn't covered better elsewhere in the encyclopedia (meaning PRESERVE didn't apply). It is also not a policy to maintain articles that exist solely to push fringe theories.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan or ARS. It is still essentially a canvass keep list. Going over the list and archives, the topics that are kept would have been kept anyway, and it's main function these days is to turn AfDs that would likely close delete to no consensus. I always personally find the keep arguments garnered from listings there to be very weak (i.e. loosest reading of the GNG only without assessing any of our other policies and guidelines.) I do think Hijiri's changes were good, but I would !vote to delete if there were to be a new MfD (which I do not recommend, as I am sure that would be the XfD from hell and would likely end with no consensus and a bunch of hurt feelings.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic in question – the Buddhist concept of mottainai – is clearly notable. For example, the Routledge Handbook of Religion and Ecology states that "Adopted by Kenyan Nobel peace prize winner and environmental leader Wangari Maathai, mottainai has attained international significance..." Naturally, deletionists don't care for this idea but it is enshrined here as our policy WP:PRESERVE. The fact that we have had this article for the last five years is a good thing as it has averaged over 100 readers per day during this time – a healthy and respectable readership. The ARS should therefore be congratulated for their efforts in saving it. Note also that I had the opportunity to meet and talk with Katherine Maher recently. She said quite plainly that "I am an inclusionist" and so such action is supported at the highest level. Andrew D. (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm an open supporter of inclusionism, arguments from authority rarely convince people on this project. It's nice that WMF's ED is pro-inclusionism but unless the WMF officially intervenes in such matters, it is merely one person's opinion. Regards So Why 19:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it depends, as that links explains, "opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided – it has been held to be a valid argument about as often as it has been considered an outright fallacy". For example, our core principles of WP:RS and WP:OR are grounded in the idea that we should cite authorities rather than independently reasoning for ourselves. Katherine Maher's position obviously gives her power, influence and a bully pulpit. She's not trying to micro-manage what we do but it's good that she is providing inspiration and leadership in this regard. Andrew D. (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: "Buddhist concept"? Are you sure?

Routledge's own Encyclopedia of Buddhism not only does not have a standalone entry on "mottainai", but a keyword search on my Kindle copy indicates that the word doesn't appear anywhere in the book.
The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism does not include it either as a standalone entry under that title in its 2,500-page main body or in its 140-page Japanese cross-reference index.
I checked a Japanese dictionary aggregator as well, and the only (debatable) reference to either buddhas (仏) or gods (神) was to the latter, where it (Daijirin) said that the word could mean ② （神聖なものが）おかされて恐れ多い。忌むべきだ。「神前をけがすとは－・い」 ("(concerning a sacred object) awful; to be avoided: pollution of a sacred altar is mottainai").

Our article describes it as both an ancient Buddhist and ancient Shinto concept, but this claim is attributed to a children's picture book. It sounds like an "ancient Chinese secret" situation to me: a fringe theory tied to a social movement that, perhaps if enough reliable sources by Japanologists existed to counter the bogus claims, then maybe we could build an article about the Kenyan social movement, without doing so at the expense of accurate and reliably-sourced coverage of Japanese language, literature and religion.

"mottainai" is just a common Japanese word meaning "wasteful", and according to User:Curly Turkey (who's been in Japan longer than me) the whole "Mottainai is a Japanese concept with no translation into English" is a dated Japanese meme; obviously the statement of a Wikipedian is not a reliable source, but it's at least as good as most of the ones currently cited in our article.

But that completely misses the point: there is no particular "topic in question", but a WikiProject that has as its stated raison d'etre to violate canvassing guidelines by providing a non-neutral inclusionist forum. Note also that I consider myself to be a mild inclusionist: a true deletionist would want to AFD the majority of the new articles I started last November, since most of them are "very obscure" (from the standpoint of the typical editor of English Wikipedia) and have probably never been covered in English-language RSes.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't want to go into details, because it's completely tangential and kinda complicated, but I was unable to challenge the canvassing and way out-of-line non-admin close in the 2013 AFD because, as a result of off-wiki harassment, I had had to retire that account before the canvassing and close happened. For all I can remember, I never even noticed it until yesterday. I think I was still editing at the time the close happened, but I was using a different account and trying to keep said account secret from a stalker. Look at the edit history of the account's user page, the other accounts Salvio blocked at around the same time, and especially here, for details. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: I haven't researched the topic—there might be more to mottainai than I'm aware—but in my experience: there may be a Buddhist origin to the word, and Buddhism may use it in a Buddhism-specific way, but in everyday parlance there's nothing special about the word mottainai that would merit more than a note in the etymological section of a Wiktionary entry, or maybe a subsection in a Buddhism article or something. The idea that it's "a cultural practice" (or ever has been) is hard for me to stomach, and I think we need much, much, much better sources for such a statement than some offhand newspaper article. Japanese people asserting such a thing sound to me either like (a) politicians pushing an agenda; or (b) Nihonjinron advocates. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with ARS Is that they focus their efforts on articles AFTER they have already been nominated for deletion. If they shifted their efforts to “rescuing” articles BEFORE they are nominated, we would praise them for identifying poorly sourced articles, finding the needed sourcing, establishing notability and fixing the articles. Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe someone would have a problem with what ARS does, unless they viewed AFD as a battle to be won, and looked for opponents to have to defeat. If someone is capable of cleaning up an article so it becomes appropriate for Wikipedia, who loses? No one does. --Jayron 32 13:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Actually, if you take a look at the article that was linked in my OP, or this current entry, it looks more like the opposite: ARS members are just showing up to AFD so they can "win" the AFD by keeping the article in the mainspace, but are actively refusing compromise solutions that would allow them to fix the article's problems, while also not touching the article itself even while the AFD is ongoing. And in the other AFDs I linked, they !voted down the AFDs and then once the AFDs were closed they completely lost interest and walked away, apparently satisfied having achieved a "victory". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense since other articles are listed which no one is going to at all. And only three people went to comment in that participate article, with legitimate reasons why it should remain. And as I told you at the location you linked to, I did in fact edit the article, not that it makes any difference since no Wikiproject requires its members to edit articles they mention are at AFD. Dream Focus 03:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... you edited the article after it was pointed out to you how you were doing things backwards, and your edits actually made the problem worse. You didn't go out and find sources to fix the article; you did a keyword search for "swamp" "monster" "folklore" on Wikipedia and added a sentence on each of the results (or even just a wikilink) to the article without a care for whether reliable sources had called them "swamp monsters", in a clear violation of WP:NOR. And your edit was a clear response to my own. It's difficult, given all this, to believe that had I never pointed out that you were treating ARS as a canvassing forum without a care for improving the articles, you still would have done your best to improve the article even after it survived AFD; it seems obvious that you would have done the same thing you did after the "mottainai" AFD, and Andrew did after the "tanka prose" and "Korean influence" AFDs: walk away and never think about the article again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly cleaning up (actually, more finding sources) an article to become appropriate for wikipedia is a noble goal. However, in the case of say List_of_mayors_of_Traverse_City,_Michigan, cleanup wasn't really needed (the comment was "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Traverse City, Michigan Broad policy question. List that inclues 150 years of mayors being eliminated as "non notable." WP:Not paper." - help with cleanup was not requested at all) as much as keep !votes (which perhaps was gotten from posting there) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with that list; it's a limited and complete list of verifiable information. The individual people may not have enough information to break out into separate articles, but I see no problem with that article at all. Several Wikipedia policies would recommend and support such a list, WP:CSC notes the following possibilities for when to compile information in a list " While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list." and later, among the three criteria for a list article, this list passes two of them: for when lists are used to compile information on entries that don't really merit a stand-alone article for each (criteria 2) and for short, complete lists (criteria 3). If you're looking for a case where the ARS people screwed up something, that's a bad example. Please try again. --Jayron 32 16:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have an opinion on the list. However, that's not really the point. No sources were given - "no rescuing" or anything of the sort - was done by them or requested of them, so the only purpose in posting seems to be to canvass keep !votes, which is not allowed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Others may as well argue that they did screw it up; those others did argue for deletion. There shouldn't be a page where one can post to get (or try to get) keep !votes (or delete !votes too) and thus bias discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point though; the article should not have been deleted no matter what... It isn't something that Wikipedia policy or guidelines or precedent would ever indicate is a candidate for deletion. You've established this as an "us against them" debate, and that somehow one side would have "won" if it weren't for those meddlesome kids. That's not what we're here for. That article is fine, so you can't say that anyone derailed a discussion which ended up keeping an article that had no reason to be deleted. (by fine I mean "is a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article that needs some cleanup" and not "Is FA quality and awesome", by the way). I'm not saying you're right, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you asserted a position, and then presented evidence which does not back up that position. If you claim there are bad actors who are keeping articles at Wikipedia which should be deleted but are still here because of people working through ARS, then you should be able to produce a few examples, n'est ce pas? I would be willing to accept your assertions if you could only find evidence of it. Stop arguing with me, and go dig up some proof. You're wasting time. Get on it! --Jayron 32 20:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: I can't believe someone would have a problem with what ARS does, unless they viewed AFD as a battle to be won, and looked for opponents to have to defeat. Did you read my opening comment? Or Andrew Davidson's comment? ARS seems to start with the assumption that every article on Wikipedia is on a notable topic, and that all the information in said article is factually accurate and verifiable, and then they steamroll attempts to get problem articles deleted. They did not actually improve the article in question, and in fact made it more difficult to do so, since there is apparently "consensus" not to cut all the "ancient Chinese secret" stuff. The same thing happened with an AFD I opened in 2014 that was not apparently officially on ARS's radar, but it was several ARS members who were responsible for the problem. It was the people who !voted delete in the AFD who had to eventually fix the article themselves, in the face of massive (and ongoing) disruption from an army of socks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's a problem with an individual person (or multiple individual people). Deal with them head on. Don't drag the idea of a group who's stated purpose is to improve articles and throw out the baby with the bathwater. Find the problem person and deal with the problem person. If it's more then one person, then just rinse and repeat. --Jayron 32 20:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it was literally four-for-four of the ARS editors who joined the discussion (Shii was an outlier; he is a very knowledgeable editor of Japanese topics who to the best of my knowledge never expressed a philosophical opposition to article deletion). And I didn't exactly get a chance to confront them over it -- see the off-wiki harassment reference above, but even if that hadn't happened the AFD was closed as "consensus to keep" as soon as the ARS members comfortably outnumbered the non-canvassed commenters; also with the "Korean influence" AFD I was assuming good faith and assumed the keep !voters would pull their own weight and help to improve the article (they didn't). And when I messaged User:Andrew Davidson on his talk page, he dodged the awkward question in order to find common ground in friendly off-topic nerdiness (which would be nice, if he didn't also dodge the question); when I asked him above to admit he was wrong about the "Buddhist concept" thing (even going out and searching for reliable sources, which I shouldn't need to do when he didn't), he ignored me (even super-indenting to reply to SoWhy). Anyway, what do you think of TonyBallioni's comment that the articles that are kept would be kept anyway, and all ARS does is occasionally change "consensus to delete" to "no consensus"? You surely recognize that the forum is occupied primarily by self-identified "inclusionists", and that at least some "inclusionists" (including an ARS member who commented in this thread) take inclusionism to mean !voting keep in AFDs of POVFORKs and articles that only meet GNG with citation of unreliable/fringe sources? Can you see how posting (even neutrally-worded) links to AFDs in a forum like that would be a considered vote-stacking? It would be like me posting such notifications to FTN and RSN after the AFDs had been opened. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ARS used to be much more problematic. Several years ago they maintained a list of articles tagged to be "rescued", which basically meant a clique of ultra-inclusionists going around to each AfD in turn and saying "keepkeepkeep- notable" on all of them. Their canvassing template was deleted, a decision upheld despite their best efforts to wriggle out of it. Around this time a lot of their high-profile members got themselves permabanned for various reasons. Without their canvassing template and their core of trolls and agitators the ARS has become powerless and moribund, and that is a good thing. Reyk _YO! 13:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not around nearly as much as I used to. I do recall finding quite a lot of reliable sources giving significant coverage for topics for articles that needed them though. The random people that show up to participate changes over time. Anyone can list any article they want help working on. Right now I see listed articles which have closed as delete. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deneva_Cagigas is currently listed and got not a single person to go there and say "Keep", it closed as delete. So I don't see any proof of any canvasing for keeps going on there. Back when I was active, I remember various editors doing quite a lot of work on articles, finding sources, and expanding stubs into full size articles at times. Dream Focus 17:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're right, that's great, but the fact that my pointing out that the AFD from 2013 was clearly steamrolled by the one person who randomly showed up to !vote keep going to ARS for canvass met with a long-time project member showing up and repeating the bogus fringe claims made during that AFD says otherwise. I dunno -- maybe the problem is self-identified "inclusionists" claiming that WP:PRESERVE supports the inclusion of POVFORKs and repeatedly opposing AFDs with GNG rationales when the actual deletion rationale was WP:NOT, rather than a project specifically monitored and operated by such editors? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator said it violated "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary" and many editors disagreed with that, saying the article was far more than that. As I stated in that AFD, the International Herald Tribune says there is a "pervasive use of the expression mottainai". So its not just a word, but an expression, one which a major newspaper says has a pervasive use. Enough valid content in the article to justify keeping it. Administrators close articles based on the quality of the arguments, not a vote. In my statement I also linked to what the article was at the time it was nominated for deletion and up to that point, showing how much work had been done to improve it. No one went around saying keep to every article nominated, but only commented on those they had a legitimate reason to believe should be kept. Some did however show up at every single one just to find an excuse to say delete and try to argue off topic every chance they got. I remember one guy on his user page even stating he was going to counter us by posting Delete in everything tagged for Rescue, or something of that nature. No different than other Wikiprojects, other than not having a limited scope. We exist to improve articles and find references for them. If you feel that article you mentioned isn't valid, then you can nominated it for deletion again. Just mention a valid reason. Dream Focus 04:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a difference between "word" and "expression" for NOTDICT purposes, it clearly doesn't apply to that one, as 勿体無い appears in Japanese dictionaries with no distinction between it and all the other words. But why are you making this about the random example I cited at the top of the thread? I only mentioned that to explain how I had become aware of ARS, but you, Andrew and SoWhy seem to be repeatedly honing in on it (and getting the facts very wrong) in an attempt to deflect discussion away from ARS itself, by making it look like this is me "holding a grudge" for a random AFD from five years ago (even though a look at my contribs would make it clear that I wasn't even aware of ARS's involvement until three days ago). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a proposal related to this discussion Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list#RFC about proposed guideline amendment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been drawn here by chasing the path of the misguided proponent, I'd like to point to how the ARS list helps. This is what it leads me to do, with followup by @Syrenka V:. I look up the article in question on Google. Its a difficult task, but that is called WP:BEFORE, which is something all my predecessors as editors on the article, obviously including the NOM should have done. If there is merit to the subject, I find sources and correct the text. In short, I improve the article, THEN I cast a Keep !vote. While in this case, my work did successfully and rightfully save this article, it sure pisses off the mindless deletionists. Here was an opportunity for them to get more brownie points for another deletion, quashed by someone taking action to improve the article. What a crime. I use sarcasm. What is the real crime is the thoughtless NOM and (while I was early enough to quash this) the subsequent echo chamber of thoughtless delete !votes that typically accompany almost every article in AfD. I think a NOM who disingenuously nominates too many articles without doing WP:BEFORE should lose the privilege of nominating AfDs. There is one editor who I will not name for WP:CIVILity reasons, who has been banned from making NOMs, but still, as a daily task, he posts a stream of delete !votes across every *fD section every day. And he is allowed to do that with no repercussions. Because it takes considerably more time to rescue an article than it does to cast an !vote, it would take a team of dedicated editors just to counteract the daily damage done to wikipedia by this one editor. And he's not alone. The ARS list is not only necessary, but we are grossly outnumbered. Trackinfo (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Trackinfo that effective participation in WP:ARS is a LOT of work—and WP:ARS could not be nearly as effective as it is, if it were really the crude canvassing medium it is being caricatured as. (Indeed, the recent decrease in my participation has been due to the drain on my off-wiki time that article rescue has imposed—I had to divert resources to the rest of my life!) What saves articles is finding sources and making reasoned arguments at AfD, not mindlessly stacking up Keep votes. When that does occur, it is conspicuously ineffective, even at producing "no consensus" results. I would like to see more ruthless enforcement (by administrators closing AfDs) of the directive of WP:CONSENSUS that pure votes unsupported by reasoning should count for little or nothing—and I would expect that change to make it easier, not harder, to keep articles. I agree with Trackinfo that there is at least as much vote-stacking (likely more!) on the deletionist side.

It is also in my experience simply untrue that (except for cases of no consensus) the articles saved by WP:ARS would mostly be kept anyway. WP:ARS has again and again saved articles, by consensus based on reasoned argument, that were manifestly headed for oblivion prior to intervention. For one example, check out Quadrafile. There are more examples on my userpage. The current work of WP:ARS barely scratches the surface of what could be done to save, by consensus, articles that are currently entering the AfD roach motel and never checking out.

As to inherent non-neutrality: I know of at least one case where someone posted an article to the WP:RESCUELIST for rescue consideration while voting to delete in the AfD. I added the following language to the WP:RESCUELIST instructions:

(You can also !vote to delete an article at its deletion discussion because you think it is untenable in its present state, and still list it here in the hope that another editor will find a way to improve it and save it.)

I actually wish more deletionists would participate. Instead of complaining about the existence of WP:ARS, why not challenge us to try to save the article? If we can't improve it, you can use that fact at AfD to argue for deletion. (Although you should of course also do your own thorough WP:BEFORE!)

—Syrenka V (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another point from Trackinfo that deserves emphasis: there is an enormous disparity between the amount of effort it takes to delete an article and the effort it takes to save one. This needs to be rectified. One policy change I would like to see: the one-liner AfD nominations that are the norm at present should be prohibited. An AfD nominator should be required to provide a detailed, cogent prima facie argument for deletion, including a description of what kind of WP:BEFORE searches were performed with negative results. Any AfD nomination that lacks a decent, detailed prima facie supporting argument from the nominator should be speedily closed. Blatant repeat offenders in the creation of deficient AfD nominations should be blocked and, in extreme cases, banned.

—Syrenka V (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just add that it is currently much easier to flood the encyclopedia with a lot of unsourced, one-liner articles than it is to nominate them for deletion. I oppose any attempt to impose artificial hurdles on this necessary maintenance. Who'd decide what is "detailed and cogent" enough? Furthermore, people who vote delete on anything have never been welcome at ARS. See, eg, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive619#User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire for an example of the kind of thing that happens if you look at ARS's lists and vote to delete some of those articles. Reyk _YO! 16:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XTools Edit Counter now available as wikitext

Hopefully this is a kosher place to advertise this... Over the years I've noticed especially on RfA talk pages that folks will manually copy/paste the results of XTools. This is probably because historically XTools goes down a lot, which is more or less not a problem today. Nonetheless, we thought the community might benefit from an easier way to present this data on-wiki, so we now have an option to view the full results as wikitext. At xtools.wmflabs.org/ec just select "View as wikitext", or you can use the "Download" dropdowns to export individual sections of the Edit Counter (some are also available in CSV format). From there you can copy/paste the formatted data to the wiki. Example output for Jimbo Wales can be found at Special:PermaLink/824376290. Eventually you'll be able to get wikitext for any tool in the XTools suite, but we started with the Edit Counter since it is the most popular. Hope others find this useful, and any feedback is appreciated. Regards — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Trace Task Force scandal

I want to start the article about the Gun Trace Task Force.[4] The trial is ongoing, so it is appropriate to write about it now? (I started the Larry Nassar article during his trial and learned quickly that it was not a good idea. That is why I am asking here first.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: I would say that it's probably a good idea, but you will need sources better than the one you linked. The Baltimore Sun has had coverage almost since day one, besides the inclusion in TNYT in the past week. --Izno (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Izno. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to find even a brief mention in Baltimore Police Department. Should there be? Jim.henderson (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim.henderson: Probably, in the history section. --Izno (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was too hasty in my search and in assuming the OP would be more attentive, @Izno: The topic has been in the BPD article for months under "2017 Racketeering" and apparently hasn't been updated for several months. If anyone still thinks the case is important, that's the place to get it going with first an update, and then perhaps a cautious expansion, with inlinks, outlinks, a new subsection name, and discussion in the talk page when appropriate. Who knows, maybe there will be agreement that it deserves a separate article, but first start by improving what there is, working from balanced or at least modestly neutral sources. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving my draft to article space

I've read the policies in Wikipedia:Drafts but it is not clear to me: I started from an article (Ahamefule J. Oluo) previously deleted for non-notability (and I would agree that as previously written it was, at best, borderline for demonstrating notability). I userfied it and worked on it considerably. It is now at Draft:Ahamefule J. Oluo. I've marked it as ready for review. Is it appropriate for me to move it to main-space myself? Or because it was previously deemed non-notable, and I'm the one who worked on it, is it either required or simply courteous that I leave it for someone else to do so? - Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You marked it as “ready to review”... so the next step is to WAIT until the review takes place. There may be more for you to do before it is deemed ready to move to main space. Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that even though I'm an admin, I always have to let someone else make that judgement if I attempt this sort of "rescue" of an article? Or just that it would be polite to do so? Or what? - Jmabel | Talk 03:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, as an admin, you should do it yourself, not wait for a reviewer.S Philbrick (Talk) 22:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I would say that if an article is deleted by a community consensus (even a weak one) an admin is no more authorized to unilaterally overrule that than a non-admin. I would say wait -- you may well be right that your edits have addressed the previous notability concerns, but a second opinion really should be required. I would compare this to a user who was subject to a community ban, and some time later appealed it on the talk page of the admin who closed the ban discussion; she might convince the admin that the ban is no longer necessary, but a single admin is not allowed overrule community consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from the previous two remarks that there is no clear policy here, since you are giving opposite advice, both without citing policy. As a matter courtesy, I will not move the article unilaterally. - Jmabel | Talk 00:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New user preference to let users restrict emails from brand new accounts

Hello,

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T138165

The WMF's Anti-Harassment Tools team introduced a user preference which allows users to restrict which user groups can send them emails. This feature aims to equip individual users with a tool to curb harassment they may be experiencing.

In the 'Email options' of the 'User profile' tab of Special:Preferences, there is a new tickbox preference with the option to turn off receiving emails from brand-new accounts.
For the initial release, the default for new accounts (when their email address is confirmed) is ticked (on) to receive emails from brand new users.
- Case user: A malicious user is repeatedly creating new socks to send Apples harassing emails. Instead of disabling all emails (which blocks Apples from potentially receiving useful emails), Apples can restrict brand new accounts from contacting them.

The feature to restrict emails on wikis where a user had never edited (phab:T178842) was also released the first week of 2018 but was reverted the third week of 2018 after some corner-case uses were discovered. There are no plans to bring it back at any time in the future.

We invite you to discuss the feature, report any bugs, and propose any functionality changes on the talk page.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves the Olympics 2018

Hello! The Winter Olympic Games 2018 started today and we have organized a wiki contest to improve the articles related with the Winter Olympic and the Paralympic Games. This is a multilingual project and is on Meta. You can participate till March 25. The link to the meta page is m:Wiki Loves the Olympics 2018. And don't forget that like Coubertin said "The important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win, but to take part". Thanks. --Millars (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Finance & Investment

The template {{WikiProject Finance & Investment}} does not work. Please arrange a fix.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right place to request this change? The WikiProject was Finance, and now is Finance and Investment. It doesn't seem to be a bug, just a change not completed, but perhaps I am wrong about that.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dthomsen8, since WP:WikiProject Finance has moved to WP:WikiProject Finance & Investment, and the template is still at Template:WikiProject Finance, I made a redirect at {{WikiProject Finance & Investment}}. I guess someone should move the template to that name. --Pipetricker (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for experienced users:
By the way, I noticed that WP:WikiProject Finance (and also the talk page) was copy-and-paste-moved to WP:WikiProject Finance & Investment. Is that a problem, or is that only problematic for articles? --Pipetricker (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Learn about Russia. Graduates and Mentors

Dear friends,

From January 26 to May 26, 2018, Wikimedia RU together with partners holds an international competition for writing biographical articles — «Learn about Russia. Graduates and Mentors». The competition is dedicated to graduates and teachers of Russian educational institutions from the Middle Ages to our time. The competition has a nomination for articles in foreign languages, i.e. official UN languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, and Spanish.

This nomination has 5 prize-winning places, the main prize is 500 Euros!

We invite participants of your section to take part in this interesting competition. JukoFF (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outraged

I am posting this with javascript disabled. I was utterly horrified just now to find popup ads appearing over wiki links in articles. Not just the ads, but the distraction of moving toys defocusing my brain. Was it the wiki or my browser that had been pwned? Checking the source of the image in the popup, it is a Mediawiki resource. The WMF have presumably rolled out dancing gobshite that behaves much like an advert, switched on by default, under some insane delusion that it will be nice for me. NO IT IS NOT NICE! I AM OUTRAGED! TURN THE F***ING THING OFF OR I WILL WALK AWAY AND NEVER EDIT AN ARTICLE AGAIN. (Sorry, I know that shouting and swearing are rude, but they ain't half as rude as what you **********ers just did to me.) 83.104.46.71 (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]