Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 28 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 141 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 91 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 59 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 59 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 45 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 45 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 37 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 36 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 36 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

(Initiated 28 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

(Initiated 19 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	14	33
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	23	45	68
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

(Initiated 54 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 53 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

(Initiated 51 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate CCP

(Initiated 33 days ago on 11 April 2024) Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 20 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 129 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 129 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 111 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 105 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 98 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 91 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 27 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 16 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 12 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 11 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC review request: Request for Comment: Country of Origin

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

---

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

Specific question asked:

"Should we change MEDRS, which currently reads:

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

to

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

This proposal is to address only the addition of high-quality sources into the guideline

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

Discussion

• Endorse The RFC was specifically about High quality sources and this was spelled out in the RFC question. The question had a very narrow focus. The closer rightfully discounted comments that were about low quality sources as off topic. AlbinoFerret 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  This is nonsense; who defines what a high or low-quality source is? There is no clear-cut process that is accepted by all, and actually the entire reason for the guideline. What if you define it depending on "personal" reasons — then you nullify the entire clause? The RfC concerns sources on Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 07:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  The guideline already gives reasons not to reject "high quality" sources for reasons like funding so that argument fails. But this is not a place to reargue the merits of the RFC. 13:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  No, but it is important to note the actual coverage of the RfC, which is all sources that would go on Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 15:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  Not all sources, only high quality ones. Your statement is one of the reasons I endorse this close. The RFC was a very narrow focused one and the off topic responses were obviously discounted, and your repeating them here doesnt invalidate the close. AlbinoFerret 15:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  I'm kind of inclined to go with "this is nonsense", but because Albino has misquoted the guideline again, and therefore his objection is irrelevant (NB not wrong, just irrelevant). A high-quality type of study is not the same thing as a high-quality source. A systematic review is a very high-quality type of study, but it can be a remarkably low-quality source for any given statement. For example, a systematic analysis of whichever studies I have photocopies of in my filing cabinet would be a high-quality type of study and a low-quality source.
  The fact that the closer made the same mistake, not to mention also introducing ideas never mentioned in the discussion at all, are both reasons to overturn it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to related discussions:

1. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Questions about RFC closure - Country of origin
2. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover?
3. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC: How to Implement the Country of Origin Closing

Cunard (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert 1.

Revert 2.

Revert 3.

Revert 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expanding my rationale: The closer was banned[2] for violating a topic ban and battlegrounding. In particular the closer was battlegrounding with at least one of the participants in the RFC - Jytdog. This is a bad close against the majority by a banned user where the closer was engaged in a feud. Alsee (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Endorse The question posed in the RfC was regarding high quality sources. These included Cochrane Reviews given in the examples which were being objected to based on the authors being Chinese. Many arguments were given by those in opposition regarding possibly suspect Chinese primary studies (RCT's) that would have never made it onto the encyclopedia in the first place, both low quality and low-quality-type sources, and these objections were rightfully not given weight by the closer since they were not on topic with the question being asked. That question was very specific and had a narrow focus. Yet these objectors edit warred the implementation of the close, instead of coming here for review themselves, so it looks like that's why we're here. LesVegas (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn. The justification for the close is that country of origin somehow violates WP:V and WP:RS with no clear explanation for how this is a violation. Quite to the contrary, if there are high quality sources that document systematic bias from a specific country in the field, then WP:V and WP:RS demands we consider country of origin in deciding whether a source is reliable. By referring to AlbinoFerret's succinct comment, the closing also endorsed argument that the RfC was specifically restricted to high quality sources. Again, country of origin can be relevant in deciding whether a source is high quality. A more relevant policy that was not cited in the in close and was barely mentioned in the RfC discussion is WP:NPOV because excluding sources based on country of origin may lead to an unbalanced presentation. However if the source is unreliable, then excluding it per WP:V would overrule WP:NPOV. Boghog (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I vote for: "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions." However, if there would be a vote on "funding sources", then this would require additional information, such as if the study in question is accessible for independent evaluation. prokaryotes (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Update. The editor who made the close being contested has now been community-banned for 3 months and had their topic ban extended per this for yet further disruptive editing. Again in my view the close being contested was part of the editor's pattern of disruptive behavior. This close review is still awaiting formal closing, which is needed so that the editors who are concerned about MEDRS can continue to follow the DR process. I do hope an admin will pick up gauntlet and make a call to overturn or endorse the close. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A decision of sorts from a previously uninvolved administrator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring after uninvolved admin action

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

• LesVegas violated talk page consensus.[3][4] See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#On_country_of_origin. There were also previous edits against consensus.[5][6] I am surprised LesVegas has not been topic banned. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Quackguru, I would note you have been topic banned from a couple of topics now, so given your judgement on Wikipedia rules I'm not at all concerned you think so poorly of my editing. I would also note that you have a history of "border lining" and this topic, which is not explicitly "Acupuncture" has involved a great deal of discussion about it, and you have borderlined in those discussions, which could be a violation of your ban. LesVegas (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• There's a lot of motivated reasoning going on with that guideline, and a concerted attempt to change it to gain an advantage in a content dispute, rather than in line with good practice and common sense, which is what guidelines should be for. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Magioladitis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I interacted with him on this issue several times when I was an administrator. The problem has been going on for years, both with edits from Magoioladitis' main account and from his bot, Yobot. For example, search for "cosmetic edit" on Magioladitis' talk page [7], or look at the block log for Yobot [8]. The responses that always seem to be given are that the edits were a mistake, or are from bug in the software that is being used, or are necessary because of some other bug in the software that is being used. I would expect to see these same excuses again if he comments on this thread. After years of seeing them, I have yet to see Magioladitis take responsibility for his errors by making the changes necessary prevent them (e.g. fixing the years-longstanding bugs in his software that allow cosmetic edits to be saved, making his edit summaries more descriptive, etc.). I believe that any long-term resolution to the problem will require very tight edit restrictions on both his main account and his bot account. Otherwise, you will be back here again soon enough. Good luck, — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clogging up watchlists is blockable if what is clogging them are trivial edits. If the MediaWiki Message Delivery System only added or removed whitespace, it would get blocked/disabled under WP:COSMETICBOT just like Magio was for edits like [9]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Lugnuts: Your premise that if people get worked up about something then it must not be insignificant is flawed. People get worked up over insignificant things all the time, humans are kind of famous for it. HighInBC 16:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You were obviously so worked-up about being incorrect it took you a week to reply. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note the conditions of the temp unblock was to To participate in the AN discussion ONLY, yet this edit was made after this condition was agreed. @Fram:? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts check the edit that was done 30 seconds later in the same page. Plese be more careful in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I need to be more careful?! That's rich. So why did you make the edit in the first place against the sanction of your unblock? I guess you'll weasel out of this one too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts I was pinged by Redrose64 in commons and I replied in the wrong window. Is this OK with you or do you think I have to be blocked for this too? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You know what I think. However, no one will action this. Admins win again! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts is clearly out to get anybody who uses AWB. It says at the top of his talk page, "FUCK AWB". He just left a message on my talk page accusing me of doing one trivial edit. No hi or what you doing? Just judge and jury. He then left, Fine, but your edits are now being monitored. Look forward to seeing you at ANI when you fuck up again. I can't remember the last time anybody accused me of a trivial edit... 8-12 months? Guess I'll be hauled into ANI later today. Bgwhite (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I hate to correct you, again, but it's anyone who misuses AWB. There's a difference. And you don't seem to know the difference. As you've been using AWB for a long, long time, you should be more than familiar with the rules of use. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You only saw the edit, you never, ever asked why. If you would have asked, you would see that it wasn't a misuse. Shot first and don't ask questions later.... Bgwhite (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I saw the edit and then pointed it out to you. Are you now trying to cover up your errors after Fram pointed it out to you too? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop with the threats. Why is it that you have falsely accuse people and threaten them every time. Fram understood with what I'm doing. You've accused me of yet another mindless bot edit even thou it did exactly what the edit summary did. You've threatened me with ANI again. You said I broke 3RR with only two edits by me. I've asked 5 times to stop writing on my talk page. Stay away from me. Bgwhite (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And here you are stalking me! Pot. Kettle. Black. How pathetic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So what's the outcome of this user's editing? We all bend over and let him continue until the next time he's brought here? Or the time after that? Or the time after that? Seems this isn't really being addressed now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

1. The technical issue on the CHECKWIKI error fixes: There are 100+ errors checked and every month there are alternations to the code generating the list. Since Bgwhite now does a reproceccing of the dump files i.e. cleaner lists I deicded with him and I ll get a message of when my bot should start fixing. Till now by bot was triggered automattically in the large lists resulting a large percentaage of "did nothing" edits. This can be addressed at list at the part of the list.
2. The technical issue on the deprecated parameters: Rjwilmsi created a custom module that enusres that we will have skip conditions. I asked GoingBatty to help in testing. So on that part we can have 100% of good edits.
3. The technical issue on the the talk page fixes / tagging. This is tricky because consensus on the placement of the banners changes very often, AWB's code is incomplete, most edtors who requested tagging of a WikiProject have given me bad lists. This can be partially addressed with GoigBatty's help if he uses my scripts and reports bugs and fixes some things.
4. On my editing: I can promise not to perform any large scale editing from my main account (i.e. automated edits will be done mainly from my bot account) and I can los stay away from AutoEd. In fact, I ve been using AutoEd mainly to get ideas to implement in AWB so it's not a big lose for me. I still believe AuoEd needs update in many places. Frietjes has better AutoEd-like scripts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hats off. See you back here in a month. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts why is that? I have not received any serious complains about my editing for years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case, you should pay closer attention to your talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis, could you help myself and others understand the thinking behind the assertion "not received any serious complains"? (ie. is there a word missing somewhere?—The assertion as it stands appears to be inconsistent with the public record – available for all to view – in the history of User talk:Magioladitis). —Sladen (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The implication is clear: Mag does not consider complaints about trivial or cosmetic edits to be 'serious', which really highlights the problem being discussed here. –xeno^talk 13:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sladen and Xeno: How many complains go I get per year? Should I count? I do hundreds of edits per day. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see. By "serious" I meant "major". All reports are serious ofcourse. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that Magioladitis. Looking back over the responses in this discussion above and distilling out the important parts from your responses:

1. "hundreds of edits per day." – automated edit rate has been too fast/too high for review.
2. "a lot of mistakes." – the automated edits had some $error-rate.
3. "All reports are serious" – there was feedback about the edits/errors.
4. "every time you report" – that feedback was frequent/repeated.
5. "Should I count?" – feedback was so large, it would require an explicit effort to count.
6. "it's not the tools." – compliance with WP:BOTREQUIRE/ WP:COSMETICBOT/ WP:AWB#Rules of use/ WP:NOTBROKEN has been proved achievable by other editors, using with the same automated toolset.

Could you confirm whether this is a correct synopsis of the situation? —Sladen (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sladen.

1. Yes. Many people do that too. I do not think that this necessary bad.
2. The mistakes are usually mainly when something changes in the code. Long-standing scripts work fine. So usually there are many mistakes of ONE kind i.e. easily fixable.
3. Yes. I reply to all reports. I try sometime to reply in a few minutes after the report. Not all reports are valid though.
4. Yes. I fixed all errors reported. Mainly bug fixing or revisited a page to finish the task. Most fixes were really quick. Not all reports refer to the same thing. Take this under consideration. (See below).
5. True. In the past I kept logs of the bot edits. But this logs were manual and there were getting too large.
6. Almost true. Most of the times I am the guy who uses AWB against newly generated lists. I am also the guy who said that I trust WikiProjects to generate their lists for me and I won't double check them assuming good faith. During the years I established some extra rules for that.

To resolve one main part of the latter I already contacted Bgwhite to refine lists before feeding them to my bot. I also contacted GoingBatty and other to distribute the talk page related tasks.

There are many bugs of different nature. If the bot/script/module/AWB/etc. fails to fix a page the result is usually the same: "Cosmetic changes". This gives the impression that the root of the problem is the same while it's not.

Please, also read my report on the situation. I try to separate the errors by their kind. Just calling them all just "errors" or "trivial edits" does not help. It's like reporting a hug by saying "the program does not work. Fix it". Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"There are many bugs of different nature. If the bot/script/module/AWB/etc. fails to fix a page the result is usually the same: "Cosmetic changes"."

And this underlies the frustration that I (and probably other people) have with Magioladitis. Every time that he does trivial edits and I have reported it, he claims he has fixed it, but in a few days, the same kinds of trivial edits show up again. Every time Magio cheerfully claims that he has resolved all reported problems, but to me it looks like nothing changed. But underlying the specific bugs that he is "fixing", there is a systemic problem should be addressed on a more general level: to skip saving a page if the edit would consist of only trivial changes.

There are also some other recurring problems reflected here, such as denial of responsibility: "Most of the times I am the guy who uses AWB against newly generated lists. I am also the guy who said that I trust WikiProjects to generate their lists for me and I won't double check them assuming good faith." -- intgr [talk] 14:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Rule one of WP:AWB could not be more clear: "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed and make sure you understand the changes." Seems there's a core of AWB users who chose to ignore this or think it doesn't apply to them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

intgr for the first: As I wrote there a custom module underway. This will reduce the error drastically. For the second, I always WP:AGF when someone asks me to fix a list. I do not care about the tagging myself. I find WikiProject boring and useless when it is done in thousand pages. Anyone wishes to take this task is more than welcome. All my code and "house rules" are online. I had to participate in creating rules for talk page fixes. I try to help others. This is not denial of responsibility. I guess you are aware that many BOTREQs remain unanswered. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Check also that in 2009 I did work for others Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 7. I see Wikipedia as a cooperaive projectwith people who trust each other. I later expanded this in a more general way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

2009? Wow. I'm sure I did something good 7 years ago too. Do you have something a bit more recent that might carry a bit more weight? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts Why you behave like this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have something more recent? I mean, seven years is a long time ago and standards were, how shall we put it, not as good as now. Look at any FA that crept through back then and compare it to today's standard. So, what can you dig out from say, the last 12 months? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My talk page fixes are based on Wikiprojects requests. What do you mean? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In 2010 I asked some of the talk page fixes to be done in toolserver and it was done by Larabot till toolserver was shut done. Check User:Yobot#Logs_2008-2012. I resumed the tasks after Larabot discontinue the Wikiproject Biographyvtagging. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yet, another proof that even single-task bots operated by experienced programmers can fail from time to time: User_talk:T.seppelt#Non-removal_of_comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis, thank you for the heads up. Looking over the bug reports and replies, it would appear that T.seppelt has been reasonably responsive and has replied to the reporters of the bugs in correspondingly timely fashion. I can see the responses "stopped the program", "adjust[ed] the replacement pattern", "implemented several improvements". There would be room for improvement in the edit summary pointing to the precise bot task authorisation and in the bug report it would be nice to see pointers to revision controls corrections of the patterns. However all-in-all the bot appears to have stayed on-task and not wander off into things that weren't requested, (eg. into whitespace rearranging), was done from a bot account, not a user account, and the operator has not attempted to deny responsibility for the automated edits or shift the blame on to other people. Is there something I've missed about this (nearly) model response by a bot operator? —Sladen (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, many bots have errors from time to time.Typically, these are different errors. The difference with Yobot is that it has had the same errors for years, and they have never been resolved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sladen Please reread my points with the root of the problem. No AWB bot just removes whitespace. I never just removed whitespace using AWB. Moreover, in contrary to other programs AWB always shows which code revision is used. I looks that your approach tends to reach my point of view. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A comment about HotCat just for the record: HotCat is a java script installed internally by Wikipedia perferences under the section "Gadgets" and comes with no additional terms of use. It is considered to be part of the Wikipedia environment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As for never "just removing whitespace using AWB", see [10] [11]. This seems to be a relatively common failure mode your AWB code, which has been happening for several years now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

CBM Exactly! Code failure. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk)

Moreover, you gave two bad examples! The latter is by WP:LISTGAP we even have bots for that. The first is typical wikilink fix and bots do that too. So, both are accepted edits! But, OK we agree in the spirit of the report. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not code failure - it is operator failure. Looking through your contribs, it took me less than 1 minute to find more examples: [12] [13] [14]. Those are not bot edits - they are edits that you personally reviewed and approved with your own account! Your claim that "I never just removed whitespace using AWB." is simply false. The pattern of your responses, when problems such as this are brought up, is to deny your own actions and/or blame the code. The fact that you continue to violate the AWB rules of use in this way, with no plan to resolve the underlying problems, shows why there is a need for an AWB ban on your main account, along with much tighter rules on your bot account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis breaching the terms of his unblock

Hatting per Fram's request. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Right, now that we've finished being side-tracker by some pusillanimous trolling, lets address the issue at hand. Magioladitis was unblocked purely to contribute to this discussion only. However, this edit was made after this condition was agreed, thus violating the terms of the unblock. So it's safe to assume he should be re-blocked for 1) breaking the terms of his unblock and 2) his contributions here have now concluded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Oppose: I don't approve of much that Magioladitis does, but I believe this instance was a honest mistake and should be forgiven. Magioladitis himself undid the edit 1 minute later. While technically a violation of the unblock conditions, he didn't violate the intent of the conditions: he wasn't editing article content or running a bot. -- intgr [talk] 09:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "An honest mistake". Lets look at that. So he can't make automated edits without them being brought into question and when not editing with AWB he makes more mistakes. Obviously a big competency issue here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Well that last bit is irrelevant, but given his edit-summary comment on the reversion, it does seem to have been an honest mistake - I've written in the wrong tab sometimes before and only noticed later. I'd say as long as it isn't repeated, then no foul should be considered here. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Have you ever "written in the wrong tab sometimes before" in direct violation to the conditions of an unblock on your account? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Lugnuts so why I did it? Because I am trolling? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC) No, I don't think you're trolling, I think you are not competent. As your failure to read basic instructions shows. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Lugnuts I disagree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Of course you do. You're not going to sit there and admit to being incompetent! I do give you some credit. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "I misread your reply" In the same token of I misread the word ONLY in "To participate in the AN discussion ONLY". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Lugnuts, I can hardly be accused of being a blind follower of fellow admins, a supporter of valueless automated edits, or someone who believes that restrictions or conditions can be ignored. But this case is utterly trivial. All you do by continuing this is creating sympathy for Magioladitis and antipathy towards yourself and your complaints about the real problems (those that lead to the block). Please drop this non-issue. Fram (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Hardly trivial when this editor goes against the very sanctions you imposed in the first place. But it's OK, he's an admin, so lets ignore this and not do anything about it. Maybe you can explain exactly what you meant by To participate in the AN discussion ONLY in your edit summary, as now it's not so clear. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC) It's perfectly clear to everyone but you, and I guess it is clear to you too. It certainly is clear to Magioladitis, otherwise he wouldn't have immediately undone that error. I wouldn't have blocked anyone over this, no matter if they are an admin or not. It doesn't even merit a warning, since it is obvious that it was an error, not a breaching experiment. Fram (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks Fram. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Bludgeoning editors [15] [16] [17] who are trying to improve the project over a minor automated edit? If an editor does not want to see minor edits on their watchlists I think there is a setting for that. Many editors make minor edits [18] and even totally pointless ones [19] Legacypac (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Look who's crawled out! My fucking hero! Still bitter I see after you got blocked. Oh hum. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Please cut it out, both of you. Legacypac, ignoring minor edits is ideal to give every vandal every chance to do whatever they like. Yes, one can choose not to see those on their watchlist, but often this is not a good idea. Minor edits may well hide vandalism or mistakes, bot edits have the potential to make the same error very fast on many articles. Fram (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC) And there's a hell of a lot of bad minor edits done by established editors. Two spring to mind straight away. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC) The point of the block was to stop the problematic AWB editing. Asking a question about CC licenses on a talk page is light years removed from being disruptive. Get off your high horse Javert, because you're making it impossible to focus on the issues by calling for heads to roll because of trivialities. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Finished with the personal attacks now? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Can someone uninvolved please hat this subsection? It generates (much) more heat than light, with PAs going back and forth, people harassing other people (though it isn't easy to tell who harassed first or most), and nothing concrete about the Magioladitis situation likely to be achieved in this part of the discussion. Fram (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving towards a resolution

xaosflux — xeno — MSGJ: This thread has been sitting for a while now. Do you think it is time for one of the administrators handing this to work out the precise terms/restrictions that will be in place going forward? I suggested some possible restrictions above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Recuse; I have strong feelings about useless edits and on the other hand I am also quite fond of Magioladitis as regards his other useful work. –xeno^talk 15:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Unfortunately I'm with Xeno above - I'm involved with Magioladitis frequently as part of the Bot Approval's Group and only came in to this as a broken between the original block and a short-lived unblock w/ restrictions, would appreciate some input of uninvolved admins here. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not sure there is much consensus for any particular remedy, but I think we need to get something in place before 15th. I could certainly support #1 in your proposals. The rest would be good practice and/or covered by other policies. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• I fear that #1 is probably an inevitable necessity, given the continued claims and long-term denials of the situation. All that's being requested is simple compliance to existing Wikipedia's norms, so ideally #2–#6 (which attempt to summarise existing bot policy) should not need to be necessary—but perhaps spelling them out may help to focus the mind of Yobot's operator. I'm hopeful that in 6–12 months Magioladitis may be able to return here voluntarily with a a greater understanding and a demonstrable clean slate. —Sladen (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• I also don't see much consensus for any particular remedy. Most of Carl's #2-6 suggestions are not bot policy. For example, #3 states, No "changes that do not affect any visible aspect of the rendered page". This would disallow DEFAULTSORT changes, removal of deprecated or changed infobox parameters, etc. #2 and #6 are not feasible with AWB. Support #1 and #5. #5 falls under WP:BOTREQUIRE and is something Magioladitis hasn't done well in the past, but has gotten better.

  Carl's suggestions doesn't include AutoEd, which is what Magioladitis used the last go around. I already suggested and would support Magioladitis not using AutoEd for a year. I've already removed AutoEd from his .js file and left a message that I removed it so it wouldn't "tempt him". Bgwhite (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • The point of special restrictions is that they can go beyond the ordinary policy, of course. The question is: what set of restrictions will prevent us from coming back here again? Regarding #3, there is no need for Magioladitis in particular to perform the kinds of edits mentioned - DEFAULTSORT, parameters, etc. - and given his long track record of being unable to do so in accordance with ordinary norms (cf. this thread), it would be better for him to let others take care of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • My stating that it is not normal bot policy is in response to others saying that it is normal policy. So, your statement just reaffirms my point. Yobot does have bot approval to fix Defaultsort, deprecated parameters and others. Your #2 and #5 also means he can't do bot approved tasks. Either he can do bot approved tasks or he can't. Bgwhite (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I stand by Carl's efforts to put stricter/clearer limits on Magioladitis's editing. I believe it is inappropriate to let someone to systematically and repeatedly violate Wikipedia's policies and neglect user feedback, despite how useful their good edits may be. The current approach of many people simply complaining with no enforcement, has clearly been ineffective. I think even simply a clear re-statement of aspects of the bot policy, together with consequences when violated, is a step forward. (Non-administrator comment) -- intgr [talk] 11:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• I don't personally understand what most of Carl's restriction would do (e.g. the edit summary restrictions), in real terms, other than have pointless bureaucracy to govern Magio's editing. #3 (no purely cosmetic edit) is the only problematic issue. General fixes are fine, but the "whitespace only" and "cosmetic only" skip condition have to be used. However, Magio doesn't seem to be enclined to use them, and short of such a commitment, I would support a 3 month ban on script-assisted editing on his main account, and a restriction on Yobot's CHECKWIKI edits to be performed iff the "whitespace only" and "cosmetic only" skip conditions are used. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb I can add these two skip conditions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This "I can …" terminology seems quite familiar (eg. Special:Diff/691603628: "I can stick to bots do the job instead of using my normal account. … -- Magioladitis … 23:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)". Magioladitis, will it be done (+infinitely, not just for a short time)? —Sladen (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There are several approaches we could take here:

• Restrict access to certain tools, including AWB and maybe some others. This may be worth a try, and I could support a restriction of this type. But it may encourage him to explore other automated tools which haven't been mentioned or to disguise the tool that made them.
• Restrict a certain type of edit, i.e. cosmetic changes. I don't think this will work because based on past experience if the automated editing continues I am sure there will be further cosmetic edits.
• Restrict all automated, semi-automated, or script-assisted editing from the main account. This is the simplest remedy. The bot can continue with tasks that have explicit approval (and there is less of an issue with watchlist clogging from the bot account anyway).

Thoughts? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the first option, the worry that this leads to 'hidden' or 'disguised' automated editing is seems like a big dose of unwarranted bad faith.

But in general, Magio has, for the first time I think, acknowledged there is an issue and said they were willing to make use of the the skip conditions (which I interpret both for them and for the bot, unless what they are trying to fix would be prevented by skip condition, like a fix to a badly-formed template (e.g { {reflist}} → {{reflist}}) that would be prevented by the whitespace skip condition. They've been blocked/restricted from all editing for a good week (if not more now), so I'm sure the message has sunk in by now that compliance with WP:COSMETICBOT (which also covers bot-like editing via WP:MEATBOT) is not optional.

However, I'm also semi-wary of an unrestricted return. But something like a one-month restriction on AWB edits from the main account, while also allowing Yobot to resume its tasks (with the skip conditions enabled, and a better description of its task via edit summary) would be reasonable. And if there's no issues (allowing for some false positives due to GIGO/vandalism/live version different from dump version if building edit lists from database dumps/etc.), then lift the restriction on AWB, provided the skip conditions are also used going forward. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Have struck that part from my sentence, although the part of exploring other tools was not hypothetical given his prompt switch to AutoEd when his use of AWB was curtailed. One month is too short - I would prefer an indefinite restriction which can be reviewed in a few months time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think a one-month ban on AWB and other semiautomated tools from the main account, and mandatory skip conditions on all Yobot edits (so that the edit is only saved if the specific bot task applies to the page) would be a reasonable option. If he can follow that for a month, but then happens to revert to problematic behavior, it will be easy enough to re-impose the restrictions. The purpose for having better edit summaries (re Headbomb above) is exactly so that it is more clear whether the part in parenthesis is achieved. Vague summaries that just mention "CHECKWIKI", for example, don't give enough information to tell what the bot is *trying* to achieve. If that means that he has to run separate tasks separately, I would view that as a normal part of bot operation.

Magioladitis has very unexpectedly posted a wikibreak message on his user talk page today, running through the 17th, which is after the original one-month block would expire. A return to the old "status quo" would just bring us back here in a few days. I think it would be better to go ahead and notify him of the restrictions that will apply when he returns, or else extend the original block until he is able to properly interact with this thead (cf. the unanswered question from Sladen above). — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis is off to a WikiConference being held in Athens. He is a speaker, so it was not unexpected.

Having skip conditions (cosmetic or blank space) will mean the majority of CheckWiki errors cannot be handled... section headers, invisible Unicode, missing ref tags (< ref>), defaultsort problem, pmid, isbns, etc. As I explained to Headbomb yesterday, there are errors that "only cosmetic change" and/or "only whitspace" have to be on. If articles are fixed before we get to them, it will cause a cosmetic only edit. There is no way around that, only minimizing the amount of articles. Not to mention, forgetting to check or uncheck a box between running different errors.

To MSGJ's first point. AWB AND AutoEd must be included. The only other tool Magioladitis uses is WPCleaner. WPCleaner does not have the cosmetic changes problem. Bgwhite (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The argument you are making seems to be "the software is broken, so we have to use it as it is". But that is not correct: the solution is to fix the software so that it is able to make the desired changes correctly, without making undesired changes. In the meantime, a responsible bot op would not continue running the software in a way that causes the error to re-occur. That is 100% standard bot development procedure, which Magioladitis as a BAG member should be completely familiar with. If he is unable to make certain kinds of edits until the software is improved, perhaps that will be an incentive to fix the longstanding bugs in his code. But it is clear that returning to the status quo is not an option. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Did I ever say the software is broken? No. Did I ever say the status quo? No. Don't make up things I never said. I said, there are instances where blank space and "only cosmetic change" MUST be checked to fix errors. For example, I'm currently running a 100,000 article bot job that only removes blank lines. Another example, changing ISBN1234567890 to ISBN 1234567890, which only involves a blank space. I've also said there are times when the article is fixed before we can get to it. There is no way around this. Others have the same problem when they run off dumps. Headbomb mentioned this in his proposal above. There are no software problems. Status quo? I've said... Magioladitis must not use AWB from his main account and no autoEd from any account. He must only run AWB for approved jobs. He must do edit summaries better.

What you are proposing means Magioladitis can't use AWB for most of his bot approved jobs. I've replied to you before, Your #2 and #5 also means he can't do bot approved tasks. Either he can do bot approved tasks or he can't. There was never close to any consensus to take away AWB privileges. Bgwhite (talk)

@Bgwhite: (Irrelevant snark) "Don't make up things I never said." Sounds familiar, maybe you should refrain from doing that yourself, too. [20] [21] [22] -- intgr [talk] 10:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Bgwhite, you wrote above ¨... it will cause a cosmetic only edit. There is no way around that, only minimizing the amount of articles.¨ and "there are times when the article is fixed before we can get to it. There is no way around this.". Remember the saying "a bad carpenter always blames his tools". Nobody is suggesting Yobot cannot use AWB, but if AWB has bugs that cause undesired edits in bot mode then Magiolatiditis needs to fix those bugs or run AWB in a way that does not cause them to trigger. If that means doing some code development before running some bot jobs -- well, that's part of being a bot operator! For example, I am certain that the problem of determining whether the desired problem still exists can be solved, because if a program detected the problem in the first place, then AWB can test to see if the problem still exists before making the edit. That kind of check should have been implemented years ago, when the issue of outdated dumps for CHECKWIKI was first noticed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

These are reasonable false positives, and have been tolerated with all bot ops, provided they take steps to minimize how often they occur. The issue mostly is that Magio has not taken these steps in the past. To quote him "The ISSN errors were rather new and my script was a hell of a mess." That indicates improper testing of new code and logic. I've reported similar errors to BGWhite (see here, scroll down a bit), but those were caused because the database dump (of which edit lists are built from) and the live version of the article differed because of vandalism. These are unavoidable short of putting a herculean effort in coding. A 'good enough' code that edits correctly 99% of the time and doesn't break anything in the other 1% is something the community and BAG considers acceptable in cases like this. The ISSN edits, however, were not caused by this, and proper testing would have caught it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the ISSN edits were also being done manually. One can't blame software in manual mode. If software had an issue, one shouldn't have pressed save. Bgwhite (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop the War Coalition issues again

Without going over it too much (since the archive of the discussion can be accessed here), Phillp Cross has been adding very libelous material over a woman named Agnes Mariam of who he keeps using an editorial blog from The Spectator to bash over. In the editorial, she is compared to a Nazi, told to be an "apologist for the Assad Regime", and other unsubstantiated, libelous claims that can potentially cause problems, especially since the article is based in the UK where libel laws are a lot more litigant.

Phillip Cross in the previous discussion was recommended for a topic ban by two admins, but nothing came of it; I suggest a topic ban for all articles relating to British leftist and progressive organisations and personalities, since he cannot help but edit with sources that are almost always editorial opinion blogs (since he thinks they're acceptable), such as in George Galloway or Agnes_Mariam_de_la_Croix.

I ask administrators to do something on this behalf, because the problem is only going to snowball if someone who thinks blogs are acceptable sources (and refuses to budge even when editors have been acting in wp:goodfaith to attempt to point out and correct his mistakes) for wp:blp articles and other issues that can potentially turn into a legal problem for this site, especially in the UK. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources are generally inadmissible for use as citations in articles, but interested parties are advised to look at this open letter signed by various leftists who share the concerns of Jeremy Scahill and Owen Jones, both themselves on the left. Jones own blog (non-RS, of course, because it is self-published rather than from an established publication, but entirely genuine) confirms the cited assertions from the sources I have used in the StWC, as do many comments on twitter and elsewhere from individuals sympathetic to Mother Agnes and the Stop the War Coalition. Philip Cross (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely here. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick note to everyone — User:Philip Cross has been adding material to the article on Agnes Mariam. Perhaps others will make the mistake I did, thinking that Solntsa90 was drawing out attention to people potentially disrupting things related to an off-wiki dispute between people named Agnes Mariam and Philip Cross. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Here is edit in question. I checked the source. This particular edit by Philip Cross is not a BLP violation. If there are any BLP issues involved, this suppose to be reported to WP:BLPNB for discussion long time ago, rather than producing heated debates with wording like Wiki getting sued for libel by Solntsa90 [23]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Does that matter? I'm not seeing why that should be included at all. "Hi, it was announced on date X that someone withdrew from a conference this group organized" and then fighting over why that person may have withdrawn seem odd, doesn't it? What happened at the actual conference? Was the conference itself cancelled? Did it went on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this should be receiving attention from administrators. I don't agree that the conference withdrawal issue is notable. Editorial blogs are not acceptable sourcing for comparing people to Nazis. I have noticed myself an inappropriate pattern of editing my Philip Cross relating to left-wing British organisations and individuals. That needs to stop. AusLondonder (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's one bizarre string off text to add to the Stop the War page and it seems completely unrelated to that organization but instead is just there to criticize her even more. I wonder if people think a topic ban is needed if we're just going to have coatrack attacks about this woman in various places. The prior discussion on the talk page at Talk:Stop_the_War_Coalition#Mother_Agnes and Talk:Stop_the_War_Coalition#Mother_Agnes_.282.29 about a person who literally has no mention at all in the Stop the War article other than what Phillip keeps inserting about her show a complete inability to give proper weight. The context at Stop_the_War_Coalition#Syrian_civil_war is "Stop the War has been criticized for alleged pro-Assad links and this woman once withdrew from a conference of theirs" with this dispute being about why she may have withdrawn, with no indication that anyone should care about the organization at all other than it being the backdrop for her withdrawn and the alleged controversy over her withdrawal which there's no evidence of other than two journalists who also are never mentioned on the STW page didn't want to take the stage with her. If this is the kind of editing Phillip thinks is appropriate, then I'd support a topic ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject to tell if the edit was "undue". I can only tell this particular edit looks to me as a minor content dispute; the edit was reliably sourced, and this is not a BLP violation in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

To me, it's just a review on the surface. I agree with those points but just because something is sourced reliably doesn't mean it belongs on that page. As noted, it's essentially "someone didn't attend this conference" and a dispute about whether or not it's properly sourced as why they didn't attend. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirects are broken and IP continually removing registration template.

The redirect system appears to be broken (and has been for a few days). For example the shortcut WP:REMOVED should take you to the section "Removal of comments, notices, and warnings" of the page "Wikipedia:User pages". However, at present it only takes you to the top of "Wikipedia:User pages" leaving the user to find his own way to the relevant bit.

I was looking for this because 45.26.44.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly deleting the IP registration template (and is currently on a 3 month block). Diffs of removal:[24], [25], [26]. "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user ... For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered". I believe his talk page access should be revoked because of the continued violation. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional info here, this IP has had talk page access removed prior. [27]ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 16:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Revoked talk page access. Katie^talk 17:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you using Firefox? – 'Cos that first thing seems to be some bug involving web browser software and using wikilinks to take you to a section of a Wikipedia page. (FTR, similar things happen to me as well – I click to go to a section, and I don't quite end up at the section I linked to...) I'm pretty sure this bug is well-known, and has been pretty extensively discussed already. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I have never had issues with section links (including right now), except when loading pages with collapsed sections. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-working redirects is not a WP:AN matter. More info at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 142#Redirect to section bugged. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I saw this as a matter of "please stop this IP from [[WP:REMOVE|improperly removing this part of his talk page]], and while we're at it, there's a technical problem with that link". The first was suitable here, and it couldn't hurt to bring up the technical matter because admins tend to be above-average knowledgeable on technical matters. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

If Javascript is disabled, then the sectional redirect does not work; it only redirects you to the page not the section. This is a Javascript thing. Rgrds. --64.85.216.131 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

How do you work that out? Redirects are handled server-side: the MediaWiki server manipulates the URL based on what's on the redirect page before passing it on to your browser. The section link is done as a URL fragment, and although those are handled client-side, it's an inherent feature of all browsers (and has been since the earliest days of HTML), and no JavaScript is necessary for that.

Regardless, that topic is outside the scope of WP:AN. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be true - in Firefox (on Mac) if I disable javascript then the WP:REMOVED link only goes to the top of the page, but with javascript enabled it goes to the correct section. Try it yourself and see what happens. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

My Javascript is not disabled and I am not using firefox. WP:REMOVED takes me to the top of the page. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It is likely that this is a javascript issue. Somewhere back in the mists of time, T2218:Redirects do not support named anchors, redirects to sections were implemented as a javascript kludge so that the "redirected from x" message could appear at the top of the page. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

An open report related to this issue can be found at T53736:Redirects to sections/anchors should not depend on redirectToFragment javascript. At this point it might be helpful if this thread got transferred to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears that a patch to address issues people have been having with this issue was tested in late December 2015 MW-1.27 Release Notes. T110501:redirectToFragment script (redirects to section headers) behaving unreliably. I don't know what the projected release date is for 1.27. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This change was marked as part of intermediate release mw:MediaWiki 1.27/wmf.10 which should have been rolled out here on January 14 mw:MediaWiki 1.27/Roadmap, so if OP is still experiencing problems they may want to file a new ticket (assuming their javascript is enabled and that they are on a stable browser version). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Neelix frog redirects

I've segregated about 4,474 Neelix frog redirects onto their own list of unchecked redirects. Like his other redirects many of these frog ones have serious problems including:

1. Fake compound words
2. Fake mix and match names where he combines parts of two different common names to invent a 3rd name
3. Pointless and incorrect dashes between words
4. Absolutely made up/coined names he pulled from thin air
5. Pointless plural or singular variations that search deals with anyway

All these issues are found in his other redirects, but in other topics the problems can be more easily spotted. Many frog species have very light coverage online, with Wikipedia being the source of much of the online coverage. That is why fake frog names here can really spread error widely, damaging the whole topic of frog knowledge. Many sites see a Wiki Redirect as a synonym or alternative name, replicating the error.

We could do nothing, which leaves the mess for all time and eternity to be replicated from Wikipedia. We could check them all carefully, which is a huge tedious job best done by a frog expert. Or, as I'm suggesting subject to some wider testing, we could bulk nuke all Neelix frog redirects and allow search engines to help people find the right frog without the clutter of redirects. Responsible editors can recreate any that are really needed for onsite navigation, a much smaller job then checking these.

So editors can express a fully informed opinion, please first go to the frog list and check 20 random redirects carefully for correctness (keeping in mind the 5 points above). Report with your comment how many you checked and how many were legitimate alternative names backed up by a RS. A good sampling should show us what the correct course of action is. Thanks for providing input. Legacypac (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I looked through section 1 and they all seem to be good - all the alternate names are mentioned in the lede, though there are those plural/hyphen/spacing variants. I'd assume that he went off the names mentioned in the lede to make these. (The list also has other redirects - plant scientific names - in section 2, but the others seem to be all frogs.) ansh666 11:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I misunderstood your request and checked every redirect in "Section 12 Stony creek frogs" and "Section 13 Mutuio frogs". Almost all were good in the first section, and the non-"Motuo" ones were good in the second, being alternate names from the intro or reasonable variants thereof; I deleted all the "Motuo" ones because neither the article nor its online sources mentioned that as an alternate name. I've left a note atop each section saying basically "I checked each one individually, and the ones I didn't delete shouldn't be deleted". If we all go through these frog redirects, taking individual sections and examining each title in that section, we can work through the backlog systematically and rather easily, and since G6 is permitted for Neelix titles that aren't plausible, it shouldn't take too long. We can just look for ones that are given as alternate names, either in the article intros or elsewhere, and delete ones that aren't and ones that are odd variants of good titles; we'll make some mistakes, but it should be trivial to get a G6-deleted page undeleted if you show that the title was good. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

After checking another batch of 231 titles, I can report that most of the problem titles are too inspecific: ones such as Yellow and black spotted tree-frog are fine, but a lot were ones such as Jinxiu frog (to the Jinxiu small treefrog) that might be ambiguous. The worst case I found was Zhishihe to Zhishihe's bubble-nest frog, which is named for "Zhishihe", the place where it was discovered. Perhaps some of these are unambiguous titles after all, but that's where we'd need an expert. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate the effort here User:Nyttend, and that Admins can just delete the junky ones directly. I also found one that was xyz but actually there is a state in Burma and a page for that state. It looks like Smiths frog instead of Smith's frog is getting deleted too, which is very good. Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This may sound obvious but has anyone posted a request for some eyes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles? I'd say that's your best shot at getting someone with some expertise not so much in frogs but in really what we need, which is an expert on Wikipedia's naming conventions for frog redirects which is worth putting on a resume. :) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't work on frogs much, but I do work on common name redirects a lot. I'll note that there are some Neelix frog redirects I'm aware of that aren't on the list; e.g variants of sole frog and soul frog (for Seoul frog) and a whole bunch of variant redirects pointing to common tree frog.

I believe that common names should be reliably sourced, and redirects should be created for common names using the exact format found in the source (with exceptions for downcasing per WP:BIRDCON). Any redirects we create on Wikipedia get scraped by various dictionary sites and take on a life of their own on the internet. There are already many minor variants of common names floating around the internet, but we're not doing anybody any favors by inventing dozens of new variants here.

Explicit sourcing of common names is rare on Wikipedia, but most frog common names should be tracable either to the IUCN database or the Amphibian Species of the World database. Ideally, the redirects should be checked directly against IUCN or ASW, but I think for the most part we can trust that common names presented in the lead are usually mentioned in one of these sources (although I know of non-frog cases where Wikipedia has invented new common names on it's own). I'm all for deleting all the Neelix redirects that don't precisely match the common names as formatted in the article. Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• It is absurd that one obsessive editor (making zillions of small variations that only confuse things and that the search engine should solve 99% of the time) may cause uncountable hours of labour to volunteers. They should all be deleted without a second thought. Any one that is a useful redirect will certainly be recreated - Nabla (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's taking a long time because most of these redirects are beneficial. Unthinking deletion would greatly impair the encyclopedia: mass deletions generally aren't permitted by the rules, and you don't get to ignore the rules if your actions wouldn't be an improvement to the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• If most are beneficial, then why was Neelix banned from doing more of them?... I am not proposing to ignore the rules, I was supporting a decision to delete. As you just pointed, mass deletions may be performed if beneficial. You think is is not the case, fine, I think it is, so I say to delete them, precisely because of the rules, not against them. We can the discuss the rules, you don't get to ignore that rule, just because you do not like an opinion. - Nabla (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There are also many that need to be trashed. I've set up a section right at the top of of ones that should be deleted, many of which have not been CSD'd. Thanks to Plantdrew for their helpful comments. Legacypac (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Plant's Strider unblock request

Resolved

 – Unblocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I was contacted via email by Plant's Strider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) about the possibility of being unblocked under WP:SO. They were blocked twice for edit warring almost three years ago, and then indef blocked for socking in February 2013, all by Toddst1. I am not going to opine on the merits of the request, just posting it here for discussion.

The user stated that they have not edited in any way since the indef of the Plant's Strider account. I replied, I would certainly be willing to open a Standard Offer thread on your behalf so your unblocking can be discussed. You'd have to tell me which account you intend to edit from, provide a list of other sock accounts, and provide me with an explanation of why you believe you were blocked and what you will do to avoid that behavior in the future. I would like your permission to quote your email on the administrator's noticeboard so people participating in the discussion can read what you've said to me.

The user divulged a connection between the Plant's Strider account/socks and Taro-Gabunia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which has its own socks and was blocked for the same behaviors. I believe Plant's Strider was their attempt at a clean start, as there is no overlap between the old accounts and the Plant's Strider set. I don't believe the connection between the two sets of accounts has ever been made here, so I clarified with the user via email whether I may divulge the connection. They indicated "privacy concerns", and I indicated that the unblock request would be unlikely to succeed if there were undisclosed socks. They asked if they could have the entire Taro-Gabunia sock farm renamed, and I said I didn't think that would be possible since they are locked out of the accounts and can't prove ownership. They then agreed to divulge the connection.

Quotes from the email reply are as follows (some wikiformatting added by me):

Extended content

Thank you Laser brain for replying. Plant's Strider is indeed not my original account. My original account is User:Taro-Gabunia, which is currently unblocked. Several years ago I contacted one of the OTRS members for a vanishing request, which I was told was not possible for blocked accounts. The member in question told me I would be unblocked on the condition that I would not edit anything, which I agreed to. The vanishing request, which I had made over email, did not go through and I was told to log into my account and make a request from there, which I was unable to do. For some reason I was not blocked again, though there are no new edits made from that account. Below is the list of all sock accounts that I created. All entries on these lists are my accounts, and to my best knowledge I have not created anything that is not listed here. Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Taro-Gabunia Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Plant's_Strider Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Plant's_Strider - User:GeezerB from this list is me. User:Falco70 is not. Special:Contributions/Taro-Xbox360 I would like to explain why I was blocked in the first place. The main and most obvious reason is my neglect of rules regarding WP:FAC. Nominations should be made by people who actually worked on the article, and my habit of jumping into unqualified articles and nominating them for FAC was both unwelcome and in bad taste. Several edit wars I participated in were uncalled for because I was both wrong and because I did not follow the proper rules, which clearly stated that major changes need to be discussed on the talk page. I believe I have fully grasped the reasoning behind these rules. Another topic that is just as relevant here is my habit of editing articles that are undergoing major changes, especially those that are to be nominated for FAC soon. Even though my edits were in good faith, such contributions are not welcome to the editors at that specific time, and should be saved for until after the major work is already done. I would also like to address my inappropriate behavior regarding a move request that I once made. The discussion got heated pretty quickly, and I made certain remarks toward an editor I should not have made, for which I would like to apologize. I have since realized that it is wasteful to concentrate on minor tweaks and that it is always better to focus on the body of the article, while allowing discussions on the talk page to proceed as they should. My latest edits to the project were in Summer 2013 and I have not edited any article since. I have every intention to follow the rules as completely as possible and not to create any sock accounts under any circumstances. In case I am unblocked I'm willing to improve several articles to FAC quality. Specific examples of this include [28], [29] and [30], where I was working with published books in order to improve the articles, and I plan to continue doing so, although I will do all of the the major work in my sandbox and then invite other editors for review and discussion before pasting it in the body. This will help avoid conflict and negligent errors. Regarding your question about which account to edit from, I am not exactly sure because I have realized the privacy concerns that will arise if I continue editing from the original account, which I obviously had not thought of 6 years ago when I started. I cannot even access the account at the moment because of an old email/password combination. I am wondering if I could either make a new account and provide a list of socks on the user page, or continue editing from any of the accounts that were made starting with Plant's Strider. It would be great if you quoted this email for posting on the noticeboard. Thanks.

I am willing to clarify anything based on my emails with Plant's Strider if there are questions. --Laser brain (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support standard offer unblock - this seems to be an easy yes, three years away is a good long time and user seems reasonably self-aware. I suggest that all of the sock accounts should be grouped together under "confirmed/suspected socks of " whatever account they decide to use going forward, since they've admitted the connection, but I don't think they need to list all of the accounts in their own user space like some kind of Scarlet Letter. I'm not sure about the technicalities of WP:CLEANSTART but I don't think it would be appropriate here. As long as the user doesn't return to the behaviour that they were blocked for, it shouldn't matter anyway. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Unblock This ticks the boxes in my mind of what a SO unblock request is. Just a clear statement by the user they realise their mistakes, why they did it, why (in their words) it was inappropriate and what they intend to do moving forward. If socking was involved, a simple statement that they understand socking is unacceptable and a list of any socks used. Sock accounts don't need to be listed on their user page as Ivanvector has said, particularly as the socks will have their own category anyway and a simple search in the archives will provide the necessary link. Any editor who has been blocked but accepts the responsibility for their actions should be welcomed back with a hand shake. Blackmane (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support SO unblock Miniapolis 00:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support SO unblock. The statement from the editor also goes beyond the expectations of the standard offer in acknowledgement of specific instances on why their editing and interactions were problematic, and how they intend to contribute given their understanding of what happened and why. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support SO unblock provided they immediately get to work on getting Physical Graffiti up to GA status (note to the hard of humour: this is a joke) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Unblock - 3 years, acknowledgement of past and what needs to be done going forward is sufficient. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Barnstars for editors who are inactive

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

I present the peculiar case of Andysbhm, who only came up on my watchlist for thanking an editor who (as far as I know) has retired semi-permanantly from wikipedia. Understandably I was intrigued as to what this user was up to thanking someone who had retired. I looked in and saw some interesting efforts in their recent edit history (all from today):

Creating a user (Biscuit492) page for a user whose only actions are to wikilove themselves and Andysbhm.

Giving a wikilove to Biscuit492.

Giving a wikilove to a editor who appears to have retired back in 2007

Giving a wikilove for no appearant reason.

Giving a wikilove for no appearant reason to ViperSnake151.

I don't know what the right action with respect to this user is, but I get the impression of creating some trivial edits in order to get autoconfirmed so that they can reach into a semi-protected page. Any thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I will be notifying Andysbhm, Biscuit492, Miller17CU94, and ViperSnake151 shortly. Hasteur (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Notifications complete Hasteur (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts? See WP:OVERBARN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that Hasteur probably has the answer. It is probably a matter of getting the additional edits, which they now have, to be autoconfirmed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

As much as I appreciated the Barnstar from Andysbhm, I think it is inappropriate given I have stopped editing in a large way since April 2011. I do make the occasional edit every now and then, but I think his barnstar, though appreciated, was overkill. Chris (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Not so much for boosting an edit count as mutual masturbation. The only edit (so far) at User:Biscuit492 is today's "Created page with 'Biscuit 492 is a user" - by Andysbhm. And Biscuit492's only contributions are wikilove for User:Donner60, and (!) Andysbhm. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted one of the few edits by Andysbhm at Un (prefix). Cluebot reverted a second attempt to make the same edit. It would not surprise me if the other unrelated editors also reverted edits by this user or by the same user under an IP address. What the purpose of the wikiloves and barnstars may be is anyone's guess. Oddly enough, I have received at least a couple other wikiloves or barnstars from new users over the years. I supposed they were from former vandals but I have no guess as to their purpose. Donner60 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• If this is Wikipedia's biggest woes, we should only be so lucky! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be as flippant as that MBD. Once a user is confirmed or autoconfirmed, it becomes significantly harder to remove troublesome posts when they do go off the rails, and this behavior has been linked previously to editors making a run for autoconfirmed so that they can reach into a semi-protected page. Hasteur (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Got another one, User:Jadenvideotube , some junk edits, random wikilove, including on my talk page - all it has done has given me extra attention to their edits though...some scheme! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Well, we can deal with them if they start causing trouble, but as it stands, there isn't a strong indication that they will and this really isn't worth worrying about on its own. Even if it is supposed to game the autoconfirmed restriction: yes, some people are always going to do that. Keep an eye out if you want; otherwise, move on. — Earwig ^talk 04:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Earwig: So is creating a deficient article in mainspace sufficient for questioning their actions? Hasteur (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

user:70.124.133.228 reverting user:Jaguar's edits

I noticed that user:70.124.133.228 keeps reverting user:Jaguar's edits but there didn't seem to be anything wrong with those edits, so I tried went to user:70.124.133.228's talk page and asked him why he keeps doing that. He continued to do what he was doing without answering me, so I am unsure on what to do at this point. CLCStudent (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, strange. If they keep at it whilst disregarding warnings then it might be best to block them for a while. JAGUAR  19:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP is (correctly) re-adding the hyphens to compound compass-points (which are hyphenated in BrEng, as used in Uganda), and which Jaguar has been unilaterally changing to the unhyphenated AmEng form. Jaguar, given the number of warnings you've had previously regarding unilaterally changing articles between English variants, you might want to be less keen to recommend blocks. ‑ Iridescent 20:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You got that the wrong way around. I've been hyphenating them, the IP has been de-hyphenating them. JAGUAR  20:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: So you make another snarky comment at me (supposedly from nowhere), which was not only false, but when I corrected you on it you pretended not to notice? And you made yourself look like an idiot at the same time. Well done. JAGUAR  11:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That's out of order Jaguar. AWB is not a Get Out of Jail Free card to make whatever edits you like, throwing policy to the wind. This looks like a straightforward content dispute to me for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've been using AWB lately to do various cleanups, such as removing overlinkage, and in some cases I hyphenate compass points. I took care to do it in articles that should use BrEng, like Uganda, but saying that, I've only done a small proportion of them. JAGUAR  12:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked all the "undid revision X by Jaguar" edits here, and all of them consist of de-hyphenating directions. Given the ENGVAR issue, I see all of the edits as unhelpful undoing of ordinary maintenance by Jaguar. It's an easy mistake for us Americans to make (I've always assumed north-east to be a mistake, never knowing that it was normal in en:gb), but once it's been explained to you, keeping it up is disruptive. There haven't been any more "undid revision X by Jaguar" edits since Jaguar explained the situation; have there been any such edits with different (or no) summaries? If not, no reason to sanction or make any further objections. Nyttend (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice that Jaguar (talk · contribs) is editing at an extremely high rate for a non-bot account - in the 8 hours from 17:08, 13 February 2016 they made almost 3100 edits, mostly AWB. That works out at an average of more than six per minute, so exceeding the limit of one every ten seconds set by WP:BOTREQUIRE for bots doing non-urgent tasks. I've discussed their bot-like editing before (see User talk:Jaguar/Archive 18), and problems were blamed on AWB. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The reported editor is also removing sources, and other information from articles[31], with no edit summary[32]. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Here's another example of how the reported editor fails to understand WP:OWN and WP:CIV[33] Boomer Vial^Holla 04:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

NAC

I have an interesting question about non-administrator closings, and I would like a second opinion to make sure that my thinking is correct. Of course we all know that NACs are allowed, but I am wondering whether in the case of one especially contentious RfC it wouldn't be wiser to ask an admin to do the closing.

The RfC we are talking about is Talk:Bernie Sanders#Request for comments -- religion in infobox. It is quite contentious, being about a current presidential candidate and about the question "who is a Jew?".

User:SPACKlick tried to do an early non-administrator close.[34] and was reverted by User:Softlavender.[35] This led to a discussion at User talk:SPACKlick#Clearly active and contentious RfCs should run for the full 30 days and be closed by an admin where two questions are being discussed: [A] whether it should be closed early, and [B} whether a non-admin in general and SPACKlick in particular should do the closing. My position is that the reverted close[36] did not gauge consensus but rather was a supervote. I also agree with the title of the section (chosen by Softlavender) that "clearly active and contentious RfCs should run for the full 30 days and be closed by an admin." I have no problem if consensus or policy goes against me, but I really want an uninvolved admin who is experienced in closing hotly-debated RfCs to close this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: An admin could add a hatnote saying something like "This discussion is ongoing and is not to be closed by NAC yet." Removing that would count as WP:RAAA, and ignoring it would be reverted and earn a {{uw-disruptive1}} warning. — Sebastian 18:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

My own opinion is that any non-administrative close after less than 30 days is probably premature. As a non-administrative closer, I would leave the judgment as to whether snow applies to an administrator, because any judgment to close an RFC after less than 30 days is likely to be contentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a very interesting question. There have been at least 2 NACs at AN/I in the last few days which, IMHO, were very premature (48 hrs I think). In one case, I began asking questions to the closing editor about this and s/he refused to answer and banned me from their talk page. If this had been an Admin, I am sure they would have understood the implications of such an attitude and the possibility of action. I appreciate this thread is about RfCs, and I do not wish to derail it, but perhaps the involvement of non-admins in closing threads on noticeboards needs to be discussed again. For example, AN/I is the ADMINS noticeboard - perhaps any discussions there should be closed only by admins.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, the thread is not about RfC, but about NAC. My suggestion above relies entirely on existing policies, so there is no need to renew discussion about involvement of non-admins in closing threads. — Sebastian 19:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SebastianHelm Perhaps I am missing something here - does NAC mean "non-administrator closings"? If so, that is what my comment was about and I don't understand why you would say "there is no need to renew discussion". Isn't that the whole point of the thread?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to treat this differently from any other non-admin close: if there's a good-faith dispute about the close, reopen it and ask an admin to close it. Nyttend (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon and Softlavender express a disinclination to participate in that RfC any further. See these diffs:[37][38][39]. If they were confident in the strength of their arguments, wouldn't they continue to present them? I think that policy and sourcing is against their position, and I think this tends to strengthen the argument for the premature closure. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is pretty straightforward: if anyone disputes the close in good faith, it probably was not a good candidate for an early, non-admin close. Per WP:BRD, if it was re-opened that should be allowed to stand. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• As a NAC I dont think I would have closed a RFC a week after it started. If discussion has died after 25 or so days thats another story. ANRFC is full of older RFC's that need closing, best to choose one of them. AlbinoFerret 20:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• As a user who does non-admin closes fairly often, my thoughts are that it should only be done in instances where the result is not just apparent, but bloody obvious to any reasonable user with half a clue. If it's possible that anyone involved might raise a good-faith objection to a result, or if there's any doubt at all, then it's better left to an administrator. That's my interpretation of "pitfalls to avoid" in the guideline. This close obviously didn't fit that criteria. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

As the closing editor I would first say that at the initial point of closing I misread the month it had opened and so thought we were over thirty days. That said on reviewing it, it seemed clear that one side was pointing to sources and policies and the other were mostly having a slanging match. There is one line of discussion in it which is being discussed in a broader rfc the result of which will have an impact on this issue either way. However if the consensus of this board is that participants can revert a NAC then some policies may need to change because they explicitly say that the participants should request an admin do that. SPACKlick (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If the closer misread the starting time of the RFC, that sounds like a good-faith error calling for reopening the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I Agree that misreading the closing time was a trivial error that was easily fixed. I have a real problem with SPACKlick nullifying the responses of over a dozen participants with the assertion "it seemed clear that one side was pointing to sources and policies and the other were mostly having a slanging match". I hate to bring up reasons why I think that my side of a content dispute is supported by sources -- that's usually (and rightly) off-topic at AN or ANI -- but I have to respond to the assertion that SPACKlick makes above that my side of the dispute is not "pointing to sources" as being factually incorrect. As User:D.Creish recently commented,[40] "I was surprised to see the earlier close [by SPACKlick]. This should be stated clearly for future reviewers: the only source that connects 'Religion' to 'Jewish' WRT Sanders is the press pack. No secondary sources whatsoever. They connect 'Sanders' with 'Jewish', and 'Sanders' with 'Religion' but not 'Jewish' with 'Religion.' We do however have secondary sources that connect 'Sanders' with 'atheist.' That's enough to indicate simple inclusion in the infoxbox without qualification is inappropriate." --Guy Macon (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I will restate that, in my opinion, while non-admin close (NAC) of an RFC that has run 30 days is fine, a non-admin WP:SNOW or speedy close of an RFC that has not run the 30 days is almost always a bad idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Good grief, of course an RfC on a subject so controversial and so in the news as Bernie Sanders should run the full 30 days and only be closed by a completely uninvolved admin (and one who has a lot of experience in neutrally assessing WP:CONSENSUS rather than nose-counting). And all RfCs should run the full 30 days unless they are withdrawn by the filer or are unanimous. Softlavender (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender WP:NOTBURO Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, common sense can be used to close out an RFC is the comments have stopped, just as they had there, and this RFC was generating a lot of heat as well, so based on that an IAR closed was justified. I will also point out that you actually voted in that RFC and whewn SPACKlick closd it, it was opposite of how you voted ,therefore it would have been inappropriate for you to close or re-open an RFC someone else closed (SPACKlick didn't vote or comment on that RFC at all , except as a closer). His close looked ok to me. KoshVorlon 16:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

His close looked ok to you? In an RfC where it is a demonstrable fact that both sides discussed sources extensively he closed with the false claim that "one side was pointing to sources and policies and the other were mostly having a slanging match" and then ignored the actual consensus (roughly 50/50) and picked a winner. If SPACKlick tries to do that again at the end of the 30 days, I will challenge the closing with a count of how many times each side pointed to sources, and it will almost certainly be overturned. Nullifying half of the comments posted to an RfC and picking a winner is not "OK". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is in a subject area that is so contentious it has its own Arbcom case. Personally, I feel that RFC's on anything that is subject to Arbcom findings should be required to a) run for the full 30 days and b) be closed by an admin. Blackmane (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that any RFC that has discretionary sanctions should run the full 30 days and be closed by an admin. Unfortunately, if the closing admin then sees violations of the DS, there will be arguments that another admin is needed because they have become involved. (A very typical tactic of POV-pushers is to try to find some lame excuse to call every admin involved.) More generally, RFCs should only be closed after less than 30 days for a very good reason, such as WP:SNOW, or that the RFC is incomprehensible or doesn't ask a question, and in the latter case it should be closed as improper, not with a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Meh, three things are needed to close that RFC and none of them require special admin powers: 1. An understanding of BLP and how it is applied when information is unreliable (due to ambiguous sources, or contradictory reliable sources), 2. Knowing that 'Jewish' is a special case and can indicate ethnicity, religion etc not necessarily both. 3. Having a knowledge of infobox's - that information in them is presented as fact and does not allow for explanations or elaboration - also how they are treated by search engines. Given a knowledge of the above 3, anyone could close that RFC easily. Although it should wait the 30 days, if only to prevent people whining it didnt go the full distance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nearly half of the respondents to Talk:Bernie Sanders#Request for comments -- religion in infobox would strongly disagree with the claim that 'Jewish' is a special case and can indicate ethnicity, religion etc. but not necessarily both. They insist that 'Jewish' always refers to the religion, never anything else. (None of them, when challenged, has provided a source for that claim and several have flat out refused to look at any sources supporting the claim that 'Jewish' can indicate ethnicity without indicating religion.) As a thought experiment, what if it was 80% who thought that? would an impartial closer simply report the clear consensus, or would he throw out the !votes from those who mistakenly believe that 'Jewish' always means Judaism? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Block

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked for 6 months. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, for the most part it was a nice time, but eventually i have to move on. Someone block my account please, thanks. Bye bye. prokaryotes (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Good luck. QuackGuru (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not just scramble your password? BMK (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea BMK, but i spent enough time here, and have accomplished most of the things i wanted to change, i.e. improve the reliability of climate science stuff for the most part. A block will help me to contribute more time elsewhere, which actually can bring me forward in real life. prokaryotes (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Just don't click the edit button. HighInBC 05:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe ban me for 6 month then. Its really hard to resist for me, as a WP addict. :) prokaryotes (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Use the Wikibreak Enforcer if you think you'll be back later, there's always Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks if a temporary block is the only way, ask one and see if they'll allow it. tutterMouse (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Put a Retirement template on your userpage. Then, each time you edit (while under that template), you'll receive a block. Each block will be longer, every time you breach your retirement. GoodDay (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Nooooo...editors don't get "retirement template transgression blocks". That's just silly. Tiderolls 14:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It would work, with the editor's consent. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

In theory, yes... But in practice, much as it may seem otherwise sometimes, the admins are not babysitters. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE (redux)

(Sorry, I realised that I meant to post to ANI. Reposted here. The last time this issue was posted it stagnated and got archived without any administrator help, so I would really appreciate if someone could give it serious consideration. This has been drawn out for years and it is sapping my will to contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you.) Citobun (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

How to handle a BLP violation?

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

---

Further information: Bad Aibling rail accident

Werther Hartwig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently added names of alleged victims of the Bad Aiblin rail accident to the article, and created articles on each of them. As far as I can tell, none of them was independently Wiki-notable. All articles have been deleted. I've revdel'd his edits to the rail accident article under RD2 - serious violations of BLP. This leaves his talk page, which currently has links to each of the deleted articles, plus the deleted articles themselves. How do we handle these? Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I've dealt with Werther Hartwig's talk page. Just the questions of the articles themselves to be dealt with now. Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for caring, Mjroots! All gone now except for Google's syndication. I really wondered that Google immediately includes brandnew and unchecked stub articles from us, but doesn't immediately purge then upon deletion. That's a huge problem for all kinds of WP:BLP issues. -PanchoS (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@PanchoS: Happy to help. Mjroots (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

PanchoS, Mjroots, I have submitted a corresponding number of URLs to www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals. I had only just remembered that this was an option. —Sladen (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

But what happens in someone without admin privileges enters a victims name into the Wikipedia search engine and gets as far as the deleted article? Are they able to review the article via its history and seen what was written? Mjroots (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Mjroots. Oops, you meant the WP search engine. But: Even worse, they can still find a full list of them without knowing a single name: https://www.google.de/search?q=%22victim+of+Bad+Aibling%22&filter=0 We need to discuss this problem with the Google developers and get in fixed, not because of this specific case, but for future cases. --PanchoS (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's a lesson in similar situations to blank + revdel + protected (which is picked up immediately), then leave for a week, and then delete. —Sladen (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sladen: That might be a workaround, but far from failure proof. I think, the minimum we should ensure is to disallow caching/archiving

• of unpatrolled new articles
• of unpatrolled versions of pending changes articles
• of articles while being nominated for speedy deletion

by adding <meta name="robots" content="noarchive, noodp, nosnippet"/> to the page's header, see Meta tags that Google understands. And we should ensure that an effectively deleted page isn't indexed with its last version prior the deletion. Don't know how to do that, but will try and find out. --PanchoS (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you're right though that both my (technical) and your (procedural) approach should be combined. Need to think it through again. --PanchoS (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could somebody please revdel ru:Special:Diff/76364165. —Sladen (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I've asked an active Ru-Wiki admin for assistance]. Mjroots (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There are many more versions to be revdel'd in a number of wp language versions. Should I list here? --PanchoS (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say yes. List them all here, then search the relevant language Wikipedias for admins who profess to en-3 or above and point them to this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. The versions to be revdel'd are:

• https://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%BDelezni%C4%8Dn%C3%AD_nehoda_u_Bad_Aiblingu&oldid=13336137
• https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accidente_ferroviario_de_Bad_Aibling&oldid=89070490
  • Done Yeza - 10:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accident_ferroviaire_de_Bad_Aibling&oldid=123239576
  • Done — S t a r u s – ¡Dímelo! – 14:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treinongeval_bij_Bad_Aibling&oldid=45987062
• https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acidente_ferrovi%C3%A1rio_de_Bad_Aibling_em_2016&oldid=44766105
• https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%B2_%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B4-%D0%90%D0%B9%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B5&oldid=76364165
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Aibling_rail_accident&oldid=5324298
  • I've asked a 'crat for assistance. Mjroots (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• https://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Aiblingin_junaturma&oldid=15522456
• https://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C3%A4rnv%C3%A4gsolyckan_i_Bad_Aibling&oldid=33102316
• https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%83_%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B4-%D0%90%D0%B9%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B0&oldid=17586608
• https://vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tai_n%E1%BA%A1n_xe_l%E1%BB%ADa_Bad_Aibling&oldid=22893462

We however need better processes for these kinds of cases. Imagine someone using this in a large scale bullying or vandalizing attack. It would take far too long and would cost us far too much time and nerves. --PanchoS (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

If there is significant cross-wiki abuse, we can ask the stewards to globally lock the account and potentially help with all the clean-up work. They have sysop rights on all Wikimedia projects. Mz7 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just sent an email to the stewards asking if they would consider RevDeling the above-linked diffs. Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks, but it might pay for them to check the editor's contributions to all languages affected, just in case there are other violations we are unaware of. Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that it increasingly looks like the edits constituted outright vandalism, as the real victims are cited to be "all male, aged between 24 and 59". --PanchoS (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've struck through those items that have been actioned. Mjroots (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: as the Stewards seem to be taking their time, I've been asked an admin on each of the affected wikis for assistance. Those edits need to be nuked one way or another. Mjroots (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made a REVDEL on French Wikipedia. No article has been created by this user. So far, we have no reason to block the account but I will monitor him. — S t a r u s – ¡Dímelo! – 14:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just deleted that revision of cs:Železniční nehoda u Bad Aiblingu. Thanks for letting us know about this issue. --Michal Bělka (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Heard back from the stewards. They have no interest in intervening for this situation, since there's no great urgency. (They generally only act on smaller wikis without many admins). We're better off contacting local admins. Mz7 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: It is not that stewards have no interest on that. It is actually easier to do it in all those wikis than explaining why not to do it. Stewards are not given the permission to circumvent the work of local sysops. Believe it or not, but if a steward did this deletion here on English Wikipedia they would hear a lot of criticism on their talk page. And the happens on many large wikis. It is a matter of local communities improve their rules to allow stewards to do that and it will be done. Unless the information can put somebody on life risk risk of death, or is a serious breach of privacy violation or could cause any serious damage if not removed in time, stewards can't act where there are local sysops to do it, but I assure you that some of them would love to help with approval of local rules. BTW, I have done it for Portuguese Wikipedia. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 16:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Teles: Thanks for the clarification. I figured this was the case and I could've phrased my comment better. I do wholeheartedly appreciate the stewards response to this matter. Thank you for your action on Portugese Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It just struck me, but did anyone check whether archived versions of those Revdeled versions of those articles in question still exist at archives like the Web Archive or WebCite? Tvx1 18:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• I find this proceeding most bizarre. If these were the victims of the accident, then it is no crime to tell the world that they were killed. Death is not a private event. If we had news reports to back up this data, then it would belong in an article. Now as it happens, the names don't turn up any news article anywhere on three different search engines, and the point about female victims provides good reason to be extra skeptical above that. So it's not verifiable data; it's a straight out Wikipedia hoax, though one showing remarkable determination. Now the point is, there would be no reason to revision-delete all mention of victims of a train crash, if they were real victims - and they're not, they're made up names, so why bother? The only priority here should be getting the fake/unverifiable information off all the Wikipedias. It would probably better serve the public interest not to revdel so that if someone runs across the list of names later on and is in a state of confusion, he can look up this conversation and see this is the origin of the hoax. Wnt (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Wnt: The named victims, in at least some of the cases, are not those of victims. Ages claimed are 2-99, whereas verified ages of victims are 24-59. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that there are people with the name and age stated, alive on the date of the accident. Naming them on Wiki (in any language), therefore can be said to be a breach of WP:BLP (IMvHO). Therefore it is imperative that the edits listed above are nuked. We can't do much about archiving of pages off-Wiki, but we can clean up across all affected articles. Mjroots (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: The problem I see there is: what if the names really were the victims? Would you worry that BLP prohibits publishing the right names, because there might be other people with the same name out there who aren't the victim? Oh, I suppose a troll might have listed half the kids in his class at school or something, which would be creepy, but most such scenarios don't allow for the age distribution given - seems too hypothetical to worry about. I still see no valid reason to mess with the article history here. Wnt (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• If (and it's a very big if) there are any actual victims named, BLP still applies. AFAIK, none is notable enough to sustain a Wikipedia artice, therefore there is absolutely zero need to name them. It is sufficient to say that there were eleven fatalities. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Taharrush jamai RM

I'm looking for an admin to close a contentious RM: Talk:Taharrush jamai#Requested move 1 February 2016.

The title has been in dispute since the article was created on 12 January. Because of that, the article scope keeps changing. SPAs and IPs have arrived on talk and have been reverting, and the page has had to be semi-protected twice since 5 February. An admin decision would therefore be very helpful. I posted a request for closure on WP:AN/RFC, but there's a long backlog. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Four

Globally blocked user (CoUser1) is back, now at Portuguese football league system. Latest IPs used: 46.50.53.229 (talk · contribs), 46.50.2.157 (talk · contribs), 46.50.33.63 (talk · contribs), 46.50.4.200 (talk · contribs). See my previous ANI reports (1, 2, 3). SLBedit (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

These IP adresses are covered by 46.50.0.0/18 (talk · contribs). See the bottom section here for details about all the recent edits from this range. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC at Reference Desk Talk Page

There is a Request for Comments in progress at the Reference Desk talk page concerning semi-protection of the Reference Desks. The RFC is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Concrete_proposal. Participation in the RFC is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

Resolved

There is an edit war on User talk:166.177.187.70 between user:166.177.187.70 and user:7&6=thirteen. 2602:306:3357:BA0:7509:E04E:669F:15A7 (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP is a long term abuse case. I've removed talk page access. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No. He's got the message. Is now blocked from editing his own talk page. So should you. You are a sock of whom? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

One might think about suspecting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taokaka. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)r

Repeated abuse of editing privilege by User:Roman Spinner

User:Roman Spinner has continually and knowingly violated a well-established consensus over a multi-year period, while (politely) dismissing separate complaints by no less than five editors, regarding hundreds of edits.

The relevant consensus for disambiguation pages, from MOS:DABENTRY: "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary." User:Roman Spinner has regularly created extremely long descriptions (spanning multiple lines in some displays) filled with unhelpful information, and has been repeatedly warned to stop. User:Roman Spinner has declined invitations to discuss changing the consensus, and has shown no willingness to change the behavior.

A partial history:

• January 2008: discussion (initiated by @Jwy:)
• April 2012: discussion (initiated by @Boleyn:)
• December 2012: discussion (initiated by @Ubcule:)
• April 2014: discussion (initiated by @Boleyn:)
• June 2015: discussion (initiated by @Midas02:)
• February 2016: discussion (initiated by User:Swpb)

Some edit diffs: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff

These discussions and diffs represent a small sample, not the full record, of the behavior. User:Roman Spinner has also receieved many complaints about unsupported and incomplete page moves, and has dismissed these as well; however, these are not a focus of the current complaint.

I am seeking a formal censure of User:Roman Spinner, making it clear that this behavior will stop. If the behavior continues, I seek a probationary ban, then a permanent ban, on all edits by User:Roman Spinner to disambiguation pages. —swpb^T 20:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed I didn't start this discussion myself years ago, but I hate confrontation of any sort. I have contacted Roman on numerous occasions and got sugar-coated responses which basically say that he knows, but he feels it is better this way and somehow fits in the spirit though not the letter of the guidelines. The spirit is to keep things brief, concise and easily readable, which he doesn't keep to. A case in point is [41]. You can see from the entries how far it is from MOS:DABENTRY. With many dabs like this, Roman created them or edited them to be like that, I then correct them. Roman would then copy his version to a page such as that linked, where he would keep copies of all his preferred versions. I've no idea what the purpose of this may be, but I felt like they were likely to be re-added at a future date, as some of them were, through not realising he had done the same thing before on that page or deliberately. He would also sometimes copy his version onto the Talk page of the dab, so it was still there in some form. I felt this was trying to bully his version on. I monitor the dab page changes, and so undo the majority of Roman's edits, which he must know, but this has been eating into my time for years and put me off editing dabs, as it's frustrating to see someone ignoring consensus. I have told him that he could start a discussion about the guidelines at the Wikiproject if he feels they need amending - I have said this dozens of times in edit summaries and messages - but he doesn't do it. I have told him how unfair it is to ignore consensus over the years and how it puts editors off editing, but no changes. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

My opinion as one of the people mentioned above, but primarily as an outsider looking in:-

Even though I only tend to fix dab page issues when I come across them, I find dealing with well-intentioned but misguided dab bloating from inexperienced editors frustrating. In their case, it's forgiveable, so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and educate them.

I think I'd assumed then that Roman was in the same boat and I hadn't noticed (a) he'd been warned several times before and (b) been on Wikipedia for many years already! I'd have been *much* less impressed if I'd known that.

@Boleyn:; Snap. I saw that same discussion before you added your reply and had already intended saying something very similar.

""I remained within the spirit, if not strictly the letter of the guideline". Honestly?! If anything it sounds like it's the other way round, with him trying to rationalise edits way longer than necessary by explaining how they're within (or near) various technical limits. The "spirit" is that dab pages are *meant* to be concise!

Ditto the way that he responded to you and others; pleasant, polite, respectful and acknowledging their input or opinion... while also not actually responding to or addressing the reason that issue was raised!

Truth be told, I think that what he believes what he's doing is right- for whatever reason. Unfortunately, that *is* the problem because if after eight-plus years(!!!) he's still responding with the same apparent mixture of rationalisation, cognitive dissonance and managing to politely avoid the issue, then it's clearly an issue that goes beyond rational discussion with him.

If he's still doing this to countless pages despite knowing that his changes are going to be reverted, that suggests some sort of obsessiveness. However, it's really not our place to get involved with personal matters like that.

Realistically, then, that leaves us with only two options; (i) let things continue as they are or (ii) accept that- regardless of whether it's done in what he sees as good faith- Roman's editing in this area is a problem, and the only way of drawing a line (which, let's face it, probably should have been drawn before now) is likely to be some form of restriction or sanction.

If this seems harsh, then please bear in mind it's also unfair to editors like Boleyn and many others to have to waste their time repeatedly cleaning up this sort of unhelpful and utterly counter-produtive bloat.

Ubcule (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

1) It is always a pleasure, regardless of circumstances, to engage in exchanges of ideas with user:swpb and User:Boleyn, two longtime contributors whose dedication to this extraordinary project is most admirable. Wikipedia would be a humbler place without their numerous valuable contributions. In truth, none of us veteran editors would dedicate such considerable portions of our lives to such a task if we were not convinced that our work had a convincing potential to improve lives by promoting and advancing the expansion of knowledge and scholarship.

2) I also welcome the additional participation of User:Ubcule whose original comment on my talk page in December 2012 appeared to be a gentle reminder, rather than a complaint, as did the postings of User:Jwy in January 2008 and User:Midas02 in June 2015. In fact, only the later postings by User:Boleyn and the current postings by user:swpb, who initially communicated with me five days ago, on February 9, appear to rise to the level of complaints. While I would not presume to advise a user of such high intellect as swpb as to the most profitable dedication of time, it still seems regrettable that swpb instead chose to devote the last five days (February 9–14) to a search of my disambiguation edits over the past 10 years, in an apparent attempt to find sufficient evidence for submitting these accusations.

3) As to the heart of the complaint, that I "regularly created extremely long descriptions (spanning multiple lines in some displays) filled with unhelpful information", my responses have always made clear that none of my descriptions have come close to exceeding a single line of text [I edit on a 27-inch iMac, using a 16x9 screen with standard fonts at 100% (normal) size]. As I explained to Boleyn in April 2012, "I realize many other screens employ various ranges of sizing and formatting, but such unavoidable discrepancies would, of course, be evident in the context of all entries under any circumstances." I am a bit puzzled, though, over swpb's above reference to "unhelpful information" — would information of the same length but phrased in a different manner or consisting of different content be more "helpful", or is any information of such length "unhelpful"? In the latter case would it not be more precise to state "excessive", rather than "unhelpful" information?. In fact, most of my descriptions, such as one of the most recent ones here, occupy at most half, but usually only a third of a line of text [on my 16x9 screen], thus turning the phrase "extremely long descriptions" into quite an exaggeration.

4) Another accusation/complaint appears to be that I have "declined invitations to discuss changing the consensus". Again, as I have already explained, I do not feel that there is any need to change the consensus, since I agree that the descriptions should be short and also feel that one-fourth, one-third or even half a line of text, which is the usual length of my descriptions, fulfills the definition of "short". However, if a discussion were to be initiated with the aim of elucidating the term "short" by specifying the acceptable number of characters and spaces permitted as explanatory text, I would support such an emendation and adhere to such future consensus to an exact degree.

5) I am gratified that swpb provided the various links to my edits, since those confirm that as valuable an asset as swpb has been to other areas of Wikipedia, consistency and attention to detail on disambiguation pages is not swpb's strong suit. Here are a few examples: In editing Thunder Mountain dab, swpb deleted all information for Thunder Mountain (British Columbia), leaving only the redlink, plus the unhelpful word "Canada". Boleyn almost immediately added the barely more helpful blue link, List of mountains of Canada, on which Thunder Mountain (British Columbia) exists, but only as a redlink, without any elucidation. The original link, however, which had been there since February 2014, was to Tsitsutl Peak, which does contain some specific information about the mountain. That link was ignored by both swpb and Boleyn even though it was easily accessible via my previous edit. Swpb also reduced the two films on the page to just the basic link, removing all information, without even leaving at least two words, "American western". On other dab pages, however, swpb, who is frugal with dab page verbiage, adds unnecessary duplication: at Death Trip dab, Death Trip (2015 film), top-grossing Chinese thriller, becomes Death Trip (2015 film), Chinese film [we already know it's a film, why not leave the genre instead?]. At Arizona Days dab, Arizona Days (1928 film), American silent western, becomes Arizona Days (1928 film), American silent film [again, we know it's a film]. At Another Dawn dab, Another Dawn (1937 film), American military love triangle, becomes Another Dawn (1937 film), American film and Another Dawn (1943 film), Mexican political thriller, becomes Another Dawn (1943 film), Mexican film [are these redundancies and genre removals supposed to help users?]

6) Per mention by User:Boleyn, I also "hate confrontation of any sort". Since Boleyn has been such a valuable asset to Wikipedia, I also did not wish to issue any complaints, but as for "eating into my time for years and put me off editing dabs", it should be noted that Boleyn has been simply reverting my disambiguation page edits using WP:Twinkle [which hardly takes any time at all], without even bothering to peruse my edits for additions, deletions or error corrections. The very link presented by Boleyn above, displayed here as Boleyn's reversal of my edit is good example. If anyone wonders why the Michael Ames dab page has two entries, while my version of it had six entries, it is because Boleyn reversed it without [presumably] even looking at it or evaluating my four additions. Another example is here. Again, if anyone wonders why the Peter Godfrey dab page has four entries, while my version of it had eleven, again it was Boleyn's reversal without evaluation (a pointless addition by Boleyn [to "See also"] of "intitle" which displays "All pages with titles containing Peter Godfrey" comes to nothing since the missing names are not even there). Still another example is here. Once again, if anyone wonders why the Kevin McCarthy dab page has nine entries (not counting [the problematic] Kevin MacArthur, added by swpb), while my version of it had eleven, again it was Boleyn's reversal without evaluation (my additions, such as name changes, birth years and nationalities were also not re-incorporated). There are numerous other such examples which I will submit in subsequent installments of this discussion, if/when it continues.

7) Because I value Boleyn's work, having to continue with this line is regrettable but, since Boleyn mentioned that I put my versions on disambiguation talk pages, it should be added that Boleyn has been deleting all such talk page additions as vandalism, although most of Boleyn's edit summaries (when performing those deletions) state that the talk page is the wrong venue. Since talk pages are intended for suggesting improvements, I contend that each respective disambiguation talk is exactly the correct venue for such an alternative dab page, each of which is inserted with its own explanatory notes, specifically focused upon that exact page. Thus, other members of the Disambiguation Project can weigh in on the relative merits and shortcomings of such a proposed page. However, almost all of them have been deleted by Boleyn, such as here, where Boleyn's edit summary calls it "vandalism". As a last item here [for now] I must turn to Boleyn's use of "how it puts editors off editing". The notion that I am driving away editors because my dab page entries may be considered (by some editors) a trifle too long is difficult to comprehend, although I suspect that Boleyn is applying this personally. However, since I have not been driven away by Boleyn's continuing deletion of my dab edits (and dab talk pages), then such a burden of guilt cannot be placed on my shoulders. In fact, since Boleyn has been submitting for deletion (justifiably or not) the work of various new editors, the initial accusation (for lack of a more pleasant term) is difficult to sustain.

8) Finally, I could not conclude this phase of arguments [much more to come, if need be] without congratulating User:Ubcule for a highly skilled use of psychoanalytic parody. Wikipedia is fortunate to have a contributor with a such a keenly honed sense of humor. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Roman, I started completing reverting your edits when you wrote that if I felt they were wrong, I could always revert them. The majority I re-edit rather than revert. It is not difficult to sustain that you put editors off editing dabs - I'm one of the most prolific editors of dabs and I'm thoroughly put off because it's wasting my time. If you are unable to understand how your edits don't meet the consensus, then I can't help you - and I don't think you should be allowed to continue editing dabs. Talk pages are not a place to put an alternative version of the dab on, and you did this on dozens of dabs. Again, your sugar-coated response is an attempt to divert from the real issue. Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: As noted above, my 2012 comment had assumed you were a helpful-but-misguided newbie and wasn't meant as a "reminder" to someone who had been an editor on Wikipedia for around six years by that point.

To use that as an example, however, I don't understand what you feel this edit makes clear that the previous version didn't. Of course it adds (much) more information, but none of that is realistically necessary for anyone to differentiate the four and find the article they're looking for.

It would very helpful to us for you to clearly explain your reasoning behind that specific edit (i.e. how it represents an improvement) with respect to the guidelines- it's a very typical example, and might at least make the rationale for your style clear. Because, with respect, that reasoning isn't at all obvious at present.

Speaking as an end-user, I find with your versions I'm having to pointlessly *read through* material extraneous to the purpose of the dab page, less able to see the forest for the trees than the regular versions.

You complain about your changes to the Kevin McCarthy dab page being reverted, but while your version had more entries, it also added a lot of bloat which (again) was not necessary to the purpose of the page.

Beyond a certain point, if someone is repeatedly combining changes/additions which may be considered problematic with (arguably) useful additional material in the same edit, it's open to question how much onus is on others to spend their time sorting these out, leaving behind only the good aspects. If it happens on a regular basis, I can understand why Boleyn might feel entitled to revert the whole thing since- on balance- the negative aspects of the bloat introduced outweighed any improvement.

As I've already commented, you claim to be acting within the spirit if not always the letter of the guidelines, but your argument that your titles technically fit within a single line on your monitor sounds like a technical justification that goes against the general spirit of "keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." Which part of the guidelines is this apparent one-screen-line limit- or as you seem to see it, target- based on anyway?

Ubcule (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words about me. But, @Roman Spinner:, STOP over-loading DAB pages. I am not an active DAB page updater as I used to be. Had I seen you continued that behavior I would have made it more clear I was complaining rather than suggesting. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Can I open an RFC on this?

Side issue; would it be appropriate to place a "Requests for Comment" to get more input into this discussion?

The only reason I ask is that- while the issues raised are perfectly legitimate and this discussion *should* be taking place- it already seems to be moving away from the type of discussion that belongs on the Administrators' Noticeboard page, and I don't know if it's appropriate to direct even more people here for a wide-ranging, general-input discussion involving non-admin users. Ubcule (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a WP:RFC/U. I believe that Wikipedia has discontinued that type of Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with thes things, but I can't think of a better place than here. If others agreed with Roman and there were genuine disagreements as to what "keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link" meant then RfC might be best. But this seems to be a case of a long-term editor refusing to listen to other editors or follow the agreed guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't deal with content issues here, only user conduct. If you want to discuss Roman Spinner's conduct, this is the place. For example, you could propose a topic ban or an interaction ban, or some other specific remedy, and we'll discuss it. If you want to talk about content or get consensus on how much text should be on the dab pages, you should probably start an RFC at WT:D. Katie^talk 20:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to add it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted? I can't see any other place where it would be appropriate, to be honest, as the other extant RFCs seem to be policy and/or subject-area focussed, which (going by KrakatoaKatie's comment) isn't appropriate here. Ubcule (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

To editors KrakatoaKatie, Ubcule and Boleyn: I opened this to address conduct specifically, not content. The example edits point to a pattern of behavior, not a dispute over particular content, so this, not RfC, seems to be the right venue. If a remedy is to be discussed, it should be a "topic" ban on editing dab pages; I leave it to the admins to determine if such a ban is warranted now, or only in the event the behavior continues. —swpb^T 23:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Swpb: So you're proposing that Roman Spinner be banned from editing disambiguation pages - is that correct? If so, start that discussion under a level 3 heading, like the one for this subsection. (There are myriad examples of how to do this in the AN archives.) You brought up the issue, so you need to propose the solution you have in mind. Katie^talk 23:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a discussion with the content experts at WT:MOSDAB first to clearly establish how the edits match consensus, then here if necessary? (apologies for going off topic above) --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

MFD backlog

Any reason it's not mentioned here? It's been over two weeks since a number of discussions have been closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.97.176 (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Only two weeks? Let me know when it gets as bad as the CfD backlog. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge

Please merge these templates under an easy name:

1. Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday
2. Template:Admin hopeful 2

Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I've cleaned the related Wikidata item, which is probably from where this question is originating from. No opinion on the content of the two pages. --Izno (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There is an entire Category:Not an admin user templates full of templates about whether an editor wants or doesn't want to become an admin. You could try merging the two or coming up with a third, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Help requested with the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist

Hi, there is currently a file rename request pending for File:KFNB-DT1 & KWYF-LD2 Logo.png that is held up by the titleblacklist. Anyone know why?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't find it on the blacklist so I moved it for you. Tag the redirect if you don't need it. :-) Katie^talk 00:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

RD swap: TVOS <> TvOS

As per title, the page follows WP guidelines for naming in all caps (as previously discussed), hence needs the RD swapping by an admin. Even if guidelines change again in future, the correct page should be used for now. TIA. Jimthing (talk)

 In progress — xaosflux ^Talk 00:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 00:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC close review please?

Hi all, can I request a discussion about one of my own RfC closes please?

Recently Sandstein closed an RfC here, saying that there was consensus to remove portrait galleries from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups. This was expanded into a second RfC concerning galleries of images of living people in general, and after a post on WP:ANRFC I closed this second RfC here. I felt that there was generally a consensus to remove galleries of images of people wherever there's contention about which people should be selected to represent that particular group. In subsequent discussion on the talk page, users agree with the general thrust of my close but are concerned that I may have overreached the consensus in that (a) I suggested the close should apply to galleries anywhere in articles, not just to galleries in the lead and (b) I did not confine the close to ethnic groups; I felt it should apply to any large group of people rather than merely ethnicities and similar groupings.

I've considered this carefully and I think I'm right. If I applied the first restriction, i.e. just to the lead, then the only effect of my close would be to move galleries farther down the page. I don't see how this could abate the pointless contentions editors are concerned about because it's so easily circumvented. And if I applied the second restriction then I'm opening the way for endless quibbles about whether a particular grouping is really an ethnicity.

However, I generally agree that RfCs should be closed conservatively. I can understand the counterarguments to my close even though I think they're wrong ---- so I turn to the community for advice. Do I need to re-close more narrowly? Or would that open so many loopholes as to be self-defeating?—S Marshall T/C 01:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)