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

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 143 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 93 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 61 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 61 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)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Whadjuk#RfC: Inclusion of Noongar words

(Initiated 60 days ago on 17 March 2024)

No new posts for over a month. Legobot auto-removed the RFC tag, but I'd like a definite outcome. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 47 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 47 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 39 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 38 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 37 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 30 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 21 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Define the threshold in national polls to include candidates in the infobox - new proposal

(Initiated 1 day ago on 15 May 2024) An RfC on exactly the same matter was literally closed a few days ago. Prcc27 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Redrose64. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:01, 16 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	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	2	4	6
RfD	0	0	22	49	71
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

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

(Initiated 56 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 55 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 53 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 22 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 112 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 106 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 100 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 93 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 29 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 18 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 13 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 12 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

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)

• 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)

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.[2][3] See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#On_country_of_origin. There were also previous edits against consensus.[4][5] 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)

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 [6], or look at the block log for Yobot [7]. 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 [8]. 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 [9] [10]. 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: [11] [12] [13]. 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 [14] [15] [16] 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 [17] and even totally pointless ones [18] 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)

Unexplained reverts on Comedian and false accusations

I made a constructive edit on Comedian today. MarnetteD chose to revert me with no helpful edit summary whereas I had made my point clear. Then, another user called Curro2 did the same. In the meanwhile, I've been the only one who had undo-ed and readded removed the content two words with an edit summary. First, I was warned my edits were vandalism (wth?!), then apparently I was blanking templates/content (oh, is it?) and was warned twice over that. Also, that templated warning says I didn't provide an edit summary. The two editors have not maintained good faith and accused me falsely. I call for my edits to be reinstated and that the editors in question are reprimanded. Thank you. --117.194.236.244 (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Google search is not a reliable source, and the original wording that the other editors have been restoring is the correct one. Referring to your edit as vandalism is erronious and shouldn't be done, but when it comes to the actual content they are correct and not you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know that it isn't. I meant that the users can themselves see the links returned by the search query. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Yes, now you'll say they're personal blogs but if you could point me to a single source that says with complete affirmation that they're the same, I'll rest my case. --117.194.236.244 (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Generally, if a Gsearch you executed provides reliable links, you should insert them into the article yourself, not simply a link to the search. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I believe IP is correct here. It can be comedian or comedic actor, but not comic. Comic implies stand-up. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A look at some dictionary definitions [24], [25], [26] and [27] all support its use with comedians. None of them limit it to stand up. These are reliable sources -blogs are not. MarnetteD|Talk 15:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Massive CFD backlog

CFD currently has almost 150 discussions awaiting closure, including 6 which could have been closed a couple months ago. It would be nice if more admins would help out there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Admins have got far better things to do than getting involved with issues like this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

24hrs later and no-one has tackled the issue - I guess they have got better things to do. I've listed them at the closure page. Hopefully that'll get the ball rolling. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, Lugnuts, I saw the massive list: good work. Drew my attention! Two things--compared to AfD, CfD can be surprisingly complex, for me at least, and closing them is not as simple as closing AfDs. I can't speak for other admins, but for me, this is not something I can do in a few lost minutes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I can help in two weeks from now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Good, good. And for the record, I have closed a few myself in the past. These being obvious keeps where I have not contributed to the discussion in hand. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer unblock request from Md iet

• Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Recently, Md iet has requested an unblock on his talk page. As this user was blocked for instances of sockpuppetry, I believe this falls under the purview of the standard offer and I'd like to get some community feedback before unblocking. From the technical data, there does not appear to be any additional accounts or logged out editing. In addition, the latest sockpuppetry case occurred in July 2015. Personally, I feel an unblock here is fine. I just want a few extra sets of eyes in case I may have missed something or if there's any outstanding concerns. Best, Mike V • Talk 17:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm one of the admins who blocked User:Md iet in the past. He is mentioned in this AN3 case. Part of his talk page has been restored at User talk:Md iet/Archive 1 to provide background for this review. (The old block and sanction notices are still visible there). He is currently under a ban from the Dawoodi Bohra on all pages of Wikipedia, per WP:ARBIPA, due to a long-term pattern of non-neutral editing. Possibly the topic ban could have led to the socking, which continued from December 2014 thorugh April 2015, judging from the entries in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Md iet/Archive. In his unblock request, Md iet says that he will continue to contribute to the talk pages of Dawoodi Bohra topics but his ban does not allow this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It is clear from EdJohnston's post that this user is not yet aware of what is expected of them if they return. Until they properly understand the nature of their topic ban and agree to it then this request is a non-starter. HighInBC 18:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've left Md iet a note about the topic ban concerns. I, too, would like him to address that before we consider an unblock. Mike V • Talk 20:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock, maintain topic ban (Non-administrator comment) - I suggest supporting this request, with specific advice that their topic ban remains in effect. They were blocked only three months for violating the topic ban, then indefinitely for socking (which no doubt also violated the topic ban). The last report on the SPI casepage was closed without confirmation, so in effect they have not socked since April 2015 - that's ten months of respecting the block, and should be sufficient to lift it. If they resume editing in violation of the topic ban, they'll be re-blocked real quick. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Once it is clear that they understand what is expected then I will likely agree with you. HighInBC 16:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock at least, topic ban should be appealed separately. Capitals00 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now The last we heard from this user they were intending to work in an area they are topic banned from. Until I hear that they understand the topic ban this discussion is a non-starter from me. Once I hear that they understand and accept the topic ban I will probably support, but right now we don't have any communication. HighInBC 15:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am withdrawing my opinion for now. HighInBC 15:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC, EdJohnston, Ivanvector, and Capitals00: As participants in this discussion, I just wanted to let you know that Md Iet has replied here. Please let me know your thoughts about his response. Mike V • Talk 03:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• User:Md iet's response on his talk page still makes me nervous. The history at User talk:Md iet/Archive 1 shows that he had problems editing neutrally and using good judgment about the quality of sources, on topics where he was personally invested. He is currently banned only from the Dawoodi Bohra. If he wants to edit about the Fatimids that sounds risky. Widening his topic ban to all of Islam, broadly construed, would be safer. It would be helpful to get comments from others who have interacted with User:Md iet in the past. I'll leave a note for User:Qwertyus since he has filed 3RR reports about Md iet. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock (with some caveats): I'm actually getting a good feeling from the tenor of this editor's responses. I agree the topic ban should stay in place, but there are good signs. I admit it's not perfect, but I get a pretty good impression. The only concern for me is the bit of quibbling over the scope of the topic ban, but in light of how it's being voiced, I don't view that quibbling as red-flaggish. I would suggest to Md iet that the best course would be to edit topics that fall entirely outside the scope of ARBPIA for a time, even if they'd be outside the scope of the topic ban, just to build up a track record of credibility beyond what the standard offer requires. I'm sure any number of editors would be willing to consult with Md iet to find a topic area that would interest him in addition to avoiding potential conflict. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment : I'm invited to provide my opinion here by EdJohnston. So here it goes : User:Md_iet has in past acknowledged at some point that he is a Dawoodi Bohra and it upsets him that Wikipedia articles (Dawoodi Bohra and others related) fail to establish "fact" (that he knows very well because he is one of the member of the religious community) and since Wikipedia is a prominent source of knowledge spread "wrong". So he is here to "fix" it. There things happen. He undermines published reliable sources and tends to push his own personal experience and knowledge. It is what led to 3rr block and thereafter sockpuppetry.

He doesn't have an idea what he would do if he is barred from editing his favorite articles (Majority of contribution in last 7 years in mainspace are related to Dawoodi Bohras). Now as he has come to understand and accept that in order to get his block lifted he must stop editing those articles. I strongly doubt the commitment. I've observed that despite being a part of the Wikipedia community for years, he lacks understanding of key policy and guidelines. Like when he says, he will stop editing Dawoodi Bohra and related articles (because of topic ban) but will continue to contribute on related talk pages and as I recall he initially did so.

I'm not surprised that he has chosen "Fatimids" as new favorite and would not further if it leads to the same fate. He is an old man and a nice person as far as I know and perhaps does not do what he does on purpose to offend some person, community or rules.

To play it gentle, his request should be accepted and to play it safe, topic ban could be extended to all topics related to Islam. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - thanks for pinging to his response. I'm still in support as I said above. Regarding the topic ban, I think we need to make sure that Md iet knows and understands the bounds of his topic ban and that it's clearly defined. If we do, then I have faith that the current reply is a sign he intends to respect it. From the talk archive, it's a "[t]opic ban from anything to do with the Dawoodi Bohra on all pages of Wikipedia, including talk" which I think is reasonably clear. My only concern in his latest post is the attempt to dissociate Taiyabi/Fatimid topics from his ban, even though he acknowledges a connection. We need to be clear that his ban restricts him from editing or commenting on any topic that's even a little bit related to Dawoodi Bohra. If he's not sure, the ban does not prevent him from asking for clarification, but in my opinion if he feels the need to ask if a page falls under the ban, it would be a good idea if he just didn't edit it. If he can find some random unrelated pages to edit constructively over the next six months or so then a topic ban appeal has a good chance of succeeding. I don't see any reason to expand the ban at this point; Islam is a very large topic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Question from an old timer for all you kids with your fancy toys...

So, I was just wondering, is there any utility for admins that enables any kind of "batch protection" or something like that, that would make it easier to protect a whole mess of articles (about 100 or so) at once, or I'm I just going to have to do it the old fashioned way? I ask because there's an unresponsive editor who is actively vandalizing the entire set of Interstate Highway Articles. A few representative examples: [28] [29] [30] He edits under a wide range of IP addresses (both IPv4 and IPv6) and throwaway accounts. There's no way to rangeblock or anything like that. We're gonna have to semi protect the entire set. Is there an expedited way to do that, or are we just going to have to go through each one? Thanks in advance for ideas... --Jayron32 01:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Yes, Twinkle has a mass protect function (I was cosnidering using it for this very case, having just blocked a few IPs at AIV). The best way to do it is to create a new page (eg User:HJ Mitchell/Sandbox 3), and add link to every page you want to protect (you can put in a bullet point list if you want it neat and tidy, but you don't need any formatting at all apart from the links). Then select "p-batch", assuming you have Twinkle installed. Or just stick them on my sandbox and I'll do it. I should be around for another half an hour. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

After blocking another sock, I used Twinkle to mass-protect all the articles in that category. Only for a week, but it's easy enough to do it again and for longer if need be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You could also cascade protect a template that is on all of them. That's how they do the main page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Which is, I guess, what HJ Mitchell was suggesting. My way is faster, though, if the template is already on the pages. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not something I've ever tried to use, but I thought cascade protection only worked for full-protection? Courcelles (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Possibly. It's been a while since I used it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. If it worked for anything below full protection, a non-admin would be able to adjust the protection of any page at will by just editing the cascade-protected page ... and they're not supposed to be able to do that. Graham87 11:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Big thanks to everyone here who pitched in and helped out. Next beer's on me... --Jayron32 11:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you delete and then restore a page, make sure to recreate the link to Wikidata

When a page on en.wp gets deleted, the link to it from Wikidata is automatically deleted. However, when the page is restored the link to Wikidata is not restored with it and needs to be readded manually.

I've just become aware of this after I spotted the link to the Clapham Junction rail crash article here being removed from d:Q5125870 by user:DoRD. Upon checking what had happened (as I know them not to be a vandal) I spotted that they had deleted (accidentally) and then restored the article. I've recreated the link at Wikidata.

Accidents happen, and there are also legitimate reasons why pages might be deleted and then restored (for example history merges), so I'm posting here to make more people aware that if you do delete and then restore a page, for any reason, please remember to recreate the link at Wikidata. If you aren't sure how, just ping me or anyone else active at the project or ask at d:Wikidata:Project chat. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am assuming the automatic deletion occurs as Wikidata? Is there no way to delay the automatic deletion so that only pages deleted for more than say a day get deleted? I lack a technical understanding of how this works.

I don't really do cross project work, and I think it is unlikely that every admin is going to know to do this. A solution that does not involve that would be much more effective. HighInBC 16:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The deletion dose occur at Wikidata, and it is attributed to the person deleting the article here (the same thing happens when a page is moved). I have no idea if delaying this would be feasible or not. I think better might be for a restoration to automatically restore the link, but again I don't know how this would be done - and I'm not even sure who to ping to ask. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a more useful place to put this? Not that it is not useful here, but I mean some sort of really obvious prompt REMEMBER TO RESTORE THE WIKIDATA LINKS when people undelete? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Err, whichever MediaWiki namespace page generates text on special:Undelete is my only thought, but I'd rather not edit something like that without discussion first. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Thryduulf, and sorry for the trouble. I had 200+ sockpuppet-created redirects to delete, and the list I fed to the script must have included the target page by mistake. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's actually possibly a good thing you did this as now we know to be on the look-out for this happening! Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on Wikidata about this at d:Wikidata:Contact the development team#deletion and restoration of pages on other wikis causes data loss at Wikidata (sort of the WP:VPTECH equivalent location). Ideas and discussion for how this can be fixed or mitigated against on the Wikidata side should go to that discussion, ideas for en.wp, including whether a note should be placed on the special:undelete interface (and if so what), should remain here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed this problem too, as I often do history merges. I try to remember to check my contribs on Wikidata every now and then so I can catch this problem. There's an undo link besides each entry in the Wikidata page history, just like Wikipedia; the restore links, which restore to the selected revision, are also useful. I've found some of the links that I've removed have been restored by other editors, sometimes running semi-automated games; for example, see the Wikidata history of revision history of "Sam Carter" (Q20807128). Graham87 11:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Rename page help

Hello, I'm trying to rename the page for "West Midwood, Brooklyn" to just "West Midwood". This is for the sake of conforming to how many/most other neighborhood pages are labeled. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanchionUrn (talk • contribs) 02:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The assumption you're working under is not actually true -most NYC neighborhood names have the borough attached to them. In this case "West Midwood" is such a generic name, moving it away from West Midwood, Brooklyn would, in my opinion, be a mistake. BMK (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

TB by MastCell without admin consensus and difs

Recently i got reported at the Arbcom request board for a 1RR violation. Two admins responded: MastCell responded after my self-revert:

This particular 1RR violation is moot, at this point, with the self-revert, but the lack of insight that I mentioned in my original comment is, if anything, more apparent, which concerns me because there's a strong pattern here and it's not heading in a good direction. The level of enabling in some of the "outside" comments here is likewise unhelpful, as is the general pro and con content argumentation. I'd be OK with closing this request without action (in light of the self-revert), but with a recognition that there aren't likely to be much additional leeway given to Prokaryotes. Thoughts from other admins?

After my self-revert i did not comment further there, except for a question addressed at MastCell. Basically the same questions i raise below.

The second admin EdJohnston, responded before my self-revert:

This is a plain 1RR violation. The talk-page consensus may be unclear, but that doesn't give anyone a license to break 1RR. If admins decide that a block is needed, then something between two days and one week would be appropriate.

During the Arbcom hearing I pointed out to MastCell that i am unaware of any other wrongdoing, besides my 1RR violation, since 2016. He did not address this directly, then closed the request with a indefinite topic ban, and added:

...pattern of disruptive editing on the part of Prokaryotes is clear and continuing. This pattern includes disruptive stonewalling on talkpages, misuse of sourcing guidelines, edit-warring, personal attacks, and so on

Then i went to his talk page and asked him to reconsider his judgement, pointing out that I am unaware in regards to the things he described above, and asked him to provide some difs. However, when he answered he basically referred to my edits from last year. Personal attacks he mentions, edit warring, stonewalling, or misuse of sourcing guidelines, is the opposite of my edits i made to the topic of GMOs in 2016 (primarily on the talk page here). Therefore i ask other admins to consider a different judgement, and repeat my question for MastCell to provide difs for the points he raised. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Support for overturning the decision. The problem was cleared up when another editor admitted fault, apologized and worked with Prokaryotes to resolve the issue that led to the inadvertent 1RR violation. There was no reason to topic ban Prokaryotes. I could explain more, but most of what I have to say about it I already did at the WP:AE I explain more below (in my response to Johnuniq) and at the original WP:AE action. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC) (revised 05:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC))
• I also support striking a topic ban issued by Mast Cell. This topic ban is a unilateral act, and is draconian under the circumstances, which are complex per David's previous statements, and needs review by uninvolved admins and/or the community. Jusdafax 03:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• Prediction This episode will play out in the same way as all the other battles in the GMO Holy Wars, with the same people taking the same sides. Of course it might not work out this way, just as tomorrow morning could see end of all conflict in the Middle East. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The current discussion evolves around a statement in regards to safety. However, it appears that the majority participating over there could settle with an alternative version. I can only count two editors over there who still opt for the 2015 version, still under discussion (basically about the word consensus). Some are fine with various suggestions, brought forward by "both sides", as was I. If this input is against my current active/enforced tb, please redact it....prokaryotes (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Question pair for Prokaryotes — "I pointed out to MastCell that i am unaware of any other wrongdoing, besides my 1RR violation, since 2016" Presumably the year is a typo, so what year did you actually mean? Or if you indeed meant 2016, it's an odd usage (if you made a big mess yesterday, the statement would still be true), so could you explain what you meant? Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Part of MastCell's conclusion involved that i "continued a pattern". I accidentally broke 1RR after last years edits, and before this he gave me a warning last year in response to comments i made after the Arbcom decision verdict. But all the edits i made after the GMO verdict, did not include personal attacks, edit warring etc., so i am really clueless what he is referring to when he speaks of strong pattern, continuation. I actually almost stopped editing article space, sticked to talk page instead. And on the talk pages i edited there were never these accusations i here today. Hence, why i ask for difs to these issues raised, and used to tb me. prokaryotes (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: My understanding is that Prokaryotes is saying that after this warning by MastCell on December 14, 2015 (2 days after the ArbCom decision), Prokaryotes refrained from further similar comments that might be construed as ad hominem attacks or WP:BATTLEGROUND (i.e. since 1/1/2016).

@Prokaryotes: Is that what you mean by "since 2016"? And do you admit that some of the diffs that MastCell provided were a bit on the aggressive side and that you have learned from the warnings and have changed your behavior accordingly (during 2016)? (By such admission this in no way dismisses others who have used similar ad hominem attacks against you or others--separate issue). --David Tornheim (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. And I apologized and explained this yesterday on MastCells talk page, since he brought it up there. And in regards to those edits back then in 2015, and all my other edits, there never been ad hominems, there was never a personal attack, there was never edit warring, and there was no continuation. If someone says otherwise, he should provide evidence. Everybody uninvolved, unsure what is going on, check out this GMO talk page, and this related OR noticeboard discussion, and judge for yourself who is doing what there, and who is cooperative, and who tries to find a constructive agreement, and if the claims put forward here by MastCell (quoted above) are valid.prokaryotes (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment from MastCell: I explained the basis for the sanction in detail, in response to Prokaryotes' questioning, here on my talkpage, and don't have much to add. I am happy to answer questions or discuss the sanction further with uninvolved admins or editors, but I don't have much more to say in response to deeply involved GMO editors (pro- or anti-). If a consensus of uninvolved admins finds that the sanction was inappropriate, then I am of course fine with having it vacated (although I would plead for more admin involvement at WP:AE, as sanity checks are invaluable in that atmosphere). MastCell ^Talk 05:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem begins imho, when you generalize and divide editors in pro or anti. If you look at my edits, they are almost always based on science, and authorities. I understand that it is not easy to judge the issue at hand, considering the amount of text posted by some, but if you tb someone you really need to provide clear evidence of wrongdoing. prokaryotes (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

One more thing, in the statement MastCell links above he again makes a serious point about personal attacks, see WP:WIAPA what is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. prokaryotes (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Please spell out what you are suggesting. Did someone make a personal attack? Who? Against whom? Please quote a couple of words from the comment so we can find and evaluate the issue. I skimmed through User talk:MastCell#Reconsider and did not notice a CIVIL problem. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The point is, nobody made a personal attack, yet MastCell uses this argument to tb me. prokaryotes (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

MastCell, I know I would participate more at AE if, like at arbitration case requests, there was a word limit imposed. Lately, editors have been posting endless walls of text (and counter-arguments that are equally long) that are difficult to decipher if one is unfamiliar with the parties. Any chance we could get ArbCom to institute a 500 word limit? Being concise is a lost art, it seems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

^Agree. People should also provide diffs for any claims about editor behavior. I am tired of being expected to read all of the talk page discussion and try to reconcile it with the article page versions to try to figure out who did what when. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: There is a limit of 500 words and 20 diffs, though apparently it's not widely heeded. I made it bold. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Opabinia regalis, I never noticed that and, you're right, it's not commonly observed. Time to find that link to the online word counter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Is this a topic ban appeal? A quick look at the closed WP:AE report shows that the issue appears to be more than a 1RR problem—reading through the request from Tryptofish suggests "ongoing problems", and the closing remarks includes "larger pattern of disruptive editing" and more. I see no reason the topic ban should be overturned. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: What Tryptofish is not telling you is that s/he and a number of other editors were trying to edit war in changes in the lead from the formerly agreed upon "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus" here and here and here (last edit wisely self-reverted). This was in violation of the WP:STATUSQUO: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." There was no consensus for changing the sentence to say "scientific consensus". Last year there was this very lengthy RfC over this language that found no Wiki-consensus for the sentence containing "broad scientific consensus", and the closer RockMagnetist suggested a revision to the language to gain consensus. Such a revision did take place with this edit which changed "broad scientific consensus" to "scientific agreement". That language was used in a number of articles and was stable for several months until the edit warring started above. That was the WP:STATUSQUO, and three editors tried to change it without gaining consensus first. That behavior was disruptive.

Fortunately, Aircorn admitted his/her error here and worked cooperatively with Prokaryotes to restore the WP:STATUSQUO. The other editors never acknowledged they were trying to edit war in content they knew had substantial opposition. Instead, they called for Prokaryotes to be topic banned for standing up to their edit-warring. Why is Prokaryotes being punished so severely when the other editors who brought the action against him/her started the problem? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Extenuating circumstances are not relevant in a case like this: the topic is under discretionary sanctions and arguments have been raging forever, and several links that I found at WP:AE show that Prokaryotes was not attempting to collaborate but was stone-walling by raising a series of objections that seem to have no common thread other than the objections can be used to block an opponent's arguments, rather than engaging with them. I have not evaluated the entire situation (Arbcom took a long time to do that), but I have seen enough from the information presented at WP:AE to endorse the outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Having reviewed MastCell's explanation for the TB on their talkpage, I'm not seeing anywhere near the required level of self reflection or detailed refutation of the detailed reason for the TB to suggest it was imposed in error. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spartaz: Please see my comments immediately above. The call for the topic ban was based on allegations of disruptive editing by those who started the disruptive editing by edit-warring. As for use of ad hominems, his/her accusers are equally guilty of ad hominem attacks and completely unapologetic about it. But again, the action was not about name-calling. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This meme that two wrongs make a right is one of the reasons why we get into states where topic bans and other sanctions have to be handed out. As a clearly involved person in this dispute I would ask you to extract yourself from badgering everyone who has commented on this TBAN and stop trying to muddle matters and poison the well. I suggest you butt out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you to Johnuniq for pinging me, and thank you to MastCell for, in my opinion, doing exactly the right things. I looked over the discussion at MastCell's talk page, and MastCell explains the situation very well. And it's no coincidence that the very next talk thread on MastCell's talk is about how AE has become such a difficult place for administrators to deal with. It's unfortunate that Prokaryotes just does not get it, but that's what blunt instruments such as AE are, unfortunately, needed for. And it's also unfortunate that Prokaryotes has a group of other editors who serve as enablers, and they have shown up here right on schedule. In other words, +1 to Boris' prediction. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Frankly, this was inevitable, it's always been just a matter of time. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I oppose close until this matter has been properly investigated, which has not yet taken place. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I believe you are familiar with the problem I described above about edit-warring of the "scientific consensus" language from the discussion here by Petrarchan47. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

David Tornheim, responding to your ping, I'm not familiar with any of this. I know only that an RfC was closed in July 2015 regarding the "scientific consensus" sentence or paragraph in Genetically modified food. The closer suggested finding alternative wording. How that relates to this, I have no idea, sorry. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Here is a short summary of the issue: the GMO ArbCom case was preceded by an extremely labor/time-intensive RfC in which Jytdog asked "Do these 18 sources support There is a scientific consensus that GMO foods are as safe as their natural counterparts?" The community was not convinced that any of the sources presented, alone or as a group, supported such a statement. We all agreed, and until January 2016, no one argued: the wording would have to match RS, it would need to be changed. Embarrassingly, besides our own internal process, a group of scientists called out Wikipedia for airing this false claim (see 3, 16)[31]

A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired

The "scientific consensus" wording requires extra diligent sourcing. Normally editors add content and try to summarize it afterwards. This "scientific consensus" was created by Jytdog and added without ever fleshing out the supportive material in the bodies of up to 15 GMO articles. Skip to today: Aircorn, Tryptofish and KingofAces43 suddenly begin defending the use of this wording, group-edit-warring it back into the GM Crops article. Pro had been trying to align the article with our RfC and with RS, and is now enemy #1 for doing so. Editors are still refusing to add content to the articles, and are insisting on coming up with a "statement" based on their favoured sources. I regret to say, it appears to me that if the POV pushing is indeed on the "pro-GMO" side of this, it is doubtful this will ever be formally acknowledged due to group-think and intimidation for having an opposing view, or being labelled "fringe", etc. petrarchan47คุก 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You "forgot" to mention that this statement you promote was basically a statement by an anti-GMO group in a low-impact journal whose editors have acknowledged a problem with hijacking by anti-GMO authors [32]. Funny, that. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have promoted no statement, what are you speaking of? The paper you are trying to refute is not one I have suggested for addition to the WP; I am pointing out that our own editors came to the same conclusion. The data in the paper and the conclusions reached are very straightforward - one can try to refute them using facts and unbiased sources, but to suggest that by citing the Genetic Literacy Project (a pro-GMO biotechnology and genetics outreach organization) you have discredited my position, is indeed funny. petrarchan47คุก 05:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Appears to be a punitive ban. The revert issues were dealt with and diffs were not provided showing personal attacks in the present. AlbinoFerret 14:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• I strongly agree this seems a punitive ban and shows a lack of awareness about the situation, which is far more complex than any drive-by editor or admin can properly rule on, unfortunately. Even though I have been somewhat involved there, the vast amount of text, different noticeboards and litigiousness of some involved heavily in the GMO area make navigating this chain of events nearly impossible. petrarchan47คุก 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• • Just noting that AlbinaFerret was an involved editor in the AE discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

True, but my involvement in the topic is rather small and consists of participating in the GMO arbcom case and about 20 or so talk page posts, mostly during a RFC. AlbinoFerret 19:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofiish is the most active editor (by a wide margin) in the related discussion, he reported me for 1RR, Guy is heavily involved in the topic and always supports Tryptofish. prokaryotes (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• In re what David Tornheim and Prokaryotes have each said about me, I'll simply reiterate that Boris' prediction is correct, and I'll leave any content disputes for another venue. Once again, I endorse MastCell's decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you are an involved editor and since you endorse MastCell's decision, maybe you can answer these unanswered questions, presenting some difs confirming MastCell. Surely this must be easy for you. "...pattern of disruptive editing on the part of Prokaryotes is clear and continuing. This pattern includes disruptive stonewalling on talkpages, misuse of sourcing guidelines, edit-warring, personal attacks" prokaryotes (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Then I guess we should add WP:IDHT to the list, because I provided just that at the AE filing that led to your topic ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You did not provide evidence for personal attacks, edit warring, misuse of sourcing guidelines, continuation. What you did was to provide your opinion, and the majority of involved editors disagrees with you. And now you made my point, that you cannot provide difs. prokaryotes (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

As this diff shows, MastCell does not feel a block by an admin, in this case the obviously involved Admin Guy/JzG, who was also subsequently warned and handed an interaction ban with SageRad for harassing SageRad, is relevant. I'd submit that this diff and other of MastCell's comments during the ArbCom GMO case display a clear bias. I have commented on this previously and find it rather astonishing that I have to point this out. An involved admin, no matter what he claims he is, is not the person to make a unilateral topic ban. I call on a truly uninvolved admin to make a ruling here. Jusdafax 01:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Your diff shows MastCell saying "Closing an RfC is generally a service performed by an uninvolved admin or editor, and does not constitute "involvement" ... I don't see how that block creates "involvement" in the GMO topic area." How does that show MastCell has a "clear bias" and is WP:INVOLVED? It's a very innocuous and generic statement. Which part of WP:INVOLVED applies? Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yet another go at poisoning the well to get round this tropic ban. Time for a boomerang? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support re-opening AE or overturning block - I believe the close was out of process as there was clearly no consensus among uninvolved admins. There have been 2 recent Arb cases dealing with this type issue with strong directives against admins acting unilaterally against consensus or absent consensus, i.e. Supervoting. In this case, EdJohnson half-heartedly recommended a "2-day to one week block". Even Mastcell commented that he recommended closing with no action before he implemented an indefinite topic ban - even after prokaryotes self reverted and apologized and explained. This kind of action is directly contrary to the two recent Arb cases about enforcement. (sorry, can't link them right now cuz I'm editing from my phone). Minor4th 16:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment on involvement. I guess I'm just further fulfilling Boris' prediction by posting here being involved, but just a reminder that decisions at this board are based off of uninvolved admins and editors. The only people wanting to overturn Prokaryotes' ban (e.g., David Tornheim, Jusdafax, petrarchan47, AlbinoFerret, and Minor4th) are all involved in the GMO dispute in various fashions. Conversely, Nyttend, Spartaz, Shock Brigade Harester Boris, Johnuniq, and Liz appear unquestionably uninvolved in addition to MastCell.

Some admins here have been commenting on the "peanut gallery" problem whenever cases or action occur at WP:AE, and I do think uninvolved admins here have described that problem occurring even in this thread relatively well with poisoning the well comments, the general travesty attitude, etc. That is evidence of battleground behavior being perpetuated in a case like this where Prokaryotes was given a "final warning" by MastCell long before the AE case that a topic ban was impending if they continued the behavior they outlined. Disputing the ban now is just WP:IDHT in addition to battleground mentality. I don't have a good solution for dealing with that problem except that we need more admin eyes at AE that are aware of some of this history when GMO topics come up. It seems like the community is becoming more aware of it though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces, claims MastCell is uninvolved, yet it was him to post a "final warning" on my talk page, then later MastCell and KIngofaces, talked about banning me, without me. And one month later MastCell banns me. In regards to the tb: Kingofaces is not able to provide difs, Tryptofish is not providing difs, MastCell is not providing difs. Instead various accusations. prokaryotes (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware that WP:INVOLVED includes "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area."? Posting warnings or discussing possible sanctions has nothing to do with "involved". There are plenty of links showing problematic issues at the WP:AE discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

To my understanding when you talk about other editors, especially when suggesting a topic ban, that this editor should be pinged. There are many arguments and links at the AE discussion, i am unaware of difs which support the claims used by MastCell to tb me. prokaryotes (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

To the list of previously-involved editors that KingofAces listed, I would add RoseL2P, below, based on her participation in the ArbCom GMO case. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Also noting that RoseL2P is an alternate account of A1candidate[33] for those not aware. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

After having reviewed some of the above comments, it seems very clear to me that MastCell is at least tangentially involved in the GMO topic area and has not exercised the best judgement in this particularly contentious area of dispute. His active participation in the Arbcom GMO case contributed little to the final decision; and some of his unhelpful comments during the workshop phase, such as this one, are glaring examples of his personal bias for a group of editors whom he describes as "science-oriented editors on Wikipedia". Regardless of his intentions (which I do not doubt are completely sincere), such comments only serve to amplify the amount of partisanship perceived by everyone.

I am getting increasingly concerned about MastCell's actions in the central locus of the GMO dispute (e.g. glyphosphate [34][35]), wherein he misuses the talk page of a highly disputed article to issue administrative warnings. These statements should be placed on the talk pages of the involved editors if and when appropriate, not on the talk page of the article itself. And finally, I do not believe that there is a shortage of uninvolved administrators monitoring the AE noticeboard, so the enforcement request should ideally be closed by one of them instead.

MastCell, I am puzzled as to why you deemed it necessary to issue an indefinite topic ban for prokaryotes on all pages related to GMOs, despite your active involvement in the same area of dispute. Could you explain to me the rationale behind these actions? –RoseL2P (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm "involved" in the GMO topic area, and you provide no evidence that I am. Shouting isn't evidence; more often, it signals the lack of evidence. I also think it's clear that we lack admins on WP:AE; the thread on Prokaryotes sat open without administrative input for nearly a week and a half before I closed it, during which the disputants tirelessly sniped at one another (they've now relocated here, to carry on more of the same, which rather reinforces the need for a heavier hand). As to the sanction, I have explained it at length elsewhere, but Prokaryotes' behavior has been flagged repeatedly by everyone from fellow editors to admins to ArbCom as problematic. He's shown no sign of changing, but rather seems to have dug in, enabled by many of the people commenting in this thread, most recently with edit-warring and tendentious stonewalling of sources. It is unconscionable that we've forced the constructive editors in the GMO topic area to put up with his behavior as long as we have, since—as I mention—I'm hardly the first person to flag it as severely problematic. Hence the topic ban. The indefinite length seems appropriate since there is no evidence of insight or behavioral improvement on Prokaryotes' part; there is no reason to think that the passage of time alone will fix the issue.

As a side note, the vast majority of verbiage in this thread comes from editors who are already neck-deep in the GMO battlefield, many of whom already argued these same points at length in the WP:AE thread. I welcome input from uninvolved editors and admins, whether supportive or critical, but you all need to simmer down and give them some space to talk. I also think this thread amply demonstrates a sickness in the editing atmosphere in this topic area that goes much deeper than any one editor. It couldn't be clearer that this is a battleground for many of you. MastCell ^Talk 01:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I was directly involved in those discussions at the Glyphosate talk page. There was nothing improper, either procedurally or on the merits, in what MastCell did there, nor did it make him in any way "involved". And the editor to whom he directed those warnings was just community site-banned in a decision that was closed by an uninvolved administrator, for exactly the things MastCell warned about. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this sanction since I don't know enough about the situation. I would make two points. AE is a messy place and after a week of no closure, that MastCell's stepped up to close is and was probably humane. I would also note that MastCell did edit on the Jeffrey Smith article [36]. Smith is an anti-GMO advocate/author/filmaker. Whether this makes MastCell involved in the GMO topic area may be a point for discussion. I will not be engaging in further discussion on this issue, but thought I'd make these points(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

An edit 2.5 years ago does not make you involved. This well poisoning is becoming desperate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

In this edit from 2013, MastCell adds an opinion piece by the NewYorker, about a "Cult". In November 2015 he communicates with Tryptofish, where he comments on current articles, here or here, here in October 2015 MastCell tells Tryptofish that he is going to support his adminship. While he is only little involved in GMO edits he made it clear that he supports Tryptofish, and he used his Arbcom role to decide in favor of Tryptofish. It is troubling when an outspoken supporter of Tryptofish, helps him with admin actions to remove editors who challenge Tryptofish's edits.prokaryotes (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this an attack page?

Would I be justified in adding {{db-attack}} to User:Simon John Pearce? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, what should I do? I've tried engaging with them on their user talk page, where they remain stubbornly silent - and then I get this? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I think after a week or two you could try Mfd. The user seems very polite in their complaint, but that's not the purpose of a user page. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Try replying on the user page, who knows they might respond. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:50, 7 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 [37]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Range block for CC Music Factory

CC is replaying his Greatest Hits from 70.195.199.166 and 70.195.198.27. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe it's past bedtime. But who's 166.170.45.121/166.171.120.232? Anyone of importance? Drmies (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: 166 was community banned. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, that one--the one I'm asking who it is every time I see them, haha. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:16, 7 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:[38], [39], [40]. "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. [41]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)

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)

Need other admin eyes

Hey guys, I'm swamped IRL, and was hoping to get some extra eyes on this account. He's been editing in another editor's userspace. This other editor hasn't contributed since 2013, so it's weird. I've opened a discussion on Moi Magnum's talk page, and was hoping an admin or two could watchlist it in case he responds. Thanks! And sorry for the extra work. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have seen this pattern before and it turned out to be someone who forget the password to their old account, but for some reason wanted to use the same userspace. I have not looked at the specific edits in this case though, it could be something more nefarious. HighInBC 17:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

On, User:Moi Magnum, he identifies himself as User:Draven Corvis so I think HighInBC's guess is probably correct. And since the two accounts are not editing at the same time, I don't believe this qualifies as sockpuppetry, especially because Moi Magnum connects the two accounts on his user page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Plant's Strider unblock request

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 [42], [43] and [44], 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)

Unrestricting File:Édouard-Henri Avril (29).jpg

I require administrative help. The image, File:Édouard-Henri Avril (29).jpg, which I've been trying to add to my user page, has been improperly restricted and put on the bad image list. Former user Tyciol, who seems to have been indefinitely blocked for improper fiddling with images of erotic art, seems somehow involved. The image is of an illustration by Édouard-Henri Avril for the Manuel d'érotologie classique (1906), a French translation of Friedrich Karl Forberg's De figuris Veneris (1824), a scholarly treatise on sex in ancient Greece and Rome. None of Avril's other illustrations appear so restricted. Clearly, such a scholarly, rather esoteric, and historically themed illustration should not be restricted on Wikipedia, which doesn't censor. I request that the image be removed from the bad image list and be made unrestricted. It's time for user Ty's damage to be undone. Antinoos69 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine why an image of this nature would be on the bad image list. Oh, wait, yes I can - actually very easily. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid wit doesn't suit you. If you'll bother to be serious and even remotely rational: Anyone comparing this image to Avril's other images on here, which are not restricted, will be baffled by this restriction. Anyone comparing this image to the others on the bad image list will have no idea why this image was included on the list. And anyone who isn't a drooling philistine will be astonished by this case of audacious and outdated censorship, which Wikipedia purportedly doesn't engage in. So, who's going to fix this problem? Antinoos69 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, insult the admins, that is bound to work. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I remember the case of another editor who had a shocking image on their user page and it was requested that it be removed (or, rather, ordered) because it was seen as disruptive. It didn't help that it was so large in dimension, it had scroll bars on the side and bottom. So, while some latitude is given to editors to create user pages, I don't think you will win an argument that you need this image to decorate your user page. Maybe you can take the image and post it on your Facebook page but Wikipedia is focused on the editing process, not creating decorative user pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

backlog at page protection

Lots going on today at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection -- Moxy (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Usual weekend backlog, nothing special but more hands are always useful to clear out the long-termers. tutterMouse (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Unnamed article (unable to request for AfD)

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

---

Hello Wikipedia Administrators. I recently found a article with no name[45]. I tried to request it for AfD using Twinkle, as it contains no encyclopedic value. However, I ran into a snag. The page cannot be created, as the name is restricted from use. So therefore the only action taken was posting an AfD template on the page in question. I was hoping an Administrator could be kind enough to make this AfD article for me. Thanks. Boomer Vial^Holla 02:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: I've created it blank (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/%C2%8D). —Cryptic 02:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Boomer Vial^Holla 09:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The page was vandalized, no need to AfD it. Instead, I reinstated the redirect. You might want to seek RFPP instead. Rgrds. --64.85.216.89 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The AFD page is blank. In any case, redirects are sent to WP:RFD not WP:AFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

?? It was an "article" when the user AfD'd it; I just restored the redirect which an IP vandalized and turned into an "article". No need for any XfD, just speedy close it and maybe consider semi'ing it. Rgrds. --64.85.216.89 (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Request for creation of article(Tiny Toones)

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

---

The article name Tiny Toones has been black listed but it is the name of a Cambodian NGO that should have an article http://www.tinytoones.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubin12 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I created Draft:Tiny Toones, feel free to write it up with sources and then it can be moved to main space if it meets the usual criteria. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

Indefed user asking to be unblocked and renamed

In this OTRS ticket I've an user which has been indefed in this project: Woodcouncil. She is asking to be unblocked here to create an article on her association, and is willing to follow the project rules and rename her account, if that is an issue. Can someone avail this case, and in case of a positive answer, direct her to the steps she has to take? --Darwinius (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• We'll be happy to rename away from a corpname, but according to her talk page message, she asks to be renamed to the same username she currently has, not to a new, compliant username. Once she confirms the new viable username she desires (either via OTRS or talk page), you can simply request the rename on her behalf at WP:CHU/S while pointing to her confirmation, and once renamed, her unblock request can be processed on its own merits with regards to her promotional editing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• What? The user wants unblocking so she can resume spamming? Er, perhaps not. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• The user has an unblock/rename request open on their talk page, and as the new name is fine I have done the rename - but I will leave any possible unblock to whoever reviews their future intentions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  The unblock request is now at User talk:Blue Cascade, but I see no need for AN attention as it will be reviewed in the usual way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:31, 10 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)

Tomica's 3RR

I keep adding sourced information and Tomica keeps reverting it and now is threatening me on my own talk page, can someone please interveen? 00:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovethewayIlie (talk • contribs) 00:31, 10 February 2016‎