Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Petrarchan47 (talk | contribs) |
Petrarchan47 (talk | contribs) →Source discussion: science is tricky |
||
| Line 411: | Line 411: | ||
:::::::::::Your work on the Medical Cannabis page changed the hard work of multiple editors and spun it entirely: with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medical_cannabis&diff=583867031&oldid=583865255 two] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medical_cannabis&diff=583906404&oldid=583906257 edits]. One can find a wide array of cannabis studies to support a favoured conclusion, though mostly the conclusions state that causation is rarely found. Your team came in with an obvious anti-herb POV and found studies to prove it. "Supporters" can also find ample studies to support their POV. The previous versions of the articles needed a lot of work, but they did have the advantage of allowing the reader access to both sides of the issue. The studies and wording left behind after PM's hostile takeover shows a strong POV as well as a near-complete lack of knowledge about the subject. I brought in a cannabinoid researcher to help me look at the science, since I didn't see any experts working on the articles and since your team has experts in alopathic, rather than herbal medicine. However, I was told this was canvassing, and a [[Talk:Long-term_effects_of_cannabis|banner]] is now at the top of cannabis talk pages warning folks who may have been asked to join the conversation. I noticed this paranoia is being used to literally [[Talk:Long-term_effects_of_cannabis#Literature_reviews|ignore editors]] who question the cherry-picking. I truthfully expected your team to embrace [[User:Shuunya|the cannabinoid researcher]] and use him to help with your work. Instead, Sandy used my talk page to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petrarchan47&diff=585132785&oldid=585027744 canvass] for anti-Petrarchan47 editors, to initiate an RfC about me. Alexbrn has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-term_effects_of_cannabis&action=history reverted me] at every opportunity (except today, I might add, now that folks are watching). |
:::::::::::Your work on the Medical Cannabis page changed the hard work of multiple editors and spun it entirely: with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medical_cannabis&diff=583867031&oldid=583865255 two] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medical_cannabis&diff=583906404&oldid=583906257 edits]. One can find a wide array of cannabis studies to support a favoured conclusion, though mostly the conclusions state that causation is rarely found. Your team came in with an obvious anti-herb POV and found studies to prove it. "Supporters" can also find ample studies to support their POV. The previous versions of the articles needed a lot of work, but they did have the advantage of allowing the reader access to both sides of the issue. The studies and wording left behind after PM's hostile takeover shows a strong POV as well as a near-complete lack of knowledge about the subject. I brought in a cannabinoid researcher to help me look at the science, since I didn't see any experts working on the articles and since your team has experts in alopathic, rather than herbal medicine. However, I was told this was canvassing, and a [[Talk:Long-term_effects_of_cannabis|banner]] is now at the top of cannabis talk pages warning folks who may have been asked to join the conversation. I noticed this paranoia is being used to literally [[Talk:Long-term_effects_of_cannabis#Literature_reviews|ignore editors]] who question the cherry-picking. I truthfully expected your team to embrace [[User:Shuunya|the cannabinoid researcher]] and use him to help with your work. Instead, Sandy used my talk page to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petrarchan47&diff=585132785&oldid=585027744 canvass] for anti-Petrarchan47 editors, to initiate an RfC about me. Alexbrn has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-term_effects_of_cannabis&action=history reverted me] at every opportunity (except today, I might add, now that folks are watching). |
||
:::::::::::The Project Medicine team decided to paste to the Lede remarks from a review even though the content was not covered in the body. The Lede went from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-term_effects_of_cannabis&oldid=583865514 this] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-term_effects_of_cannabis&oldid=584075328 this], and finally, because that wasn't negative enough, to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-term_effects_of_cannabis&oldid=587136326 this]. I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-term_effects_of_cannabis&diff=587308609&oldid=587300165 reverted] by Alex who said my MEDRS-supported claims about research were not supported by the body, whilst in the same edit, he left Project Medicine's version on the page, which was guilty of the same thing; there was no discussion of liver damage in the article, and indeed organ damage from cannabis is unheard of. Without a discussion of why cannabis affected those with Hep C, the reader is left with a deluded impression of the cause. (Science [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828614/ shows] cannabinoids are protective of the liver.) '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">[[User:Petrarchan47|<font color="#999999">petrarchan47</font>]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|<font color="deeppink">t</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|<font color="orangered">c</font>]]</span>''' 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::::::The Project Medicine team decided to paste to the Lede remarks from a review even though the content was not covered in the body. The Lede went from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-term_effects_of_cannabis&oldid=583865514 this] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-term_effects_of_cannabis&oldid=584075328 this], and finally, because that wasn't negative enough, to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-term_effects_of_cannabis&oldid=587136326 this]. I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-term_effects_of_cannabis&diff=587308609&oldid=587300165 reverted] by Alex who said my MEDRS-supported claims about research were not supported by the body, whilst in the same edit, he left Project Medicine's version on the page, which was guilty of the same thing; there was no discussion of liver damage in the article, and indeed organ damage from cannabis is unheard of. Without a discussion of why cannabis affected those with Hep C, the reader is left with a deluded impression of the cause. (Science [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828614/ shows] cannabinoids are protective of the liver. I asked for more understanding of this science from [[User: Shuunya|the biochemist]] and he states: "The article says generally that cannabinoids prevent and treat liver injury. The only exception mentioned is that of a heavy cannabis user with chronic hepatitis C. In this case cannabinoids may exacerbate liver fibrogenesis. An alternate explanation might be that cannabinoids could cause immunosuppression if CB2 activation is suppressed. So you could say that cannabinoids are protective of the liver except in the rare case of heavy cannabis use in a hepatitis C patient.") '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">[[User:Petrarchan47|<font color="#999999">petrarchan47</font>]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|<font color="deeppink">t</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|<font color="orangered">c</font>]]</span>''' 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::All I am getting out of this discussion is that petrarchan47 has a significantly different view about sourcing. To pick one example, the editsummary of the second of the first two edits by Alexbrn that petrarchan47 cited says "replace a bunch of weakly sourced stuff with stuff sourced to two strong secondaries" and that's exactly what happened. Before it was sourced to [http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34110/title/Is-Cannabis-Really-That-Bad- a "News & Opinion" article] in a magazine, a [http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/25/us-smoking-pot-idUSTRE57O5DC20090825 newspaper] article, a [http://www.inquisitr.com/305896/bipolar-disorder-may-be-ameliorated-by-pot-smoking-research-finds/ popular press] article in "The Inquisitr" (?) reporting on a single primary research study, and [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=19560900 this] primary research retrospective study. After Alexbrn's edit the content is sourced to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=18559804 this] systematic review published in the journal of the Canadian Medical Association and [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118105955 this] medical toxicology reference book by Donald G Barceloux. Barceloux has a lot of letters after his name: MD, AACT (American Academy of Clinical Toxicology), FACMT (Fellow of the American College of Medical Toxicology), FACEP (Fellow of the American College of Emergency Physicians) and is a well-published toxicologist, see [https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Donald+G.+Barceloux%22 these] for example. The improvement in the sourcing in Alexbrn's edit is off the charts. If petrarchan47 is calling out this kind of edit as an example of the terrible things [[WP:MED]] project members are doing to articles, I don't even know what to say, we're not even on the same planet on this. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 03:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC |
::::::::::::All I am getting out of this discussion is that petrarchan47 has a significantly different view about sourcing. To pick one example, the editsummary of the second of the first two edits by Alexbrn that petrarchan47 cited says "replace a bunch of weakly sourced stuff with stuff sourced to two strong secondaries" and that's exactly what happened. Before it was sourced to [http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34110/title/Is-Cannabis-Really-That-Bad- a "News & Opinion" article] in a magazine, a [http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/25/us-smoking-pot-idUSTRE57O5DC20090825 newspaper] article, a [http://www.inquisitr.com/305896/bipolar-disorder-may-be-ameliorated-by-pot-smoking-research-finds/ popular press] article in "The Inquisitr" (?) reporting on a single primary research study, and [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=19560900 this] primary research retrospective study. After Alexbrn's edit the content is sourced to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=18559804 this] systematic review published in the journal of the Canadian Medical Association and [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118105955 this] medical toxicology reference book by Donald G Barceloux. Barceloux has a lot of letters after his name: MD, AACT (American Academy of Clinical Toxicology), FACMT (Fellow of the American College of Medical Toxicology), FACEP (Fellow of the American College of Emergency Physicians) and is a well-published toxicologist, see [https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Donald+G.+Barceloux%22 these] for example. The improvement in the sourcing in Alexbrn's edit is off the charts. If petrarchan47 is calling out this kind of edit as an example of the terrible things [[WP:MED]] project members are doing to articles, I don't even know what to say, we're not even on the same planet on this. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 03:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC |
||
:::::::::::::Is that all you're getting? Did you miss the edits to the Lede about liver damage? You have missed my overarching point, so I will state it again: there is science [[User:Petrarchan47/sandbox#Effects|all over the map]] with regard to cannabis. Therefore, those with a strong POV and a limited amount of research are likely to fall into a trap by showing which studies/claims they choose to highlight. I am not arguing that prior sourcing was appropriate or preferable, but that the MEDRS chosen to replace it, and the wording of the presentation, is very obviously cherry-picked and not a neutral, overall view of the topic. There was a lot of information thrown away in those reverts, some of it historic and widely considered an important part of the medical cannabis story. Also, editors wanting to fix this problem are being reverted regardless of having MEDRS to back them up. And this is being done by a team of influential, prolific and tightly-knit editors leaving ArbCom, in my mind, the only real solution. Ultimately, we are adults writing encyclopedia pages for adults. We should add more, not less, information about this topic, and work together to look at all the science, and come up with a good, balanced review of the research available. The team seems to attack pages about alternative medicine but I am not sure how much attention legal opioids and their consequences are receiving. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">[[User:Petrarchan47|<font color="#999999">petrarchan47</font>]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|<font color="deeppink">t</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|<font color="orangered">c</font>]]</span>''' 04:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::::::::Is that all you're getting? Did you miss the edits to the Lede about liver damage? You have missed my overarching point, so I will state it again: there is science [[User:Petrarchan47/sandbox#Effects|all over the map]] with regard to cannabis. Therefore, those with a strong POV and a limited amount of research are likely to fall into a trap by showing which studies/claims they choose to highlight. I am not arguing that prior sourcing was appropriate or preferable, but that the MEDRS chosen to replace it, and the wording of the presentation, is very obviously cherry-picked and not a neutral, overall view of the topic. There was a lot of information thrown away in those reverts, some of it historic and widely considered an important part of the medical cannabis story. Also, editors wanting to fix this problem are being reverted regardless of having MEDRS to back them up. And this is being done by a team of influential, prolific and tightly-knit editors leaving ArbCom, in my mind, the only real solution. Ultimately, we are adults writing encyclopedia pages for adults. We should add more, not less, information about this topic, and work together to look at all the science, and come up with a good, balanced review of the research available. The team seems to attack pages about alternative medicine but I am not sure how much attention legal opioids and their consequences are receiving. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">[[User:Petrarchan47|<font color="#999999">petrarchan47</font>]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|<font color="deeppink">t</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|<font color="orangered">c</font>]]</span>''' 04:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 06:01, 10 January 2014
| Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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 |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss
(Initiated 26 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox
(Initiated 142 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan
(Initiated 139 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case
(Initiated 122 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPathtalk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Tasnim News Agency
(Initiated 89 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)
Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions
(Initiated 72 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 7#RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)
(Initiated 59 days ago on 14 March 2024) It's been about two weeks, since the RFC tag expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?
(Initiated 57 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus
(Initiated 57 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3
(Initiated 51 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism
(Initiated 43 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPathtalk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike
(Initiated 43 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 35 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 34 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 33 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 26 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPathtalk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 36 | 28 | 64 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 41 | 40 | 81 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 14 |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean
(Initiated 51 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 51 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate CCP
(Initiated 30 days ago on 11 April 2024) Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires
(Initiated 18 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)
(Initiated 127 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.
(Initiated 127 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal
(Initiated 121 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024
(Initiated 117 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal
(Initiated 108 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 102 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season
(Initiated 102 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 96 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 89 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:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024
(Initiated 76 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024
(Initiated 68 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024
(Initiated 62 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:List of generation VI Pokémon#Greninja Merge Discussion
(Initiated 38 days ago on 3 April 2024) – The discussion has been largely inactive for the past month, and though there are occasional comments, it has largely slowed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:3α-Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase#Requested move 9 April 2024
(Initiated 32 days ago on 9 April 2024) – I would close this if I hadn't opened it. It has been a month and there is one other participant (supporting the move). I can do any cleanup needed. SilverLocust 💬 22:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD
(Initiated 25 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)
Talk:First contact (science fiction)#Splitting off the list
(Initiated 15 days ago on 26 April 2024) – It's been more than a week since the last comment. The majority of the conversation is between two users, and there's clearly no consensus. Ships & Space(Edits) 16:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal
(Initiated 14 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:Ecoforestry#Merge_proposal
(Initiated 10 days ago on 1 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)
Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles
(Initiated 9 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal
(Initiated 8 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)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Indef blocked User:Trongphu still socking
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's bad enough that indef blocked User:Trongphu used IP socks in order to ask for a nonsensical unblock, which was rightfully closed (see this thread just above), but now he's posted to my talk page, and that of Nil Einne, whining about the (predictable) result. Would an admin please block the IPs this indef-blocked editor is using:
- 67.4.216.151
- 75.168.162.171 (already blocked by Sandstein)
- 97.116.161.109
"Blocked" means blocked, something this editor seems not to to understand. That they claim to be a sysop on vi.wiki gives me great concern, but there's nothing we can do about that. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at Trongphu's SUL info, it appears he's only a rollbacker and autopatrolled on vi.wiki, so his claim that he's a sysop appears to be a lie. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair, what he claimed was that he is a sysop on vi wiktionary, and that is true. JohnCD (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I miseaad that, thanks for the correction. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair, what he claimed was that he is a sysop on vi wiktionary, and that is true. JohnCD (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I deny that the outcome of Trongphu's block request was predictable. Asking for an unblock after 2 years was perfectly OK. Keeping the user blocked on the English Wikipedia serves no apparent purpose other than perhaps satisfying certain ill-tempered editors' need to humiliate others. I left some further comments at User talk:Trongphu before I noticed this new thread.
- The following edit comment by Beyond My Comment was way out of order and is what first made me interested in this case: "You're a total, loser, pure and simple, and you've sullied my clean and empty talk page. I pity vi.wiki if you are one of those in charge. I think I'll have to reconsider Eric Corbett's position about shutting down the lesser Wikipedias." [1] This edit comment turned out to be BMK's pathetic response to Trongphu's pathetic response to BMK's mobbing action in the original thread. Trongphu should not have reacted in this way, but that's no reason to keep them blocked after two years when they don't even want to edit here. Trongphu has argued that editors in other projects are drawing incorrect conclusions from the fact that Trongphu can't get unblocked here, and that's perfectly plausible.
By the way, Beyond My Ken: Your old account doesn't seem to exist anymore, so I can't check your old block log. I read somewhere that you had several blocks for incivility. I wonder if one of them was indefinite. If so, then for obvious reasons (given my obsession with hypocrisy) I would be very curious whether you provided the kind of guarantee that you would reform your behaviour that your are now requiring of Trongphu. Hans Adler 13:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)- @Hans Adler: it's here and here. Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. So it was only one incivility block, for only 3 hours, and by Sarek of all people. Striking my comment accordingly. Hans Adler 18:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry that my block log disappointed you, Hans Adler, but then, you're often wrong about many things, so I'm sure you're used to it by now. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- So I take it I was wrong when I mentioned "certain ill-tempered editors' need to humiliate others"? Any alternative explanations available for what happened? Hans Adler 14:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Gee, Hans, I suppose it could be exactly what it appears to be, an editor amazed and appalled at a weird, unnecessary and nonsensical unblock request. No, I guess not, because that would mean that someone you disagreed with wasn't an awful human being, and we know that can't be the case. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see. So your excuse is a total lack of empathy or intercultural competence. In retrospect that's even plausible. Sorry to hear about that problem. Hans Adler 15:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, Hans, sure, you guessed correctly, that's it. Happy? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- (Too bad I can't feel your joy at being right.) BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am not feeling any joy about being right on this, though of course you can't know this. This suggests to me that you are living in a very strange, sombre world totally alien to me. I am genuinely sorry for you, though of course you will not believe me and will think I am being sarcastic. Hans Adler 16:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah... <yawn> ... you know ... <stretch> ... umm ... <take sip of iced tea> ... whatever. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am not feeling any joy about being right on this, though of course you can't know this. This suggests to me that you are living in a very strange, sombre world totally alien to me. I am genuinely sorry for you, though of course you will not believe me and will think I am being sarcastic. Hans Adler 16:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- (Too bad I can't feel your joy at being right.) BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, Hans, sure, you guessed correctly, that's it. Happy? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see. So your excuse is a total lack of empathy or intercultural competence. In retrospect that's even plausible. Sorry to hear about that problem. Hans Adler 15:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Gee, Hans, I suppose it could be exactly what it appears to be, an editor amazed and appalled at a weird, unnecessary and nonsensical unblock request. No, I guess not, because that would mean that someone you disagreed with wasn't an awful human being, and we know that can't be the case. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- So I take it I was wrong when I mentioned "certain ill-tempered editors' need to humiliate others"? Any alternative explanations available for what happened? Hans Adler 14:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry that my block log disappointed you, Hans Adler, but then, you're often wrong about many things, so I'm sure you're used to it by now. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. So it was only one incivility block, for only 3 hours, and by Sarek of all people. Striking my comment accordingly. Hans Adler 18:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Hans Adler: it's here and here. Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why can't we just close this thread and let the unblock ticket request system handle this case? The response to a personal attack should not be another personal attack, especially about other wikis, because that clearly doesn't lead to any good constructive discussions. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I have blanked the sock template on the userpage, which in the context of a former editor trying to disengage, is seriously counterproductive. I would have done the same on the talkpage, but did not want to disturb the message there. Has any administrator actually evaluated the original unblock request, i.e. whether the original infraction warrants a block of more than two years, and whether a less restrictive alternative is available? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I've changed their block to reinstate talk page access. At least they will have the ability to dialog and possibly post another {{unblock}} message. Two years is more than enough, and they've not been socking over the last two years in any meaningful way (IP edits today notwithstanding). At least give them right to reply from their talk page - Alison ❤ 07:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Laura Hale topic ban
I would like to propose a topic ban for User:LauraHale from using any Spanish-language sources, since these are her most frequently used sources, but she doesn't understand them and frequently introduces completely incorrect "facts" into articles. This is always a problem, but certainly from someone with a semi-official function wrt Spanish articles.
From her user page: "I have been a Wikimedian in Residence for the Spanish Paralympic Committee since late June 2013."
She recently came back to my attention in the discussion Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 99#Laura Hale revisited from early December 2013, where she had an article lined up for the main page claiming that a Spanish Paralympian had competed at the 1996 Paralympics, which was completely false. Her defense there was:
"I admit that I made a mistake because of a bad Google translation. I have tried to be as diligent as possible to insure I make very few mistakes of this kind. Problems of potentially misunderstanding a source is why we have a review process though, to try to correct any unintentional insertions of non-factual information. It's also why DYK requires articles to be fully sourced."
Yesterday, she moved Rafael Botello Jimenez to the main namespace, but again, this article contains blatant misinformation which seems to be due to poorly (machine-)translated Spanish sources. In this case, the article claims that "In 2010, he competed in the New York City Marathon, finishing in a time of 1:47.39, making him the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to finish the race.[3]" This is rather awkwardly phrased, but stringly gives the impression that he was the first Spanish wheelchaor competitor ever to finish the NY marathon, which is clearly wrong, considering that e.g. in 2007 another Spanish competitor finished ahead of him[2]. The article also claims that "He was the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to go sub 1:15 on in the marathon and sub 10:15 in the 5,000 meters.[1]", but the source makes it clear that he went sub 1 hour 25 (not 15) minutes on the marathon, and it would be nice if different notation was used for hour:minutes and minutes:seconds, not as it is done here.
Another example, also from yesterday: Aitor Oroza Flores: the article claims that he "works as a mechanic, cook and lecturer.[2]", which seems rather intriguing. In reality, his hobbies are "Aficiones: Lectura, mecánica y cocina.", so he doesn't work as a lecturer but likes reading...
We shouldn't let an editor who has so much trouble understanding even the most basic Spanish texts work on BLPs of Spanish people, and even less so as a "Wikimedian in Residence" for such topics. Considering that the problems continue after even the rather blatant incident from last month, and seem to be widespread and serious (the Aitor Oroza Flores example above is a good illustration of this), protecting her, ourselves, and the people involved from further problems and a more massive cleanup operation than we probably already need to undertake, needs to be our priority. A topic ban seems to be the most efficient way to achieve this. Fram (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You'd need more evidence of consistent multiple errors in her articles than that Fram.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, Dr Blofeld, it seems reasonable to me that once we know someone doesn't adequately speak the language of the sources they're using, and therefore has been introducing errors into articles based on poor translation, we should ask them to stop trying to use sources in that language. Once or twice is enough for that.
However, what's not entirely clear to me from Fram's summary is whether someone has tried to have a conversation with Laura about this. I don't see one on her talk page, at least. Fram, have you or anyone else approached Laura and said, "Hey, it looks like your Spanish isn't really good enough to be doing this sort of sourcing; could you please avoid using Spanish-language sources"? Has she refused to do so? Or have we jumped right from "I recognize a problem in someone else" to "proposing topic ban" without attempting "asking them to stop"? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I believe such conversation is contained in the first reference provided by Fram. (Actually, I see a consensus for DYK topic ban there, does someone know why the topic ban was not implemented?)--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- The DYK talk thread appears to be about topic-banning Laura from DYK. It mentions the Spanish issues, but only in the context of "...and here's why she shouldn't be allowed to submit DYKs," and no one in that thread is really addressing whether Laura should stop using Spanish sources. I guess my point is that no one has presented Laura with "Your Spanish skills aren't up to the job, we need you to stop using Spanish sources for now, in any article," and it seems weird to escalate to a topic ban without seeing if she'll just, you know, stop. That said, however, I do think Laura needs to stop attempting to use Spanish sources, based on what I'm seeing. I'm just wondering whether a topic ban is necessary to have that happen (and maybe it is, but I'd like to see this involve a conversation with Laura about this particular issue, so we can determine that). Hopefully now that this thread is here, she'll be willing to weigh in and engage with the community's concerns. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)I have not contacted her on her talk page, no. I would think that someone who has her position, and has a problem like the one from the DYK discussion from last month, would recognise that she needs to take a lot more care with the sources she uses. Considering that with her position as Wikimedian in residence and her topics, she basically can't agree to not using Spanish sources, but seeing that on the other hand she doesn't seem capable to do so with sufficient accuracy at all, I thought that having an outside, binding discussion would be more logical and fruitful. Anyway, other articles and DYKs seem to have sufficient problems as well, looking at rejected recent DYKS like Template:Did you know nominations/María Carmen Rubio and Template:Did you know nominations/David Mouriz Dopico. Fram (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I echo what User:Fluffernutter said. If someone (doesn't matter if it's Jimbo or an IP editor) heavily relies on Google Translate or other online translation service to translate an entire sentence, they probably don't have a clue in that language to judge whether the translated sentence is factually correct. Now back to Laura. Fram provided evidence of three articles that contained wrong information as a result of improper translation. Others above have brought the previous DYK topic ban attempt into the discussion. From a chronological perspective, we see that only the first article made its way to DYK and the two subsequent articles did not. So I don't think we should tie this with the DYK topic ban. However, since this topic ban proposal is about "using any Spanish-language sources", I see the merit in it. But if it's enacted, how can we enforce it? Laura could have used other languages (e.g. Italian, Portuguese) to circumvent this topic ban and we will be back here very shortly. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I believe such conversation is contained in the first reference provided by Fram. (Actually, I see a consensus for DYK topic ban there, does someone know why the topic ban was not implemented?)--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ban? When the obvious solution is to run it by a competent translator? We are still tying to help each other out, I think. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- " I would think that someone who has her position..." Wait, what has her employment got to do with this? If she wasn't a Wikimedian in Residence, would you still be making this proposal? If so, why is it relevant? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is not someone making a one-off or limited series of articles based on Spanish sources, this is someone who does this in a semi-offocial position on a serial basis and can be expected to continue doing these articles. Her position is important background, also indicating that she is not some newbie. Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Apart from the original mistake (which has been discussed before), you've given three examples here:
- The first is mildly badly written English ("In 2010 ... making him the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to finish the race" implies the 2010 race, not every year's race.) It's not a translation problem; the problem is merely the slightly ambiguous English.
- The second looks just as likely, in fact far more likely, to be a typo rather than anything to do with Google translate. (Does Google translate turn "25" into "15"?) The 1 and 2 keys are next to each other on most keyboards.
- The third is a bit more uncertain, but could just as well be a careless hurried manual translation (see false friend) rather than a Google translate problem.
Your evidence doesn't prove your thesis, in fact it doesn't even come close. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- The topic ban is not based on her using machine translations, human translations or baboon translations, the tpic ban is because she consistently uses bad translations. I really don't care where she get these, the "Google translation" comes from her own admission, not from some research on what produced these results. Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I really do think that this should have been discussed with Laura before it was brought here, As a Wikimedian in Residence in Australia she did some excellent work. She is now living in Spain, and presumably learning Spanish. A quiet talk with her would probably result in getting a Spanish friend to check her translations. All this drama could have been avoided. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- She had a completely incorrect DYK due to a bad translation, which was discussed with her at WT:DYK, but which didn't change anything. Yes, all this drama could have been avoided if she had made some effort instead of continuing with more of the same... Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is a very ill judged discussion. Lets just imagine that these mistakes had come from poorly misunderstood sources in English. They might be misunderstood facts, poorly written English or because it is unusual English. Would we ban that editor from using English sources? We are constantly having to make value judgements about sources and facts and we make mistakes. I'm pleased to see that someone spotted an error. They should fix it and move on. If there is a problem then it doesnt require us to vote on someones first guess at a solution to the problem. Other solutions exist ... and actually the problem is not going to cause the sky to fall. Victuallers (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, what on earth is this doing on an Administrator noticeboard. Fram should have discussed this on Laura's user page. That would be much closer to our standard approaches with problematic user behaviour. As for Laura's English, no it's not perfect (nor is mine), but that's the easiest thing in the world for any of us to fix. And why a topic ban? She obviously has good knowledge of the area involved, and access to good sources. The aim here should be to simply fix the translation problem. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- And how would you suggest we do this? How do you fix a translation problem? Victuallers as well says "other solutions exist", but offers none. This is not about making "value judgments", when you claim that someone works as a lecturer because you can't understand Spanish and the source says that someone has reading as a hobby, then you just aren't fit to use Spanish sources (and no, the Spanish source was not written poorly or in unusual Spanish; a sports journalist writing solely about Spanish artists should know the word "aficionado", and here the word was "Aficiones", which is very basic Spanish anyay) and when someone has had serious problems in that regard recently, but continues to create dozens of articles based on nothing but Spanish and Catalan sources, then something needs to be done. Fram (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Discuss it with her? Offer to help? HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. Serious lack of WP:AGF from the originators of this AN thread, from what I'm seeing. Orderinchaos 08:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- It just seems hard to believe we are bereft of knowledge of Spanish, and no one will help vet before publication here when she has a problem on BLP's. [3] [4] For example, I have asked knowledgeable wikipedians to vet non-English sources, and they seem to be quite helpful people. Doesn't your proposal seem more than a little cruel for someone working in Spain?-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cruel? It's her choice to continue producing clearly deficient articles on BLPs by using completely incorrect translations (no matter how they are produced), even after the result of such actions have been pointed out. In the above linked DYK discussion from one month ago, she stated "My Spanish is good enough that I can pick up most facts, and know where there are issues. [...] I also hangout in #wikimedia-es and #wikinews-es a lot asking for clarification on Spanish I do not understand. I also have access to native speakers that assist me when I ask." If all these assurances she gave are not sufficient, then what more can we ask? She is producing English language articles for the Spanish Paralympic Committee, who probably trust her work blindly (considering that she is the Wikimedian in Residence). Isn't it cruel towards the Committee to let her continue to produce such basic errors? We know there are problems, her assurances from a month ago seem to be worthless, so the next step is to force a change. Fram (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- But, no the first step and restriction is not a total ban. 'Hi Laura. I notice you are still having problems with BLP Spanish translations: ... . Especially because these are BLPs, we should have these articles and sources vetted by people more knowledgeable in Spanish before publication (See [5][6]) What do you say?' The Committee probably believes we are helpful to each other and interested in their work that is notable, so it would be good to foster that belief, since we regularly say we produce this work in a "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Considering the years of problems with this editor, as evidenced by the comments from others here as well, this is hardly "the first step". And I have no interest in playing games to hide the incompetence (or whatever reason applies) of some editor; yes, we are interested in their work and the notable athletes, and for that reason we feel that it is very problematic that the dedicated editor for these is making such a mess of it, and continues doing so after many earlier problems. That is the message the Committee should get, not some "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". Fram (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Games? Cooperation is not a game, here. What years of problems with Spanish translations? You appear to admit that some of the work is serviceable and you say below that there is virtually no one else who is interested in writing for Wikipedia about the Committee. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cooperation is a two-way street though. And it looks as if you prefer incorrect articles to no articles? I'ld rather not have an article in an encyclopedia, than an article with such blatantly incorrect information. And if I were the Committee, I certainly wouldn't want to have a Wikimedian in Residence who contributes such incorrect and poor articles. Fram (talk)
- I am seriously concerned with the fact that we seem to have some real problems with Laura's editing, she is aware of the discussion, but has chosen not to respond. I have left another message at her talk page, inviting he either here or to any other place at her choice.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- What? You have not read what I wrote (I said approach with a vetting plan). If cooperation is a street, this board is telling the OP that they have not driven on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you are talking about. What cooperation? What board? Anyway she has responded, hopefully we can resolve the issue at least temporarily.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I assumed you wrote, "cooperation is a two way street", (is that someone else's unsigned comment?) so that is the cooperation I am talking about. As for board, I meant this comment notice board, AN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you are talking about. What cooperation? What board? Anyway she has responded, hopefully we can resolve the issue at least temporarily.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- What? You have not read what I wrote (I said approach with a vetting plan). If cooperation is a street, this board is telling the OP that they have not driven on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am seriously concerned with the fact that we seem to have some real problems with Laura's editing, she is aware of the discussion, but has chosen not to respond. I have left another message at her talk page, inviting he either here or to any other place at her choice.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cooperation is a two-way street though. And it looks as if you prefer incorrect articles to no articles? I'ld rather not have an article in an encyclopedia, than an article with such blatantly incorrect information. And if I were the Committee, I certainly wouldn't want to have a Wikimedian in Residence who contributes such incorrect and poor articles. Fram (talk)
- Games? Cooperation is not a game, here. What years of problems with Spanish translations? You appear to admit that some of the work is serviceable and you say below that there is virtually no one else who is interested in writing for Wikipedia about the Committee. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Considering the years of problems with this editor, as evidenced by the comments from others here as well, this is hardly "the first step". And I have no interest in playing games to hide the incompetence (or whatever reason applies) of some editor; yes, we are interested in their work and the notable athletes, and for that reason we feel that it is very problematic that the dedicated editor for these is making such a mess of it, and continues doing so after many earlier problems. That is the message the Committee should get, not some "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". Fram (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- But, no the first step and restriction is not a total ban. 'Hi Laura. I notice you are still having problems with BLP Spanish translations: ... . Especially because these are BLPs, we should have these articles and sources vetted by people more knowledgeable in Spanish before publication (See [5][6]) What do you say?' The Committee probably believes we are helpful to each other and interested in their work that is notable, so it would be good to foster that belief, since we regularly say we produce this work in a "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cruel? It's her choice to continue producing clearly deficient articles on BLPs by using completely incorrect translations (no matter how they are produced), even after the result of such actions have been pointed out. In the above linked DYK discussion from one month ago, she stated "My Spanish is good enough that I can pick up most facts, and know where there are issues. [...] I also hangout in #wikimedia-es and #wikinews-es a lot asking for clarification on Spanish I do not understand. I also have access to native speakers that assist me when I ask." If all these assurances she gave are not sufficient, then what more can we ask? She is producing English language articles for the Spanish Paralympic Committee, who probably trust her work blindly (considering that she is the Wikimedian in Residence). Isn't it cruel towards the Committee to let her continue to produce such basic errors? We know there are problems, her assurances from a month ago seem to be worthless, so the next step is to force a change. Fram (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Discuss it with her? Offer to help? HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- And how would you suggest we do this? How do you fix a translation problem? Victuallers as well says "other solutions exist", but offers none. This is not about making "value judgments", when you claim that someone works as a lecturer because you can't understand Spanish and the source says that someone has reading as a hobby, then you just aren't fit to use Spanish sources (and no, the Spanish source was not written poorly or in unusual Spanish; a sports journalist writing solely about Spanish artists should know the word "aficionado", and here the word was "Aficiones", which is very basic Spanish anyay) and when someone has had serious problems in that regard recently, but continues to create dozens of articles based on nothing but Spanish and Catalan sources, then something needs to be done. Fram (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, what on earth is this doing on an Administrator noticeboard. Fram should have discussed this on Laura's user page. That would be much closer to our standard approaches with problematic user behaviour. As for Laura's English, no it's not perfect (nor is mine), but that's the easiest thing in the world for any of us to fix. And why a topic ban? She obviously has good knowledge of the area involved, and access to good sources. The aim here should be to simply fix the translation problem. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's rather poor form to start a thread here without a serious attempt to discuss the matter with Laura privately: it's not like she's difficult to contact. I've always found her to be receptive to comments, including in relation to errors in her DYK nominations. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed with Nick and others - a topic ban should be the last stage of a process that has involved failed previous attempts to resolve any perceived problems and serial offending. I'm not seeing any evidence of any previous attempts at all - there's been a race on to find the biggest hammer to crack the nut, which is an abuse of the process being engaged. If you have a problem, talk to the editor about it. And the basis is weak too - many new articles on Wikipedia, even by experienced editors, are weak, contain misunderstandings of sources etc... then the Wikipedia community fixes them up. Orderinchaos 08:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see her Australian colleagues are rushing to her defence. No, Laura Hale has consistently demonstrated a cavalier attitude to the use of sources; that is why she's been effectively chased out of Australian paralympic topics, where like a rapid bulldozer she created hundreds of article stubs that were marked by the poor use of sources and consequent factual errors—not to mention the display of a talent for appallingly bad prose. Something more substantive needs to be done to stop damage to the project. There are so many examples, but here is one where the BLP subject came along and corrected bloopers herself. You wonder whether Hale actually reads the sources she quotes.
"what's not entirely clear to me from Fram's summary is whether someone has tried to have a conversation with Laura about this"—The problem is that anyone who approaches Hale concerning her substandard editorial practices is likely to be slapped in the face. That's what happened to me. So my advice is: don't dare to. Tony (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly, I'm not a "colleague", nor are most here - I write on political and geographic topics, as a cursory inspection of my edits would quickly demonstrate. And I think it's a little misleading to not note your own mile-wide conflict of interest with regard to Laura - it'd be fair to say you don't like her very much for reasons that have nothing to do with WP and everything to do with the internal politics of a national chapter neither of you are part of any more. Orderinchaos 15:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The more I look into this, the less I believe that a topic ban from using Spanish sources is really sufficient. Looking at random articles she created the past few months, I stumbled upon Cesar Neira Perez. It contains the sentence "He was the number one cyclists to finish in the Road Trial race." What is intended is that he won the gold medal at the Individual time trial, i.e. at the Cycling at the 2008 Summer Paralympics – Men's road time trial, where he is still a redlink BTW (the article she created should be at Cesar Neira). "Contrarreloj en Carretera" can literally be translated as "Trial in Road" or "Road Trial", but certainly in a cycling, sporting context, it is the road time trial that is intended. And "the number one cyclists to finish"? Well, that sentence seems to be a stock phrase, looking at Juan José Méndez Fernández: "He was the number three cyclists to finish in the Road Trial LC4 race." "He was the number two cyclists to finish in the Road Trial LC4 race. He was the number three cyclists to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC4 race." But there are equally incorrect variations, like in Roberto Alcaide García: "He was the first racer to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC2 race." "He was the second racer to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC2 race. He was the third racer to finish in the Road Trial LC2 race." Perhaps he really was the third racer to finish, but that is totally unimportant. If he finished third though, and won a bronze medal, then perhaps that should be written a bit more clearly? I don't know whether LauraHale doesn't understand sports or doesn't copyedit her articles, but really, this kind of crap should not be created by someone with her credentials.
Two days ago, she added "[...]he was a participant in the awarding of the Medals of Asturias component, [...]". What meant is that he was awarded a Medal of Asturias. In the same series of edits[7], she incorrectly removed the 1992 participation and medals this athlete won. Editors which are supposed to be knowledgeable in the field, but start removing correct and fundamental information (Paralympics participation and medals are quite essential info for a Paralympic athlete), make Wikipedia worse, not better, with little chance of being swiftly being corrected as they are implicitly trusted, and working in a field with very few editors. Fram (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Not understanding Spanish, or sports, or both? Juan Emilio Gutiérrez Berenguel: "He also participated in road events, finishing one event in eleventh place in a thirteen deep with a time of 1:42.51.[4][11]" This rather vague sentence refers to the Cycling at the 2012 Summer Paralympics – Men's road race C1–3, where he finished 11th in the time given (note that he still is a redlink in that article). So where does the "thirteen deep" come from. Well the actual field had 40 cyclists, of which 26 finished, but the source LauraHale used, [8], states "En la clase C3, Juan Emilio Gutiérrez fue undécimo (1:42.51), seguido de Juan José Méndez (1:43.32) y Maurice Eckard (1:43.32)." Logically, if you finish in 11th place, and there are two people behind you, then the field was 13 deep, no? Well, no, not if the source really means "followed by two other Spaniards (given) among a number of riders from other countries (not interesting to our readers, so not given)".
Her articles are filled with these errors, uninformative sentences, oft-repeated phrases, misconceptions, and so on, and I don't know what the best solution is to deal with it. Wikipedia:Competence is required comes to mind. With an editor with hundreds of DYKs and so on, it is not as if they are still learning the requirements. Fram (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- If what you say is true you'd need to provide sufficient evidence of mass errors in everything she creates. She's created a staggering number of articles on Spanish paralympians and I'd need to see examples of multiple serious errors in articles to warrant a ban. At the end of the day she's a volunteer here and doesn't have to bother. I'm curious Fram, do you suspect she's being paid to do this? This really doesn't seem to be the right place to make such a proposal and as you can see most of the editors who've turned up are Australian who know Laura and it's hardly going to attract a neutral investigation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Of course she doesn't have to bother, that's hardly the point. I have no idea if she is paid or not, that's not really essential (although I would consider it a waste of money if she was); I notice loads of problems (probably not in every article, but in way too many), and no signs of improvement or even recognition of the problems. She has now responded on her talk page concerning this[9], claiming e.g. that "The three examples Fram provided were not about translation errors. One was a typographical error. One was contorting the English language to avoid close paraphrasing from a translation. The third was a misunderstanding of a topic, not an issue of translation." The third she refers to is putting "works as a lecturer" instead of "hobby is reading"; I fail to see how this "misundestanding of a topic" can be anything but an issue of translation, but feel free to provide an explanation that is not less charitable than "translation issue" (I don't think she doesn't know the difference between work and hobbies, and I also don't believe that she was deliberately including false information here, so which explanations remain possible?). Fram (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Dr. Blofeld: I think you are going too far in your defence of LauraHale. You are acting ignobly to the extent of casting aspersions on the motives of Fram even when the proof of Laura's incompetence is for all to see. Yes, we should stick up for fellow DYK contributors, but don't let blind loyalty obstruct the real goal of improving WP. Languages are full of intricacies, and many do not become apparent until you become an advanced user who understands the culture as well as the words themselves. LH is so obviously out of her depth with Spanish. She does not understand it properly to make good sense of the story, which explains why this is a recurring problem. I think you, of all people, should be having private words in her ear to get her to amend her ways before the community does with blunt force. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- How am I going too far in defending Laura??? I think my response has been fairly neutral. All I know is that Fram for a very long time has not approved of Laura and he felt that way long before she even began working on Spanish articles, it stems from her earliest Australian sportspeople articles. If every article Laura produces does contain major translation errors then this is a clear problem and needs to be solved. I've simply said that I really want to see evidence that she's consistently makes translation errors. A handful of articles with minor issues out of several thousand Laura has created isn't enough for me to think that a ban from Spanish translation would be necessary. Rather I'd urge her to slow down and get a friend in Spain or on here to proof read them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I tried to talk to her at her talk page, but I got the impression she believes the percentage of her errors is low. Then I randomly took one article she created (the last one) and found four significant errors (which I corrected). So I believe this is a problem, I believe a topic ban is not the best solution (since the problem is not restricted to translation errors), and I do not see from her side any willingness to slow done. May be you can help on her talk page to take the matter further. Note that I am perfectly neutral, I do not have any issues with her, I do knot know who is her employer and I do not want to know, and our previous interaction was reasonably pleasant.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- "A handful of articles with minor issues out of several thousand Laura has created isn't enough for me to think that a ban from Spanish translation would be necessary." Not "out of several thousand", but out of the handful she created most recently. And I don't think claiming that someone works as a lecturer when what is said is that his hobby is reading is a "minor issue". And you don't need to show that every article contains such errors, if the frequency is sufficiently high then that is enough of a problem. Anyway, I have since provided a fair number of examples indicating that while the problem is not restricted to translation errors, it is very widespread nevertheless. Fram (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- How am I going too far in defending Laura??? I think my response has been fairly neutral. All I know is that Fram for a very long time has not approved of Laura and he felt that way long before she even began working on Spanish articles, it stems from her earliest Australian sportspeople articles. If every article Laura produces does contain major translation errors then this is a clear problem and needs to be solved. I've simply said that I really want to see evidence that she's consistently makes translation errors. A handful of articles with minor issues out of several thousand Laura has created isn't enough for me to think that a ban from Spanish translation would be necessary. Rather I'd urge her to slow down and get a friend in Spain or on here to proof read them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- If what you say is true you'd need to provide sufficient evidence of mass errors in everything she creates. She's created a staggering number of articles on Spanish paralympians and I'd need to see examples of multiple serious errors in articles to warrant a ban. At the end of the day she's a volunteer here and doesn't have to bother. I'm curious Fram, do you suspect she's being paid to do this? This really doesn't seem to be the right place to make such a proposal and as you can see most of the editors who've turned up are Australian who know Laura and it's hardly going to attract a neutral investigation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough, so long as you tried to speak to her and are convinced that she is genuinely causing a major problem with every article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Again, someone doesn't need to be "causing a major problem with every article" to get a restriction. There are major problems with too many articles, but that doesn't mean that every article is problematic (nearly all have more minor problems though). As for speaking with her, in the past I had a discussion with her about incorrectly using Spanish sources (on the Flat Bastion Road article), I tried to keep her out of DYKs because she had too many problems there, and there was the DYK discussion of last month regarding a major hook mistake due to an incorrect translation. I didn't have a further discussion on her talk page, having received the impression from those discussions that that would not have been welcomed or fruitful at all. Before the note about the December DYK discussion, the last time I went to her talk page was to inform her of the deletion discussion for Template:2012 Australian Paralympic Ski Team, which she had created. Fram (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- So, is it your proposal now that Laura Hale be banned from Wikipedia for incompetence? Since your first proposal is failing, is it wise to go long? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, I am further researching her contributions, and encounter further major issues, some directly related to the original post, some more tangential but not less problematic. Any thoughts on how to resolve this are welcome, but I no longer think that simply restricting her use of Spanish source will be sufficient (nor the help of editors who have a better knowledge of Spanish and are willing to help). It seems to be a more general problem with her editing, as seen in the above examples and in the comments of people who noticed the same when she was working on articles for Australian athletes. Mentoring may be a possibility. Requiring her to go through AfC, which was recently imposed on another long-term contributor, is also possible. Letting her continue as before is also a possibility, but I fail to see why nyone would support that. Fram (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Has there been an RFC/U? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Has there been any somewhat successful RfC/U on any well-established editor in the last few years? Fram (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- That probably depends on what one means by success: 1)Identifying the problems? 2) having a good discussion about it? 3) leading to mutual understanding? 4)leading to resolution? or 5) leading to a basis for further action? Some have probably had some success in some of those areas but not in others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Whoever suggested that Laura didn't aware of this or calling it "serious lack of AGF" should give their head a little shake. During the discussion in DYK last month, it already mentioned Spanish issue. That's sufficient to say that she's been given notice (or warning, depending on how you see it) to be careful with it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see merit in an RfC/U, mainly because discussions like this end up in a wall of text which discourages passers-by. I have noticed her name pop up in a few discussions like this, and I think it is worth a well-structured RfC with all the evidence in one place (sorry Fram). I have not looked into her editing myself as have been busy elsewhere but this seems to be popping up frequently enough it needs some sort of more formal resolution one way or the other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Whoever suggested that Laura didn't aware of this or calling it "serious lack of AGF" should give their head a little shake. During the discussion in DYK last month, it already mentioned Spanish issue. That's sufficient to say that she's been given notice (or warning, depending on how you see it) to be careful with it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- That probably depends on what one means by success: 1)Identifying the problems? 2) having a good discussion about it? 3) leading to mutual understanding? 4)leading to resolution? or 5) leading to a basis for further action? Some have probably had some success in some of those areas but not in others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Has there been any somewhat successful RfC/U on any well-established editor in the last few years? Fram (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Has there been an RFC/U? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, I am further researching her contributions, and encounter further major issues, some directly related to the original post, some more tangential but not less problematic. Any thoughts on how to resolve this are welcome, but I no longer think that simply restricting her use of Spanish source will be sufficient (nor the help of editors who have a better knowledge of Spanish and are willing to help). It seems to be a more general problem with her editing, as seen in the above examples and in the comments of people who noticed the same when she was working on articles for Australian athletes. Mentoring may be a possibility. Requiring her to go through AfC, which was recently imposed on another long-term contributor, is also possible. Letting her continue as before is also a possibility, but I fail to see why nyone would support that. Fram (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Now I looked into her last created page (Jan 4), and reported the results at her talk page. On top of the awkward prose (which I may be wrong about as a non-native English speaker) I found at least four issues, some of which might originate from a bad translation, and others presumably from elsewhere. Based on this analysis, (i) I believe we have indeed a problem here; (ii) a topic ban as suggested is not an appropriate solution, and I do not knwo what would be appropriate. Possibly RFC/U is for now the best course of action. There we can discuss problems, and, hopefully together with Laura, find the best way to address them. If somebody things that one randomly taken article for whatever reason is not representative please let me know, I can do a couple of more (it took me about an hour to handle this article).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This thread is a perfect example of what's wrong with Admin noticeboards, and why I am very reluctant to bring any problem to them. Anyone with any negative feelings about an editor, from any time in the history of Wikipedia, is free to leap in with irrelevant negative bullshit that shouldn't but does build an even bigger negative image of the accused for the case at hand. Those who join this massive pile-on of mud suffer no negative consequences themselves. The real case gets buried in crap. Wikipedia's justice systems stink! HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Uninvolvededitor This thread is too involved for me to jump in at this point, but you need to seriously tone it down, HiLo48. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 01:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why? Is what I said not true? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a systematic problem with the way the dramaboards work. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why? Is what I said not true? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- This needs to end (support ban). There have been enough language and other problems with articles User:LauraHale has been writing on Spanish paralympians. Fram drafted the original complaint in November 2012 that didn't fly; she was reprimanded at DYK in early December 2013 for her now infamous "Did you know... that 2006 Spanish Paralympic alpine skier Daniel Caverzaschi was ranked 20th in the world in wheelchair tennis in October 2013?". At that time she offered her excuses and promised to be more vigilant. Her skills in Spanish are clearly not up to it, and I had suggested she voluntarily stop using machine translations. She said that she had a pool of Spanish-speakers she could call upon, but I don't see any efficacy in that from the results demonstrated hereinabove. I also see no embarrassment, contrition, nor sense that she admits to anything but a bit of carelessness. She has so far kept to her talk page, it seems that she is deliberately ducking this discussion although she was duly warned, hoping that others might think that she hasn't been adequately warned and that it will go away if she keeps a lower profile. Whilst she admits to some basic human failings, she casts Fram as the bogeyman, probably hoping that the messenger would get shot instead of her.
Fram was persistently on the back of another editor whom I (and many others) thought was close to God. They spotted the early warning signs, but it was only much later and after escalating problems that the community later realised the legitimacy of Fram's concerns and banned/blocked said editor. Although I would like to see enthusiastic editors get the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that the assumption of goodwill is wearing mighty thin. IMHO, Fram is again spot on. I hope that the community realises sooner, rather than later, that Laura is becoming a menace and needs to immediately stop, or be stopped from, using sources in a language that she does not have full mastery of. It's time for a zero tolerance approach to Laura's continued incompetence and blame game. Let it be made clear at the same time that if her "typos" (particularly when numbers get mistyped, transposed or otherwise mis-stated) are a matter of continuing concern with her work, that the community will ban her from using a keyboard to contribute to Wikipedia. I don't know if she realises she may lose her job if she gets banned from WP for any length of time, but so be it. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is that what this is about? Targeting her employment? I did wonder above why Fram brought that into it. I'm sure something similar came up in a past arbcom case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's not "targeting her employment". You got it the other way around, as she seems to be using Wikipedia to further her own ends. But note that she's not doing her "employers" any favours either with the very blatant errors she is committing. Oh, I wonder how they would react if they knew the truth... -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- That seems like a pretty serious allegation. Do you have any evidence for it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose from editor 9,600 mi / 15,400 km from Australia. As previously noted, concerns should be discussed with editors before raising them on AN or ANI. NE Ent 03:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is good evidence on both sides, but not good enough to merit a topic ban, and yes, I looked at the diffs. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support, part of along-term pattern. Graham87 08:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support - this is a long-term issue with this user not confined to DYK, but which also extends to GAC and FAC. I cannot in good conscience oppose this topic-ban when this user continuously flouts editorial process and shows a lack of discipline in their editing. Quality not quantity. When a user focuses on the creation of poorly-reviewed, poorly-sourced and poorly-written content, there exists a problem. James (T • C) • 9:27pm • 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support per James above. Andreas JN466 23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support Compelling evidence that suggests long-term poor QA & disregard for community concerns. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Since Laura has declined to participate in this thread or in further conversation about her sourcing/article creation habits, I support this proposal with a wrinkled nose, though I prefer Tony's "Formal Proposal" below as a way to handle Spanish issues, and I'm beginning to wonder whether some sort of overarching article creation probation may be needed as well based on evidence people are surfacing here. Per the evidence given by other users, it seems that the trouble is more in Laura's article-creation QA than in her Spanish skills in particular, but it currently seems to be leaking out mostly in Spanish-related articles. Topic-banning Laura entirely from Spanish-source-using is therefore using a hammer that's a bit too blunt for my taste, but I'd take this option over no restriction at all. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose It’s the job of the DYK team to check the quality of the work that is published. This witch-hunt is trying to mask their own incompetence. See also WP:SOFIXIT. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is not solely about DYKs though, many of her articles are never submitted for DYK. And DYK is not a substitute for fat checking, editors are responsible for the content they produce, blaming the errors on the reviewers is ignoring the initial problem completely. Fram (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Fat-checking"? Haha. Brilliant. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is not solely about DYKs though, many of her articles are never submitted for DYK. And DYK is not a substitute for fat checking, editors are responsible for the content they produce, blaming the errors on the reviewers is ignoring the initial problem completely. Fram (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Premature. It looks far too much like a grudge match from those who oppose her work for other reasons - merely identifying possibly valid issues isn't enough excuse to ignore cornerstone principles and jump straight to the Wikilawyering. I'm not endorsing the content produced in saying this - Laura clearly needs to work on some things, but I believe reasonably communicating with her on these and perhaps having someone who's stronger in Spanish-English translation being available for her to speak to would likely solve the problems. If it doesn't, well, that's a matter for the future. I just think as someone that's been around a while (coming up to my 8-year anniversary) that Wikipedia has tended in a more Wiki-litigious and punitive direction when people are trying to contribute positively, it's a lot tougher to be a newbie or developing editor now than when I joined. Orderinchaos 08:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm also in favour of the ban per what I said earlier. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per what I and others have said earlier. Moreover, appears resolved below (per Hale and The Rambling Man cmmts). On other issues: 1) RfC/U has been noted as an option, not overly blunt and ill-fitting topic bans. 2) It was wise of Hale not to respond earlier, while the OP was going '... and another thing ... and another thing ... and another thing'; 3) If you have not even tried to talk to someone about a ban proposal against them before coming to AN, don't bring it here; 4) Punishing the User for past Australian sins is not a good or even decent basis for this ban; 5) Hale should act upon some of the sound advice she is getting in the area of QA -- most people do not like to clean-up, when the maker does not appear to care. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
More evidence
Yesterday, I noted how she removed correct pertinent information in these edits[10]: the article stated correctly that José Manuel González had participated and won medals in the 1992 Paralympics, but LauraHale removed this for unknown reasons.
Picking other articles she created on Spanish Paralympians randomly, I came across two table tennis players, Tomas Pinas and Álvaro Valera. The sentence "He played table tennis at the 2004 Summer Paralympics, 2008 Summer Paralympics, 2012 Summer Paralympics and the 2012 Summer Paralympics." (with the repeat of the 2012 Games) appeared in both articles, which caught my eye. Looking further, it appears quite strongly that she copied the (at first glance basically correct, despite two different birthdates) Pinas article to create the Valera article, and couldn't be bothered to do even the most basic checks. The result is that the Valera article starts with "Alvaro Valera Muñoz-Vargas (born October 16, 1982 in Seville) is a Class 3 table tennis athlete from Spain." (Pinas is a Class-3 athlete, Valera is a Class-6 to Class-8 athlete), and that his main achievements include "In 2008, he finished third in the Class 3 singles table tennis game. In 2008, he finished third in the Class 7 men's singles.", which would be a unique combination. Obviously, the first bronze medal was Pinas', not Valera's.
To add insult to injury, by copying the Pinas article, who started participating in 2004, she somehow missed that Valera also competed in the 2000 Paralympics, where he won a gold medal. So she wrote an article where she categorized a Paralympian in the wrong category, awarded him the wrong medal, and omitted the most important of his participations and medals. Fram (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Trying to find a source that says he competed in 1992 paralympics - not used to looking for stuff like this....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- The most authoritative, [11], search for surname:Gonzalez and first name:Jose Manuel in "Athlete search", and you get all the results. Here he is listed as one of seven Spanish athletes to compete in the 1992 and 2012 Paralympics. This page from the Asturian Radio and Television lists him as participating in 1992, 1996, and so on. Seems pretty conclusive to me. Not really a "typo or other minor problem"... Fram (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Take a look at these five pages:
- Antonio Delgado Palomo: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 11:19, 30 October 2013): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
- Julio Gutierrez García: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 12:14, 30 October 2013): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
- Eloy Guerrero Asensio: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 12:16, 30 October 2013): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
- José Santos Poyatos: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 16:39, 30 October 2013): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
- Francisco Benitez: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 10:36, 6 November 2013): 10 years old at the time of his Paralympics
Every single article created by LauraHale needs thorough fact checking for even the most basic facts. These are not occasional mistakes; this is a systematic lack of applying the minimal care that can be expected before posting something to the mainspace. We all make mistakes, but I have rarely encountered someone who does this so frequently and fundamentally, and gets away with it. Fram (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Made any attempt to fix those pages? No, didn't think so. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- And your point is...? Are you going to check and correct all her pages? Have you checked or corrected even one of them? I have, but I'm not going to do all of them, and certainly not if nothing is done to prevent a further influx of similar problems. Have you actually looked at WP:SOFIXIT before linking to it? The second section is WP:RECKLESS. Fram (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I did [12]. What is your point please?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- My point is that you'd rather sit here and bitch about it, rather than do anything. Carry on. With doing nothing. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am trying to do something about it. You don't. You prefer people creating hundreds articles riddled with errors (and worse, removing correct basic information from articles), and other editors cleaning up after them time and time again? That seems a rather unproductive way to proceed. Fram (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, you're not doing anything. Just blaming others and not doing any real work. Like most fireguards on here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am trying to do something about it. You don't. You prefer people creating hundreds articles riddled with errors (and worse, removing correct basic information from articles), and other editors cleaning up after them time and time again? That seems a rather unproductive way to proceed. Fram (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- My point is that you'd rather sit here and bitch about it, rather than do anything. Carry on. With doing nothing. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Formal proposal
In view of the ongoing damage to the project being caused by Laura Hale's insufficient knowledge of the Spanish language and her poor editorial practices, any article text she creates and/or edits that is derived from Spanish-language sources should be worked on first in a sandbox, and be transferred into mainspace only when endorsed as acceptable by at least one editor from each of the following classes—those with sufficient skills in:
- both Spanish and English, to review and endorse each of her translated texts; and
- English, to review the quality of the prose.
This proposal, which I suggest should be a 90-day trial, would involve Laura Hale's informing AN of the editors who have agreed to do this, and a dated signature on the sandbox talkpage declaring that a version is acceptable for transfer to mainspace in each respect (1 and 2 above). Her progress would be reviewed at AN after the 90-day period.
The alternative would be to ban her use of any non-English-language sources. Tony (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- FWIW, This is actually a second formal proposal. The first one, which seems not to enjoy consensus, was the one started by Fram above "I would like to propose..." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I have previously mentioned on numerous occasions at DYK that I would be glad to check any DYK using Spanish-language sources. Having said that, I am not available to work for Laura Hale or to check her DYKs; considering the extremely poor quality of her work and the long-standing problems, I don't understand why she hasn't been topic banned from DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would support Tony's proposal as a first choice iff we or she can line up editors before the close of this thread to be Laura's "designated checkers". Passing a sanction that says she has to have her work evaluated, without having anyone on hand who says they'll evaluate it, is setting us up for Laura either never being able to create an article again (due to lack of reviewers), or deciding to sneak articles in the backdoor just to see them published (due to impatience). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I also have reservations about setting up a complex machinery to follow one rogue editor's work. And although I would have supported simply banning her from using any non-English source in articles she contributes to, it seems that the problems are not so much her ability to grasp Spanish, but more down to her general inability to contribute responsibly and with due care. But something needs to be done. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - seems excessive given the relatively small scale of the problem being described. Also seems to set up an unnecessary hierarchy. Orderinchaos 08:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Statement by LauraHale
I apologize for not responding earlier. As someone who has created over 1,200 articles,[13], I am sure that there are a number of typos and some other minor problems with my work. Perfection is not required to contribute to Wikipedia. The issue of potential problems was first brought to my attention in early December 2013, and I responded on December 4 [14][15] to affirm that I would be more careful with my use of Spanish sources to try to insure better understanding of the source material. Most of the examples brought up here have pre-dated this committment, and I do not think there has been any demonstration of systematic problems since that commitment. I have repeatedly and privately asked for people to assist me with translations since that time on IRC, via e-mail and in person. I stand by that commitment from early December to make sure that my understanding of Spanish sources is more accurate and I am daily working to improve my own Spanish speaking skills. I would be more than happy to accept a six month requirement that before I move any article to the main space that heavily relies on Spanish language sources, that it be vetted by a native language Spanish speaker who has read all the sources and checked the accuracy of my text against the article, and then have that person comment on the draft article talk page before moving it. --LauraHale (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good enough. Move along here, nothing else to see. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Typos and other minor problems"? Have you looked at the evidence (e.g. in the section "more evidence")? And these are not from your full list of 1,200 articles, these are all from articles from the last few months, including multiple serious issues within the last dozen articles you created. Downplaying the percenatge of problems and the seriousness of them in one go gives the strong impression that you don't realize (or don't want to admit) what the actual issues are. Perhaps you can show for the next six months that you can create accurate articleson English-language sources, before we let you back near sourcs in other languages? Fram (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Waa-waa-waaa, this poridge is too hot. Give it a rest. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Any reason why you are trying to turn this into a childish and uncivil discussion? If you can't behave like an adult, go find some other playground. Fram (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- No personal attacks please. You should know better. Again, hiding behind your own failures rather than fixing the articles in question. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Any reason why you are trying to turn this into a childish and uncivil discussion? If you can't behave like an adult, go find some other playground. Fram (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Waa-waa-waaa, this poridge is too hot. Give it a rest. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't want to get involved in whether or not there should be formal bans or any other action, and I have no doubt that @LauraHale: is a valuable contributor and asset to the project; also if the issue is in hand as of 4 December 2013 than that's great. Just to say, though, that having read the above I would like to add my support to the request that Laura should be a bit more careful about making sure facts are correct, and not being flippant or dismissive when concerns are raised. The lack of necessity for WP:PERFECTION is of course an important part of the project, allowing for people who aren't brilliant writers or who just have sketchy information on a subject, but it is certainly not a licence to indiscriminately write factually incorrect material in articles in the hope that someone else will clean them up afterwards. The case of the five paralympians mentioned above seems a classic example of this. They all show the same date of birth, which I assume is not correct for all of them, a situation which could have easily been avoided with more rigorous checking of the text before or after hitting the save button. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
If you want further examples of translation problems (and general sloppy editing) which happened since 4 December, take a look at these three, made within the space of twenty minutes on 24 December 2013: [16], [17], and [18]. "the Championship of Spain by Autonomous Open Paralympic Swimming"? Let's see, that very strangely named tournament is the "Campeonato de España Open por Autonomías de Natación Paralímpica"[19], which even Google Translate translates better than you do ("Open Championship of Spain by autonomous Paralympic Swimming"). What is meant is the "Open Paralympic Swimming Championship of Spain by Autonomous Community" ("Autonomías" being the Autonomous communities of Spain). Not a major problem, but not really an indication that anything has improved since 4 December. Oh, and of course the inevitable copy-paste error needs to be included; Alejandro Sanchez Palomero: "In 2013, he competed in the Championship of Spain by Autonomous Open Paralympic Swimming where she represented the Balearic Islands." If you change one "she" to a "he" in a sentence, it's best to change the other one as well, to avoid strange results. Fram (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think we've established that Laura makes many errors and needs to take more care before moving articles to the mainspace, but correct me if I'm wrong, above she has volunteered to a six-month embargo on moving any article translated from Spanish to the mainspace before being vetted by a native Spanish language editor. That seems like a good solution without dragging up more and more of this (which I'm not sure is benefitting anyone). For what it's worth, I'm happy to volunteer to vet these from an English-speaking perspective to knock Fram's most recent concern on the head. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- A six-month ban from DYK nomination is also in order, until we can be sure that her editorial practices have improved significantly. Tony (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well presumably that isn't necessary if the new articles she nominates have to be double-vetted? And User:Lugnuts does make a valid point, if these DYKs are getting to the mainpage, it's an indictment of the DYK review process as much as Laura's editing skills. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have no problem with such a page-vetting by one or two people for the next months. I'm just worried by her apparent dismissal of the number and seriousness of the problems her articles have. But I assume that either she will improve her work, or the "vetters" will make it clear what is wrong with it, and that in six months time we will have a much better view of the situation and way forward. Thank you for the offer to check the articles. Fram (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well presumably that isn't necessary if the new articles she nominates have to be double-vetted? And User:Lugnuts does make a valid point, if these DYKs are getting to the mainpage, it's an indictment of the DYK review process as much as Laura's editing skills. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- A six-month ban from DYK nomination is also in order, until we can be sure that her editorial practices have improved significantly. Tony (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Pot kettle black
Hi. I am this user. I have made no attempt to hide this, and have openly admitted it several times.[20][21][22] The reason I am making log ged-out edits is that my home internet con nection is acting up, and I'm currently only able to edit from my phone. I can make l ogged-in edits from my phone, but every fe w minutes the session automatically ends and I occasionally lose edits I was working on. This is actually, I believe, the same reason my IP keeps shifting. WP:SOCK#Editin g while logged out clearly states that what I am doing is not "sockpuppetry" under these circumstances, and both User:Cuchullain and User:Ross Hill have already note d this and not reproached me for it.
There is, however, another editor who is clearly making logged-out edits in order to hound me and get away with it. The user clearly has an account, as his/her impeccable timing in reverting me [23] [24][25] indicates that he/s he has a WP:WATCHLIST and is maliciou sly watching the pages that I already edited while logged in. (The fact that I'm on a shifting IP means he/she can't be following my contributions, and I can't think of any other way he/she could know to revert me in the space of a few hours.) Cuchullain and my self both once believed that this was a specific user, but external factors that I don't want to discuss on-wiki (please e-mail m y account if you want details) have convinced me that they must be different people. However, the user is clearly either evading a block, or logging out of an active account in order to revert me anonymously.
I have been putting up with it for a while n ow, but being kettle to his/her pot as I am accused (wrongly) of logging out to make "problematic edits" (check the history and the now-archived RSN thread: all I'm doing is maintaining a limited number of r eliable, relevant English-language source s, while he/she is grasping at bogus "NOYT " straws, and making straw-man argument s about the "validity" of a barely-relevant Japanese-language source, clearly as an excuse to revert me wholesale). The most recen t string has also seen him/her revert my removal of problematic OR that I am trying to discuss on the talk page: he/she has provided no explanation of why the removal is being reverted.
I don't know how to properly deal with this , but can someone please ask him to disclose the name of his/her account or something?
182.249.240.17 (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you can get a clean connection on your mobile device, why can't you log in to edit? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- It would appear that the cookies, needed to stay logged in, are lost. The edit page, including the token needed to save the edit, aren't. The statement made in the first paragraph is technically quite possible. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I know that on some browsers there are settings that automatically deletes cookies whenever a session is ended or whenever a browser tab or window is closed. I have done this on my phone hence why I never edit on my phone. If there is a connection issue that causes sessions to end automatically, then this is entirely reasonable/ Blackmane (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for those explanations. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Notified (and welcomed, in case it's not a dynamic IP) the editor in question. All the best, Miniapolis 21:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I know that on some browsers there are settings that automatically deletes cookies whenever a session is ended or whenever a browser tab or window is closed. I have done this on my phone hence why I never edit on my phone. If there is a connection issue that causes sessions to end automatically, then this is entirely reasonable/ Blackmane (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Update links in a couple blocks
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The blocks on 198.38.10.1 and 80.239.242.0/23 currently point the user to WP:ACC's old URL on the Toolserver. The tool was recently moved to Wikimedia Labs, so I was wondering if an admin could change the block reasons to use the Tool's new URL at https://accounts.wmflabs.org/? FunPika 11:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've done the block by User:MuZemike because he is no longer an admin. But please ask (or check with) User:King of Hearts to change his block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Request for page move
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have performed a non-admin closure of a multi-move request at Talk:Happiness? (Roger Taylor album), and have carried out three of the four moves, but the final one is blocking because the proposed title is on the blacklist. Presumably this is due to the three exclamation marks, but this is the way the move has been requested and is also consistent with the current title of the article.
The move in question is:
Please could an admin carry this out for me? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
help with new user
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am having problems dealing with a new editor (User talk:68.201.99.145) that believes I am racist and calming lies, discrimination and hatred towards my edits. Can I get a third party to look over all this as i am afraid i did not approach the problem properly. The editor is currently blocked for disruptive editing in regards to edit-waring and personal attacks. -- Moxy (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- To start with, I reminded them to remain WP:CIVIL. If they ignore this reminder, I will have their talk page access removed. If they choose to be civil, one could discuss the issue further.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Are you sure a twenty-four-hour block is enough? With this user, I'm sensing some WP:NOTHERE. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 01:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Request block
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is an ongoing case, please see: [26]. The latest puppet is User:Internuclear. Thanks for any help! Ruigeroeland (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Personally, I wouldn't want to admit that I got indef-blocked from Wikipedia because of something as silly as making inappropriate insect stub articles, but, well, I'm surprised the user didn't create articles on ducks, because I sure hear one quacking. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 01:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Haha, yeah. I heard it too.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Jmh649 abuse of position as administrator
There is currently a NPOV discussion going on at the NPOV Noticeboard here and here. I placed a NPOV template at the top of Circumcision to notify new users about the NPOV discussion so they can participate. User:Jmh649 has removed the template several times which can be seen in the following diffs, 1, 2, and 3. I gave him a warning here, he reacted to this by threatening to block me here.
I should also point out that User:Zad68 is also one of the users involved in the content dispute at Circumcision who does not believe there is a NPOV violation. ScienceApe (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see what the problem is here. You made three reverts and then Jmh649 told you that you might be blocked if you continue. He was correct--you should expect a block if you break 3RR. He didn't say I will block you, so there's no issue with admining while involved. I'm not sure why you're reporting Zad68 either, he's certainly free to maintain that the article is NPOV. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- So anyone can remove a NPOV template at the top of an article even when there's a ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, and the template explicitly states not to remove it while there's a NPOV discussion going on? I didn't report User:Zad68, I merely mentioned that he is one of the users involved in the NPOV discussion and his position. Indeed he did not explicitly state he would block me, but the impression I got was that he would use his administrator powers without going through the proper channels. ScienceApe (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The status of an NPOVN discussion is not the only valid reason for removal, as stated in the {{NPOV}} documentation. It's one of those other reasons that Doc James discussed with you in your conversation with him about it on his User Talk.
Zad6803:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC) - (edit conflict) Anyone is free to boldly add a template to a page they feel is non-neutral, but if it is reverted, then it's time to discuss. See WP:BRD for the relevant practice. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- You don't understand. We've been discussing for a long time and getting no where. Please visit the relevant discussions here and here. It has all the information. Long story short, we have been discussing for months now and getting no where, that's why I took the discussion to NPOV Noticeboard. User:Jmh649's edits have not been constructive, he has been trying to stifle any changes to the status quo. He's pushing an agenda based on the evidence I cited at the NPOV Noticeboard, that's why he's removing the NPOV template. ScienceApe (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- So it sounds like you tried to change the article and failed to get consensus, and now you want to tag it to reflect your disapproval, correct? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- NO I DID NOT. I never tried to make any edits to the article besides putting that template on the top recently, and you can check the edit history if you don't believe me. I only made suggestions and remarks on the talk page, all were stonewalled by Zad, and Jmh649. You first strawmanned me by implying that I'm reporting Zad when I didn't, and now you made baseless assumptions about my editing behavior without even reading the relevant pages I linked. ScienceApe (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I apologize if I misunderstood things, but it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. Based on what? I only started the discussions at NPOV Noticeboard a few hours ago. ScienceApe (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I apologize if I misunderstood things, but it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- NO I DID NOT. I never tried to make any edits to the article besides putting that template on the top recently, and you can check the edit history if you don't believe me. I only made suggestions and remarks on the talk page, all were stonewalled by Zad, and Jmh649. You first strawmanned me by implying that I'm reporting Zad when I didn't, and now you made baseless assumptions about my editing behavior without even reading the relevant pages I linked. ScienceApe (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- So it sounds like you tried to change the article and failed to get consensus, and now you want to tag it to reflect your disapproval, correct? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- You don't understand. We've been discussing for a long time and getting no where. Please visit the relevant discussions here and here. It has all the information. Long story short, we have been discussing for months now and getting no where, that's why I took the discussion to NPOV Noticeboard. User:Jmh649's edits have not been constructive, he has been trying to stifle any changes to the status quo. He's pushing an agenda based on the evidence I cited at the NPOV Noticeboard, that's why he's removing the NPOV template. ScienceApe (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The status of an NPOVN discussion is not the only valid reason for removal, as stated in the {{NPOV}} documentation. It's one of those other reasons that Doc James discussed with you in your conversation with him about it on his User Talk.
- So anyone can remove a NPOV template at the top of an article even when there's a ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, and the template explicitly states not to remove it while there's a NPOV discussion going on? I didn't report User:Zad68, I merely mentioned that he is one of the users involved in the NPOV discussion and his position. Indeed he did not explicitly state he would block me, but the impression I got was that he would use his administrator powers without going through the proper channels. ScienceApe (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Small detail, you are also threatening to block Jmh649. Seems like a case of sour grapes. The Banner talk 02:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I warned him which I stated in the beginning because he was removing the NPOV template. ScienceApe (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- So? You warned him that the next step could be a block, but due to the same type of behaviour he warned you that the next step could be block. So no issue here about misusing admin-rights as warning is a normal process during an edit war, giving you (and him) the chance to stop. But instead you tried to use a Plan B to get rid of somebody opposing you while involved in a content discussion. If you have promised Santa to be a good boy this year, don't be shocked when he has some penalty points in his book... The Banner talk 03:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- ScienceApe is not an admin and cannot "threaten" a block. At best they can threaten to report. The same does not apply to Doc James: their warning on ScienceApe's talk page can easily be read as saying "I will block you". I have suggested to Doc that they use the standard edit-warring template, which is more neutrally worded. A personally tweaked warning from someone who also is an administrator can easily be read as a threat, so in that sense the complaint here is justified--but I don't see the need for any administrative action at this point, except to reiterate the general point, that in specific situations admins should avoid sounding like admins if they are primarily editors in that situation. And let me add that there is no proof of abuse here. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- So anyone can remove a NPOV template at the top of an article even when there's a ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, and the template explicitly states not to remove it while there's a NPOV discussion going on? ScienceApe (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's not what the documentation at {{NPOV}} says. Are you not actually reading the documentation for the template you're trying to use?
Zad6803:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)- I'm talking about what it says on the template. "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2014)" ScienceApe (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Click through to the template documentation and read that. Following what the template documentation says should resolve this.
Zad6803:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)- I already read it. On what grounds are you justifying the removal of a NPOV template on an article when there's an on-going discussion at NPOV Noticeboard? ScienceApe (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Click through to the template documentation and read that. Following what the template documentation says should resolve this.
- I'm talking about what it says on the template. "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2014)" ScienceApe (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's not what the documentation at {{NPOV}} says. Are you not actually reading the documentation for the template you're trying to use?
- So? You warned him that the next step could be a block, but due to the same type of behaviour he warned you that the next step could be block. So no issue here about misusing admin-rights as warning is a normal process during an edit war, giving you (and him) the chance to stop. But instead you tried to use a Plan B to get rid of somebody opposing you while involved in a content discussion. If you have promised Santa to be a good boy this year, don't be shocked when he has some penalty points in his book... The Banner talk 03:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I warned him which I stated in the beginning because he was removing the NPOV template. ScienceApe (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is there still a basis for this to be here as an open discussion at WP:AN?
Zad6803:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is why I mentioned Zad68 in my initial post. I wasn't reporting him as Mark Arsten's suggested. I mentioned him because Zad68 is on User:Jmh649's side. ScienceApe (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the above suggestions to read the NPOV documentation, a simpler idea would be to think how Wikipedia would work if anyone was able to slap an unmovable POV tag on an article. There would be lot of tags if they could not be removed until everyone was happy. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- You haven't read the discussion. This isn't something that I slapped on there haphazardly. This is the result of months of constant and fruitless debate on the talk pages. Further, I'm not the only one who believes there is a NPOV violation. In fact I did not act on this until User talk:Hans Adler made this comment. At that point I believed there was enough dissent to challenge the status quo. ScienceApe (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The basis of your NPOVN discussion is IAR. So you are basing your proposed article content changes on a head count of like minded editors instead of high quality sourcing and Wikipedia content policies??
Zad6804:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)- So far, I see no evidence of "abuse of administrator powers" by Jmh649. I see him acting as an editor in a content dispute. I have read the discussion on the talk page and at NPOVN, and I agree with the point that Johnuniq made above. Tags should not remain on an article indefinitely just because one or two editors dislike the current version. This article should be neither pro nor anti circumcision. It should remain balanced.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have said he abused his position as an administrator to intimidate me with a block, which is just as egregious of an abuse as actually blocking me. Whether or not he was going to block me himself is independent of the fact that that's the impression I got from his warning. Strawman fallacy, the tags were never on the article indefinitely, I put them on earlier today, furthermore the intention was never to keep them on indefinitely. I only intended for them to be on the article until the NPOV discussion was over. ScienceApe (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, you are strawmanning me again and misrepresenting my position. I was explaining what was the impetus for me to bring the issues that we've been having for months to NPOV noticeboard to demonstrate to Johnuniq that this wasn't a haphazard thought based solely upon my own will. I can't count how many times you've strawmanned me, and I'm getting tired of it. Please stop it. ScienceApe (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously? I was simply letting you know that if you continue reverting you may get blocked. It was just a heads up. You are more than welcome to ignore it. I will not be blocking you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be best if both of you were blocked for edit warring. The user, no matter how misguided he may be, was trying to point readers to a NPOV concern via a link to a discussion in the template. You showed up and bit his head off. You might have caffeine running through your veins, but it would be nice if the "stimulated" amongst us would slow the fuck down and discuss things once in a blue moon. I'm not seeing much discussion about the tag but loads of reverts. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I propose a better idea. Leave the NPOV template on the article until the NPOV discussion is over. Then you can remove it. Leave us both unblocked so we can participate in the NPOV discussion. ScienceApe (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be best if both of you were blocked for edit warring. The user, no matter how misguided he may be, was trying to point readers to a NPOV concern via a link to a discussion in the template. You showed up and bit his head off. You might have caffeine running through your veins, but it would be nice if the "stimulated" amongst us would slow the fuck down and discuss things once in a blue moon. I'm not seeing much discussion about the tag but loads of reverts. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously? I was simply letting you know that if you continue reverting you may get blocked. It was just a heads up. You are more than welcome to ignore it. I will not be blocking you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- So far, I see no evidence of "abuse of administrator powers" by Jmh649. I see him acting as an editor in a content dispute. I have read the discussion on the talk page and at NPOVN, and I agree with the point that Johnuniq made above. Tags should not remain on an article indefinitely just because one or two editors dislike the current version. This article should be neither pro nor anti circumcision. It should remain balanced.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The basis of your NPOVN discussion is IAR. So you are basing your proposed article content changes on a head count of like minded editors instead of high quality sourcing and Wikipedia content policies??
- You haven't read the discussion. This isn't something that I slapped on there haphazardly. This is the result of months of constant and fruitless debate on the talk pages. Further, I'm not the only one who believes there is a NPOV violation. In fact I did not act on this until User talk:Hans Adler made this comment. At that point I believed there was enough dissent to challenge the status quo. ScienceApe (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the above suggestions to read the NPOV documentation, a simpler idea would be to think how Wikipedia would work if anyone was able to slap an unmovable POV tag on an article. There would be lot of tags if they could not be removed until everyone was happy. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is why I mentioned Zad68 in my initial post. I wasn't reporting him as Mark Arsten's suggested. I mentioned him because Zad68 is on User:Jmh649's side. ScienceApe (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no evidence of a NPOV issue. Having a couple of editors show up (a number of which are WP:SPI) who disagree with the best available evidence (recent systematic reviews and meta analysis) complain does not make it so. No one has been able to articulate an issue on the talk page here [27]. This is a requirement per the NPOV template. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The talk page clearly links to the NPOV/N discussions, so the intent of the requirement is met. NE Ent 11:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
First of all Jmh clearly went WP:3rr. Secondly WP:ADMINACCT requires "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." (emphasis mine). His curt dismissive reply to SA's initial inquiry Not how it works does not meet that standard. (So how does it work, then? is the natural response). The template itself states "do not remove until" so editors invoking the fine print of the /doc should have the courtesy to wikilink it; template docs are often not read (e.g. {{hat}} documentation requires hats be signed, but that's frequently overlooked.) Finally, the path of least drama™ is to leave the tag, let the NPOV/N discussions run to a close, and then remove the tag.NE Ent 11:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Another admin failing WP:ADMINACCT. Which means it will get swept under the carpet once again. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Tell me Lugnuts, when did you stop beating your wife? Resolute 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- After I stopped punching your mother. Why do you ask? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Tell me Lugnuts, when did you stop beating your wife? Resolute 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
If you want to get involved in the article in question bring high quality sources as was suggested by a few others here [28]. ScienceApe is very well aware of the referencing requirements of WP:RS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I can only recommend against following the advice of Jmh649 (signing as "Doc James"), the user who passed this article as GA a year ago. The article's current owners count a position paper by the American Academy of Pediatrics (a professional organisation of physicians who mostly practise circumcision and profit from it, in the only Western country that has extremely high circumcision numbers) among the sources of highest quality, but downplay a position paper by the Royal Dutch Medical Association which comes to opposite conclusions. And given their numerical superiority there seems to be little that can be done about this. Hans Adler 17:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seeing as neither organization supports universal neonatal circumcision I do not see this contradiction of which you speak. Neither organization supports a ban either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is true that the KNMG doesn't support a ban, but here is why: "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by non-medically qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious complications than is currently the case." [29] But this doesn't fit your narrative of circumcision as an entirely rational, beneficial, painless and harmless procedure which is merely rooted in tradition. For a start, it contains the word "mutilation", which of course is essentially taboo on the article because it sounds so negative. (It does appear once, under "Aboriginals".) So you keep marginalising this just like you are marginalising sources that cover circumcision from a legal or cultural point of view. Hans Adler 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seeing as neither organization supports universal neonatal circumcision I do not see this contradiction of which you speak. Neither organization supports a ban either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad68 removed the POV tag with the following edit summary: "assessment of consensus at WP:AN discussion was that this tag wasn't supported, and the prerequisites for the use of the tag have not been met, as detailed on Talk page". [30] Does anyone else think that this edit summary is deceptive?
- There was and still is no such consensus in this discussion, let alone among uninvolved editors.
- Zad68 does not even claim such a consensus on the talk page, but only claims that there is no consensus that the tag should be there. (No wonder. The question has hardly been addressed between all the red herrings.)
- Zad68 is, however, hiding behind a misreading of a statement by Mark Arsten above: "Well, I apologize if I misunderstood things, but it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point." This clearly must have referred to the (false) consensus at Talk:Circumcision that has existed for years, rather than to any consensus in the present discussion. Given the state of this discussion when Zad68 wrote that [31], it's hard to believe he genuinely misunderstood the comment in this way. Where a question has not even been discussed, there can be no consensus on it.
I will now reinstate the POV tag as the article is severely biased and represents exclusively an American, pro-circumcision bias while downplaying adverse effects and the significant non-medical aspects of the practice. Hans Adler 17:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mark has clarified his statement (below) and I understood him correctly. Will you be restoring the article to the status quo ante by removing the tag now?
Zad6818:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)- The clarification doesn't help. By "the present discussion" I meant the present thread at AN, where you claimed in your edit summary that a consensus existed. There did not, and Mark Arsten did not claim it. Apparently you just put it into the edit summary because it would have been a much more convincing justification, and by referring to the talk page for details, where you misrepresented Mark Arsten [32], you got a certain degree of plausible deniability. Very unfair tactics, but not at all untypical for what has been happening at that article.
- Once again in detail, as it is tricky:
- Your edit comment: "assessment of consensus at WP:AN discussion was that this tag wasn't supported"
- Your comment on Talk:Circumcision trying to justify the revert: 'As covered at the WP:AN discussion here there isn't support for keeping the addition of the article-wide NPOV tag in place. In particular Mark Arsten's assessment of the consensus of that discussion was "it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point"'
- This was a sneaky moving of goalposts. First you claimed consensus in the present thread, which obviously didn't exist. Then you toned it down to non-existence of consensus in the present discussion plus Mark Arsten's 'assessment' (what a great word for a single editor's opinion) "of the consensus of that discussion", where "that discussion" is sufficiently vague to refer to the present thread (though you can plausibly deny that you intended the confusion) or to Talk:Circumcision (which Mark Arsten meant but doesn't make sense mentioning in this way because he's just a single voice). Hans Adler 22:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Most of your comment is you ascribing motivations to my actions that just simply aren't true. I don't appreciate the ad hominems. My only position was that there never was conensus for adding the article-wide tag in the first place, and on Wikipedia if there isn't consensus to add something to an article, the default is to return the article to the status quo ante. My reading of Mark's statement was that his assessment as an outside administrator of the discussion was that there was not consensus for the tag. Mark's clarifying statement below confirms that he did indeed say what I thought he said. Any outside admin's assessment of consensus will always be "just a single voice" because any admin is only one person at a time. Other than that, I don't feel further discussion of this with you will be productive. Feel free to help yourself to the last word.
Zad6822:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)- True, but the tag is removed after consensus is determined (e.g. An afd tag stays in place until the discussion is closed). Given that discussion at Wikipedia:NPOV/N#Circumcision is ongoing, the tag should be replaced. NE Ent 22:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Most of your comment is you ascribing motivations to my actions that just simply aren't true. I don't appreciate the ad hominems. My only position was that there never was conensus for adding the article-wide tag in the first place, and on Wikipedia if there isn't consensus to add something to an article, the default is to return the article to the status quo ante. My reading of Mark's statement was that his assessment as an outside administrator of the discussion was that there was not consensus for the tag. Mark's clarifying statement below confirms that he did indeed say what I thought he said. Any outside admin's assessment of consensus will always be "just a single voice" because any admin is only one person at a time. Other than that, I don't feel further discussion of this with you will be productive. Feel free to help yourself to the last word.
- Mark has clarified his statement (below) and I understood him correctly. Will you be restoring the article to the status quo ante by removing the tag now?
- Please could somebody explain which rule was invoked when deciding to unilaterally remove the NPOV tag? Despite reams of conversation on the matter above, I am yet to see which rule it was that overrode the "do not remove this tag.....". And whatever the rule is, it also raises the question that if the tag is subject to unilateral removal by one or two people who don't agree with it, before any debate has been had, what is the point in having the tag? — Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The specific line that justifies its removal is It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
My view is that the issue is whether there's justification for adding the tag in the first place. Per the NPOV template instructions I've pointed out, plus the other comments here, there isn't.
Zad6818:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)- I asked you this before, I'll ask it again. How are you justified in removing a NPOV template from an article that has an on going NPOV discussion at the NPOV noticeboard THAT YOU AND Jmh649 ARE ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN? ScienceApe (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- To clarify my position above since I've been mentioned again, I believe there is currently a consensus about how to present the information at the circumcision page. Consensus is on the side of those who want the article to adhere to WP:MEDRS-best practices. Hans and ScienceApe found consensus against them, and want the article tagged to register their disapproval. This is improper--and it's not ADMINABUSE to point that out. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Utter nonsense, you made that remark only hours after I even made the NPOV discussion at NPOV noticeboard in the first place. The discussion is still ongoing. ScienceApe (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Unless someone can link to a diff where SA or Hans have stated they wish to tag to express disapproval, how can someone possibly know what they want? I thought the purpose of the tag was to attract discussion. If that's the case, what's the harm in letting the tag sit for a day or two? NE Ent 22:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
User:John Reaves has protected circumcision and prevented any user from adding the NPOV template to the article. When I questioned his wisdom in this, he flippantly responded as follows: Oops, I protected the wrong version. and That's the point. What is the issue here?. He added the protection despite the fact that no one had been making content changes to the article. He's abusing his admin powers to prevent anyone from adding a NPOV template to the article when there is an on-going NPOV discussion at NPOV noticeboard. ScienceApe (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please be sure to notify John that you're involving him in this AN discussion, you may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so.
Zad6821:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)- Way ahead of you. ScienceApe (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Admins generally protect the current version of an article, it's nothing personal. Again, not ADMINABUSE!!!! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- He betrayed his motives with the remarks he made. ScienceApe (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- ScienceApe, have considered that your mind reading abilities may be of better use outside of Wikipedia? -- John Reaves 21:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- What the..?? John is an uninvolved admin who was patrolling WP:RFPP and responded to my request here.
Zad6821:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- He betrayed his motives with the remarks he made. ScienceApe (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry. This is normal. Just accept that there is nothing we can do to move this article to NPOV. Wikipedia is dominated by American males, an incredible proportion of whom is circumcised, often not even for religious reasons. That comes on top of the self-selection bias from which the topic suffers anyway. And of course the technical medical literature, which is biased. The latter because in the US it is written by people who circumcise, and outside (at least in the languages accessible to me) it's not a big topic at all. Yet. Expect things to change once the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany have had their say on the recent legalisation of infant circumcision, which puts parents' religious freedom above their babies' right to physical integrity. They are not going to like this, but it will take many years for a case to reach them.
- For some reason, the 'wrong version' on which an article is protected is almost always the non-fringe one when there is fringe POV pushing. That's fine. But for the same reason the 'wrong version' on which this article is protected will almost always be the more POV one. Not good, but it's no use trying to stop a river. Hans Adler 21:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hans Adler adult white US Males have a very high proportion of circumcision, but religion is not generally the direct cause. Outside of the Jews and Muslims which may do so as a religious obligation, the rest are "medical". Now, one may certainly debate that that "medical" logic of "cleanliness" etc was influenced by morality several decades ago to try and reduce masturbation, but second level effects like that are difficult to trace. At the time of my birth (mid 70s) it was pretty much an automatic action by the doctors, without even notifying or asking the parents (which my European father was quite upset about). Now it is a much more deliberate decision. When my son was born they were very clear about asking if we wanted it or not, and providing (what I consider neutral) pro/con literature, including the common european POV of sensitivity loss and the information about minor protection from some cancers etc. My understanding is that rates are falling off dramatically, and in a generation I would expect the proportions to be quite different. My understanding is also that in the black community, the rates already dropped off 10-20 years ago. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Source discussion
So, as far as I am able to decipher, ScienceApe has provided no sources that justify the POV claim, discussion or tag, but plenty of charges of corrupt admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Read this and this and this, and then tell me with a straight face that the article properly reflects a global view on circumcision and covers all aspects of the topic with due weight. Hans Adler 23:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Belongs at the NPOV message board, or at the article talk page. Which is where the information was requested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I already listed a long list of concerns over there under its own heading. Here is where you implicitly denied that they are there, by focusing only on ScienceApe. Maybe Jmh649's trick ("I could go through these one by one but we have already", followed by a comment that will cause severe digression if I respond) made you think they have been properly addressed already. Hans Adler 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I challenged you to maintain that the article is neutral after reading these 3 sources. Instead, over at NPOV/N, you claimed that the first source is in Dutch (it's in English), claimed that all three sources are too long to read, and asked a set of questions which you afterwards revised implicitly as a question for specific change proposals and fully cited opinions rather than quick summaries: "As suspected (got a long answer above with no proposed text, and no sources backing opinion)."
- Stop this gaming. Hans Adler 00:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Belongs at the NPOV message board, or at the article talk page. Which is where the information was requested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Read this and this and this, and then tell me with a straight face that the article properly reflects a global view on circumcision and covers all aspects of the topic with due weight. Hans Adler 23:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Asking WikiProject Medicine (and its members and enablers) to stop "gaming" is tantamount to shutting down their pet project. The only thing that's going to make an impact is starting an RfC or an arbcom case. The project is involved in so many concurrent controversies it would be an easy task. They have basically rewritten site-wide policies and guidelines to suit their own local agenda (WP:MEDRS) and they will attack and revert any editor who challenges them. While I can respect and understand their personalized battle against pseudoscience, they have taken to rallying the pitchforks and torches against anyone (and any source) who challenges the incessant stream of propaganda coming from the medical-pharmaceutical-industrial complex. This has devolved from a well intentioned, good faith effort to fight ignorance and pseudoscience into an organized jihad led by the priests of scientism that has crept into every aspect of the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that this case is ripe for ArbCom. petrarchan47tc 04:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree as well. ScienceApe (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that this case is ripe for ArbCom. petrarchan47tc 04:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Hans Adler: I am (still) attempting to understand what the dispute is, your long posts over there likewise gave no sources, and as the discussion there showed, ScienceApe has still not answered my question about the nature of the dispute backed by reliable sources.[33] You supplied sources here, which forks the content discussion. The discussion there shows your sources have either been addressed or don't hold up.[34] The discussion of the sources and content is still over there, where it belongs. The issue here is that there seem to be some conduct issues.
@ Viriditas, a similar situation with Cannabis, where you want to argue from primary sources, when there are scores of secondary sources available.
In both cases, if admins would read talk pages, they might address some troubling behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've done nothing of the kind, but once again, you keep making false accusations. You and your project have attempted to falsely portray cannabis as a dangerous drug that threatens mental and physiological health by manipulating and cherry picking poor and biased sources. That you folks are doing this across the encyclopedia in multiple topic areas appears to be the underlying complaint, but please, continue to try and deflect your attempts at skewing articles by blaming editors for "troubling behaviors". Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- And again, a review of those talk pages will reveal who is "cherry picking" or using "biased sources". Um, since I started this section with my post, please do not remove my subhead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, a review of the sources indicates that you and the project are deliberately misusing them to push a POV. Like the claim that medical cannabis causes physiological disorders. I requested that source and reviewed it, and found nothing whatsoever supporting that claim. This is par for the course. You guys are pushing an agenda and misusing sources. And you are tag team reverting to promote your versions. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I believe I have access now to almost every source discussed; by all means, if someone has misrepresented a source, raise that on talk and I will provide quotes if I have the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, a review of the sources indicates that you and the project are deliberately misusing them to push a POV. Like the claim that medical cannabis causes physiological disorders. I requested that source and reviewed it, and found nothing whatsoever supporting that claim. This is par for the course. You guys are pushing an agenda and misusing sources. And you are tag team reverting to promote your versions. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- And again, a review of those talk pages will reveal who is "cherry picking" or using "biased sources". Um, since I started this section with my post, please do not remove my subhead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've done nothing of the kind, but once again, you keep making false accusations. You and your project have attempted to falsely portray cannabis as a dangerous drug that threatens mental and physiological health by manipulating and cherry picking poor and biased sources. That you folks are doing this across the encyclopedia in multiple topic areas appears to be the underlying complaint, but please, continue to try and deflect your attempts at skewing articles by blaming editors for "troubling behaviors". Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Asking WikiProject Medicine (and its members and enablers) to stop "gaming" is tantamount to shutting down their pet project. The only thing that's going to make an impact is starting an RfC or an arbcom case. The project is involved in so many concurrent controversies it would be an easy task. They have basically rewritten site-wide policies and guidelines to suit their own local agenda (WP:MEDRS) and they will attack and revert any editor who challenges them. While I can respect and understand their personalized battle against pseudoscience, they have taken to rallying the pitchforks and torches against anyone (and any source) who challenges the incessant stream of propaganda coming from the medical-pharmaceutical-industrial complex. This has devolved from a well intentioned, good faith effort to fight ignorance and pseudoscience into an organized jihad led by the priests of scientism that has crept into every aspect of the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is the second time Viriditas has altered the section heading of the section I started; please stop.
I have made a third request for sources at the NPOV noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is the second time Viriditas has altered the section heading of the section I started; please stop.
[Edit conflict]I agree with Sandy here: much can be gleaned from a look at these talk pages. A review of the talk page at Schizophrenia, for instance, shows that although MEDRS says "The nature of the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis is complex and remains unclear", the WikiProject Medicine team (or, "PM") decided to ignore these reviews, as is revealed here, and to ignore information about conflicting evidence or beneficial effects from cannabis, mentioning only positive "links" and "association"s in the article (from 2007 & 2009) sans context. The important context from MEDRS is that a causal relationship has not been proven (from 2013 & 2010). This MEDRS was supposedly the PM's entire driving motivation, but when presented with evidence that went contrary to a particular narrative, it was ignored. Edits showing negative effects, for instance with regard to cannabis and pregnancy, were made in a frenzy while this new context waited (and still waits) to be added to the Schizophrenia article. There is a strong and obvious bend toward adding negative effects and eliminating or ignoring neutral and positive effects from the entire suite of cannabis articles by the PM team. petrarchan47tc 03:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting summary. There is, btw, an edit pending on schizophrenia (that everyone agreed to on talk and RexxS summarized per multiple secondary reviews) that hasn't yet been made only because there was a troublesome (now blocked) editor on that page.
You might have more simply posted a reminder that the consensus edit hasn't yet been made; much more effective usually than walls of text, as we've discussed before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Here are before and after diffs for a few of the articles:
- Current: Medical Cannabis > long-standing version (pre Project Medicine)
- Current: Cannabis (drug) > long-standing version
- Current: Effects of cannabis > long-standing version
- Current: Long-term effects of cannabis > long-standing version petrarchan47tc 04:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't work on these but at first glance the organization and sourcing were both much improved. I see old primary sources and quotes from individuals have been replaced with up to date secondary sources. The focus isn't on making sure negative things are said, but rather that the best quality sources are used and represented well. How did this turn into a general referendum on WP:MEDICINE anyway??
Zad6804:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't work on these but at first glance the organization and sourcing were both much improved. I see old primary sources and quotes from individuals have been replaced with up to date secondary sources. The focus isn't on making sure negative things are said, but rather that the best quality sources are used and represented well. How did this turn into a general referendum on WP:MEDICINE anyway??
- Agree this has got off-topic, but it worth looking at the "long-standing versions" of the cannabis articles being touted here for a scandalous example of Wikipedia at its very worst, delivering a massive payload of bogus health information to the unsuspecting reader (cannabis is known to treat brain cancer ... right). The claims made were supported - if at all - by very poor sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. The fact that people use cannabis to treat brain cancer is an incontrovertible fact. 40% of patients use cannabis or some other alternative treatment to treat their brain cancer.[35] The anti-cancer effects of THC are well known, so that isn't in dispute. Whether cannabis actually works or not is an entirely different topic. Again, we see WikiProject Medicine confusing facts about how a drug is used (verified) with its efficacy (unknown, unproven). And the reason we don't have an answer is because 90% of cannabis studies amount to either a regurgitation of archaic anti-drug propaganda funded by the government, a solitary narrow focus on inconsequential negative effects (dude, where's my car?), or an inability to study the drug in depth due to research constraints imposed by governments. This is a solid historical fact verified in any reputable article or book about cannabis. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- What Wikipedia had was: "It is well established that the cannabinoids present in cannabis are effective treatments for gliomas". That you can't even acknowledge the problem pretty much says it all. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I addressed exactly what you said in this discussion. I did not, however, address the subsequent strawman that you added after I addressed the discussion, which I will of course, address now. The statement, "It is well established that the cannabinoids present in cannabis are effective treatments for gliomas", appears to be based on the published literature and research performed by Complutense University of Madrid and GW Pharmaceuticals. What "problem" is it that I am supposed to acknowledge? Stop making shit up, please, and stop wasting my time with inane comments that go absolutely nowhere. "What Wikipedia had" has no bearing on this discussion. We are discussing the tag team revert warring behavior of WikiProject Medicine, not what some stoner added to an article. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that there is a 'fight' shows that not everyone has a neutral interest in MEDRS and adding information to the encyclopedia, as opposed to pruning articles into mere shrubs, as with Medical cannabis, then patrolling them so that only Project Medicine team members can participate without being reverted. Someone really interested in working on the page, and interested in MEDRS could add: "THC, the main active component of marijuana, induces human glioma cell death through stimulation of autophagy" JCI 37948. I gave the Project the benefit of the doubt at first, but do not see any indication this effort is really about building neutral encyclopedic articles. petrarchan47tc 21:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- ... anybody adding that would be introducing misleading information through using a poor source (so would not have read and/or understood MEDRS). The implications of having this text in an article on the long-term effects of cannabis would amount to the most cavalier kind of OR. An editor would do better to heed MEDRS and use a high-quality secondary (review) source, say PMID 18088200, maybe quoting: "With regard to cannabinoids, at present, they have shown notable antitumor activity in different animal models of glioma, but their possible antitumor effects in patients have not been well established. The only human clinical trial on gliomas that has been conducted attempted to confirm whether THC has potential as a therapeutic agent [73] . However, the results were inconclusive and did not outline in an unequivocal manner the real advantage of cannabinoid use." In other word, the medical reality as reported in reliable sources is 180° opposed to the statements made in the version of the article you seem so keen on. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 22:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your work on the Medical Cannabis page changed the hard work of multiple editors and spun it entirely: with two edits. One can find a wide array of cannabis studies to support a favoured conclusion, though mostly the conclusions state that causation is rarely found. Your team came in with an obvious anti-herb POV and found studies to prove it. "Supporters" can also find ample studies to support their POV. The previous versions of the articles needed a lot of work, but they did have the advantage of allowing the reader access to both sides of the issue. The studies and wording left behind after PM's hostile takeover shows a strong POV as well as a near-complete lack of knowledge about the subject. I brought in a cannabinoid researcher to help me look at the science, since I didn't see any experts working on the articles and since your team has experts in alopathic, rather than herbal medicine. However, I was told this was canvassing, and a banner is now at the top of cannabis talk pages warning folks who may have been asked to join the conversation. I noticed this paranoia is being used to literally ignore editors who question the cherry-picking. I truthfully expected your team to embrace the cannabinoid researcher and use him to help with your work. Instead, Sandy used my talk page to canvass for anti-Petrarchan47 editors, to initiate an RfC about me. Alexbrn has reverted me at every opportunity (except today, I might add, now that folks are watching).
- ... anybody adding that would be introducing misleading information through using a poor source (so would not have read and/or understood MEDRS). The implications of having this text in an article on the long-term effects of cannabis would amount to the most cavalier kind of OR. An editor would do better to heed MEDRS and use a high-quality secondary (review) source, say PMID 18088200, maybe quoting: "With regard to cannabinoids, at present, they have shown notable antitumor activity in different animal models of glioma, but their possible antitumor effects in patients have not been well established. The only human clinical trial on gliomas that has been conducted attempted to confirm whether THC has potential as a therapeutic agent [73] . However, the results were inconclusive and did not outline in an unequivocal manner the real advantage of cannabinoid use." In other word, the medical reality as reported in reliable sources is 180° opposed to the statements made in the version of the article you seem so keen on. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 22:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that there is a 'fight' shows that not everyone has a neutral interest in MEDRS and adding information to the encyclopedia, as opposed to pruning articles into mere shrubs, as with Medical cannabis, then patrolling them so that only Project Medicine team members can participate without being reverted. Someone really interested in working on the page, and interested in MEDRS could add: "THC, the main active component of marijuana, induces human glioma cell death through stimulation of autophagy" JCI 37948. I gave the Project the benefit of the doubt at first, but do not see any indication this effort is really about building neutral encyclopedic articles. petrarchan47tc 21:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I addressed exactly what you said in this discussion. I did not, however, address the subsequent strawman that you added after I addressed the discussion, which I will of course, address now. The statement, "It is well established that the cannabinoids present in cannabis are effective treatments for gliomas", appears to be based on the published literature and research performed by Complutense University of Madrid and GW Pharmaceuticals. What "problem" is it that I am supposed to acknowledge? Stop making shit up, please, and stop wasting my time with inane comments that go absolutely nowhere. "What Wikipedia had" has no bearing on this discussion. We are discussing the tag team revert warring behavior of WikiProject Medicine, not what some stoner added to an article. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- What Wikipedia had was: "It is well established that the cannabinoids present in cannabis are effective treatments for gliomas". That you can't even acknowledge the problem pretty much says it all. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. The fact that people use cannabis to treat brain cancer is an incontrovertible fact. 40% of patients use cannabis or some other alternative treatment to treat their brain cancer.[35] The anti-cancer effects of THC are well known, so that isn't in dispute. Whether cannabis actually works or not is an entirely different topic. Again, we see WikiProject Medicine confusing facts about how a drug is used (verified) with its efficacy (unknown, unproven). And the reason we don't have an answer is because 90% of cannabis studies amount to either a regurgitation of archaic anti-drug propaganda funded by the government, a solitary narrow focus on inconsequential negative effects (dude, where's my car?), or an inability to study the drug in depth due to research constraints imposed by governments. This is a solid historical fact verified in any reputable article or book about cannabis. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agree this has got off-topic, but it worth looking at the "long-standing versions" of the cannabis articles being touted here for a scandalous example of Wikipedia at its very worst, delivering a massive payload of bogus health information to the unsuspecting reader (cannabis is known to treat brain cancer ... right). The claims made were supported - if at all - by very poor sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Project Medicine team decided to paste to the Lede remarks from a review even though the content was not covered in the body. The Lede went from this to this, and finally, because that wasn't negative enough, to this. I was reverted by Alex who said my MEDRS-supported claims about research were not supported by the body, whilst in the same edit, he left Project Medicine's version on the page, which was guilty of the same thing; there was no discussion of liver damage in the article, and indeed organ damage from cannabis is unheard of. Without a discussion of why cannabis affected those with Hep C, the reader is left with a deluded impression of the cause. (Science shows cannabinoids are protective of the liver. I asked for more understanding of this science from the biochemist and he states: "The article says generally that cannabinoids prevent and treat liver injury. The only exception mentioned is that of a heavy cannabis user with chronic hepatitis C. In this case cannabinoids may exacerbate liver fibrogenesis. An alternate explanation might be that cannabinoids could cause immunosuppression if CB2 activation is suppressed. So you could say that cannabinoids are protective of the liver except in the rare case of heavy cannabis use in a hepatitis C patient.") petrarchan47tc 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- All I am getting out of this discussion is that petrarchan47 has a significantly different view about sourcing. To pick one example, the editsummary of the second of the first two edits by Alexbrn that petrarchan47 cited says "replace a bunch of weakly sourced stuff with stuff sourced to two strong secondaries" and that's exactly what happened. Before it was sourced to a "News & Opinion" article in a magazine, a newspaper article, a popular press article in "The Inquisitr" (?) reporting on a single primary research study, and this primary research retrospective study. After Alexbrn's edit the content is sourced to this systematic review published in the journal of the Canadian Medical Association and this medical toxicology reference book by Donald G Barceloux. Barceloux has a lot of letters after his name: MD, AACT (American Academy of Clinical Toxicology), FACMT (Fellow of the American College of Medical Toxicology), FACEP (Fellow of the American College of Emergency Physicians) and is a well-published toxicologist, see these for example. The improvement in the sourcing in Alexbrn's edit is off the charts. If petrarchan47 is calling out this kind of edit as an example of the terrible things WP:MED project members are doing to articles, I don't even know what to say, we're not even on the same planet on this.
Zad6803:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC- Is that all you're getting? Did you miss the edits to the Lede about liver damage? You have missed my overarching point, so I will state it again: there is science all over the map with regard to cannabis. Therefore, those with a strong POV and a limited amount of research are likely to fall into a trap by showing which studies/claims they choose to highlight. I am not arguing that prior sourcing was appropriate or preferable, but that the MEDRS chosen to replace it, and the wording of the presentation, is very obviously cherry-picked and not a neutral, overall view of the topic. There was a lot of information thrown away in those reverts, some of it historic and widely considered an important part of the medical cannabis story. Also, editors wanting to fix this problem are being reverted regardless of having MEDRS to back them up. And this is being done by a team of influential, prolific and tightly-knit editors leaving ArbCom, in my mind, the only real solution. Ultimately, we are adults writing encyclopedia pages for adults. We should add more, not less, information about this topic, and work together to look at all the science, and come up with a good, balanced review of the research available. The team seems to attack pages about alternative medicine but I am not sure how much attention legal opioids and their consequences are receiving. petrarchan47tc 04:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Another example of cherry-picking to arrive at the opposite conclusion as MEDRS: is here. In actuality, "The strongest evidence for the health benefits of medical marijuana or its derivatives involves the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and the spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis." This statement from NYT can be substantiated by a quick search of PUBMED, like here and here and here. Project Medicine also claimed that people had died from shooting up hash oil, removing mention that the cases of hash-oil deaths were in rats, and apparently not fact-checking whether cannabis-oil junkies is a thing. Also, the confounding factor of oil in the bloodstream was overlooked in the desire to make the subject seem dangerous. petrarchan47tc 05:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yet another. In this edit, Sandy removed a ton of information about the healing effects of cannabinoids, saying "we don't need this in two places", and leaving a link to the medical cannabis article which has only one sentence about the patent, saying simply that it exists, thereby removing this information from the Pedia with a very misleading edit summary. petrarchan47tc 05:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- All I am getting out of this discussion is that petrarchan47 has a significantly different view about sourcing. To pick one example, the editsummary of the second of the first two edits by Alexbrn that petrarchan47 cited says "replace a bunch of weakly sourced stuff with stuff sourced to two strong secondaries" and that's exactly what happened. Before it was sourced to a "News & Opinion" article in a magazine, a newspaper article, a popular press article in "The Inquisitr" (?) reporting on a single primary research study, and this primary research retrospective study. After Alexbrn's edit the content is sourced to this systematic review published in the journal of the Canadian Medical Association and this medical toxicology reference book by Donald G Barceloux. Barceloux has a lot of letters after his name: MD, AACT (American Academy of Clinical Toxicology), FACMT (Fellow of the American College of Medical Toxicology), FACEP (Fellow of the American College of Emergency Physicians) and is a well-published toxicologist, see these for example. The improvement in the sourcing in Alexbrn's edit is off the charts. If petrarchan47 is calling out this kind of edit as an example of the terrible things WP:MED project members are doing to articles, I don't even know what to say, we're not even on the same planet on this.
- The Project Medicine team decided to paste to the Lede remarks from a review even though the content was not covered in the body. The Lede went from this to this, and finally, because that wasn't negative enough, to this. I was reverted by Alex who said my MEDRS-supported claims about research were not supported by the body, whilst in the same edit, he left Project Medicine's version on the page, which was guilty of the same thing; there was no discussion of liver damage in the article, and indeed organ damage from cannabis is unheard of. Without a discussion of why cannabis affected those with Hep C, the reader is left with a deluded impression of the cause. (Science shows cannabinoids are protective of the liver. I asked for more understanding of this science from the biochemist and he states: "The article says generally that cannabinoids prevent and treat liver injury. The only exception mentioned is that of a heavy cannabis user with chronic hepatitis C. In this case cannabinoids may exacerbate liver fibrogenesis. An alternate explanation might be that cannabinoids could cause immunosuppression if CB2 activation is suppressed. So you could say that cannabinoids are protective of the liver except in the rare case of heavy cannabis use in a hepatitis C patient.") petrarchan47tc 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
As we seem to have arrived at general grievances with WikiProject Medicine: While I can't speak on cannabis as I haven't made any research on that, I am under the impression that some influential people have seriously problematic blinders on. Perhaps more instructive due to the sheer absurdity and the absence of any plausible political motivation, is the project's reaction to a move from Epidemiology of teenage pregnancy to the neutral title Rates of teenage pregnancy.
Apparently, some editors really believe that terminological fashions among medical scientists trump NPOV concerns to the extent that it doesn't matter when we create the impression that teenage pregnancy is a health problem. (Child pregnancy is a health problem. Teenage pregnancy is only a social problem, and has only become one recently and only in the industrialised world.) See WT:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 31#Epidemiology of teenage pregnancy article moved to Rates of teenage pregnancy for that old discussion. Stonewalling and closing of ranks made it way too hard to come to the compromise title. Writing for the enemy is all well, but finding a compromise with a party that refuses to cooperate or accept obviously valid concerns requires way too much mind-reading to be practicable. Hans Adler 09:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's gone far beyond that point. The project works well as a group but when they run into any kind of resistance, they become tag team revert warriors for The Truth. WP:MEDRS is only a guideline formed by local project consensus, but they are using it to trump the site-wide policies and guidelines. They have unilaterally redefined the notion of a reliable source while at the same time, placing local restraints on how sources can be used and when they can't. Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
So, the argument I'm seeing as to why removing the NPOV template was justified, is that its placement is merely a disruptive tactic used by a small minority of users who did not get their way in some previously held rigorous debate. Which I would certainly accept as valid if that debate had indeed been held, and if it could be shown that those users' concerns had been clearly shown (by WP:CONSENSUS, and by RFC/ArbCom if necessary) to have been quashed to the satisfaction of the community at large. Has such a debate been had in the case of the neutrality concerns on the circumcision article? If so, please could someone post a link to the final outcome? Conversely, if that final debate has not been had, I see no reason why the editors concerned should not be permitted to put the NPOV notice and allow the debate to be argued out per due process, and escalated up the dispute resolution process if no firm consensus can be reached. — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- One of User:Hans Adler's concerns regarding neutrality as stated on Jan 8th, 2014 is "The more politically correct term male genital mutilation is never used or mentioned even once in the article".[36] I asked for a reliable source to back this up a few hours latter [37] and am still waiting for a reply. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Amakuru, I'm wondering how this "debate" will proceed if we can't get reliable sources to support POVs not given due weight in the article; I've requested them three times at the NPOV noticeboard. I believe it's right for debate to escalate when reliable sources have been presented; I'm concerned that an article can be tagged by participants who haven't yet presented a reliable source in response to my queries. In fact, I still don't know what the proposed additions are, missing text or underrepresented sources are, which makes it hard to present a solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- STOP STRAWMANNING THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE ARTICLE. I gave a response to your request, I have the same answer for you here. ScienceApe (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- ScienceApe, your mileage may vary, but one way of approaching POV disputes is to say, "Here is the content that is missing, misrepresented, not given due weight, whatever, and here is the reliable source upon which it is based". If you would do that, some of us might understand what it is you are disputing; in fact, we might even be able to address the concerns if we knew what they were. It would also help if you would remove all the discussions of different argument kinds, strawman, logical fallacy, etc from your posts, because whatever point it is that you want to make is being lost in your arguments about the arguments. For a discussion of POV to go anywhere, it needs to be based on sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Stop pontificating. Pointing out the logical fallacies that you, Zad, and Jmh have been making is to demonstrate that your rebuttals have no validity. SandyGeorgia is dishonestly and deliberately obfuscating the issue by strawmanning my arguments and trying to derail the discussion to chase a red herring. ScienceApe (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest, I think the problem might be on your end. Since a number of experienced editors are rejecting your arguments, I think you should consider the possibilities that you're not communicating your ideas well or you're not understanding the sources and guidelines as well as the editors with more experience in the subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Stop pontificating. Pointing out the logical fallacies that you, Zad, and Jmh have been making is to demonstrate that your rebuttals have no validity. SandyGeorgia is dishonestly and deliberately obfuscating the issue by strawmanning my arguments and trying to derail the discussion to chase a red herring. ScienceApe (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- ScienceApe, your mileage may vary, but one way of approaching POV disputes is to say, "Here is the content that is missing, misrepresented, not given due weight, whatever, and here is the reliable source upon which it is based". If you would do that, some of us might understand what it is you are disputing; in fact, we might even be able to address the concerns if we knew what they were. It would also help if you would remove all the discussions of different argument kinds, strawman, logical fallacy, etc from your posts, because whatever point it is that you want to make is being lost in your arguments about the arguments. For a discussion of POV to go anywhere, it needs to be based on sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- STOP STRAWMANNING THE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE ARTICLE. I gave a response to your request, I have the same answer for you here. ScienceApe (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
But the argument isn't over the removal of a well-supported placement of an article-wide tag, as there never was consensus to add it to start with. The argument is over whether there's support for the addition of the tag in the first place. It's for the reasons that Sandy points out that I feel the prerequisites (as documented at {{NPOV}}) to support the initial placement of the article-wide tag were never met. Otherwise—to elaborate on what Johnuniq pointed out above—any dedicated POV-pusher (in the general case) could slap an article-wide tag (or several of them) on as many articles as they wished and they'd all have to be there until that POV-pusher got bored with adding comments to the Talk page. We'd probably end up with multiple immovable article-wide tags on a majority of our most-read articles. In this case, as the stated goal of the tag is clearly being fulfilled, it simply isn't necessary to have it added.
Zad6814:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)- If addition of the POV tag required a consensus, we might as well delete it, as it would only ever be applicable in those rare situations in which all factions agree it's a bad version, just not on how to fix it. (Or in this rare kind of situation.) Once it is on an article it can only be removed if (1) there is a consensus to remove it, or (2) it's obvious there will be such a consensus because there are no valid concerns.
- You appear to be removing it based on something like (2), but the problem here is that you and Jmh649 (the editor signing as Doc James) appear to have a very biased view of which information is medical as opposed to political, sociological etc., and appear to have redefined the meaning of "reliable source" as things appearing in PUBMED, even for statements that are not medical claims. And consequently your assessment of what is or is not a valid POV concern is totally off.
- A key fact that you guys seem unable to grasp: MEDRS applies, by necessity, to medical claims in all articles, not to all claims in medical articles. Same principle as for BLP. Initially MEDRS, just like BLP, was misleadingly formulated so as to imply otherwise. This was fixed by universal consensus after I brought the problem up in 2010, see WT:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 3#Scope of this guideline. Hans Adler 18:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed the team has taken ownership over what can be included in the cannabis articles even when the content had nothing to do with medical claims. Like here, where "sweeping claims" cannot be attributed to CNN (?). The claims seem 'sweeping' simply because the Project Medicine team has not done their homework. petrarchan47tc 23:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
There are some issues with this deletion request here, as I strongly suggest a lot of the multiple IP-adresses and newly created accounts are only voting against deletion because they have been rallied on a forum to do so. They are asking people to vote on this to prevent said article from being deleted, even when it has been long established to be pseudo-scientific nonsense from Brian G. Gilmartin's loveshy-theory. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
This person is once again lying for his/her own ideological benefit. All the editors and voters on that discussion except me have multiple edits on other issues and their accounts have been around for a long time. The second lie is that the term involuntary celibacy was invented by Brian G Gilmartin. This is not true and this editor will always be unable to prove it. Gilmartin invented the term love-shyness and had nothing to do with the term incel.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I was talking about the fact that you are actively campaigning for keeping the page, and there have been several IP-adresses voting to keep the page from being deleted. This to me is very suspicious and since there are several online forums dedicated to these (nonsense) terms, I got more then a little suspicious. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- An admin will review the AFD upon closing, and discount non-policy based !votes, and also discount possible socks. Accusing someone of "lying" is not very nice ES&L 11:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is a link to the recruiting (affecting both the involuntary celibacy AFD and the Brian G. Gilmartin AFD). Because love shy dot com is blacklisted, you'll have to remove the spaces.
- http://www.love-shy.com/lsbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24171
Could someone add notice of the recruiting on both of the AFD pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- And another blog post (the blogger seems to be claiming to be User:MalleusMaleficarum1486). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I added nowiki tags around the blacklisted URL and removed the spaces. That allows it to appear as text without a link. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Uninvolvededitor This really doesn't seem like a matter for AN; the {{notavote}} tag at the top of the AfD should suffice. Even so, although I am neutral about the subject's notability, I don't know if the {{notavote}} tag is necessary after all because several of the "keep" !votes are from established users. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 03:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I added nowiki tags around the blacklisted URL and removed the spaces. That allows it to appear as text without a link. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Legal threat
Pretty unambiguous legal threat from an IP claiming to represent Toll Brothers (though the IP's based in Belgium, for whatever that's worth). Since the image in question has been (very sensibly) temporarily removed from the article, and per WP:DOLT I haven't blocked the IP (though I've no complaint if another admin feels it should be blocked), but I thought it might be something worth discussing here. Yunshui 雲水 15:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure why you would classify the removal as a "sensible" response to a legal threat made by a random IP. The WMF has lawyers to deal with this. Unless they say so, this is a simple case of fair use covered by Wikipedia:Logos. --NeilN talk to me 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The IP has been blocked and the logo restored (neither by me). US Trademark law is clar, a trademark owner cannot prevent others from using the trademark to identify the products and services when discussing them, even negatively, provided that the person using the trademark does not attempt to pretend to be the owner, nor to trade on the good will or reputation associated with the mark, nor publish anything likely to confuse the public as to who or what goods or services the mark represents. DES (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Aside from hoping that the company hire counsel that has heard of nominative use before, I suppose that someone could help the IP by posting a link on his user talk page that describes how to file a proper takedown notice, rather than making his alleged employer look silly by stuffing it into the middle of the article.
- But along those lines, it's possible that the IP isn't the lawyer whose name is given. It's possible that this was posted by someone who (perhaps legitimately) received that boilerplate letter, and is trying to publicly shame the company. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Note that 109.202.157.221 (from Denmark) has now started posting the exact same message. Yunshui 雲水 14:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Please return original talk back
Anasnetworker appeared to be a promotion-only account and has been blocked indefinitely by Nyttend who also restored the relevant talk page messages. Any older revisions can be retrieved from that page's history. De728631 (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User talk:Anasnetworker need some return because there are newer talk and user has been modified his own talk page with wrong year and something else.--Musamies (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure what the problem is? Nothing has been removed from Anasnetworker's talkpage. Did you mean his userpage? I have blanked it as advertising. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC).
- Musamies means [38]. User:Nyttend fixed the dating issues. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Interlink
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to report this request. Thanks for the attention, --Horcrux92 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, as far as I understand it, you can and should remove the wikilinks, they have been superseded by Wikidata. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC).
sanctions warning log idea
Based on some recent discussions on ANI regarding warnings for discretionary sanctions, and actively applied sanctions, I have created the following thread as a solution to the problems with the current situation. As this would change Admin workflow slightly for sanctions and warnings, it may be of interest to those here. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Sanctions.2FAEwarnings.2Ftopic_ban_log.2Fpage Gaijin42 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
RfC on usage of Pending Changes level 2
Please comment at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Request for deletion of incorrect image upload
While uploading a series of nonfree images, I accidentally uploaded one twice, then overwrote it. A duplicate copy of a nonfree image therefore remains at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/0/07/20140109025247!ArtieSimek1964.jpg . I believe it should be deleted under NFCC, but can't figure out an efficient way to request that. Correct file and original upload displayed at File:ArtieSimek1964.jpg. Thanx. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think I just did what was needed. I'm not very experienced with images and I'm afraid I can't tell you how it should have been requested so I'll leave this thread open for now in the hopes someone will be able to offer directions for next time and confirm I took care of it properly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yep, all looks good from a technical perspective, and it's definitely a good situation for G7 author-requested deletion. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a way within a G7 nom to specify that the uploader wants the previous file version to be deleted, and not the file entirely? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- You mean using the template? I don't think so. Either you have to ask an admin directly (whether via a user talk message, or a request here), or you could tag the page with {{db|see talk page}} and then explain on the talk page what's needed. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mk. I just thought there would/should be some template that'd flag the file with a request to delete a prior version, I guess. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I guess you were looking for {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}. De728631 (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that works fine, except that it takes several days. We have no such waiting period for a G7 request; I meant that as far as I know, there's no way to bring the page to the attention of administrators immediately, except by making a custom request somehow. It's definitely not a common enough situation to warrant a separate template; the uses would be so rare that we'd forget about it between uses. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I guess you were looking for {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}. De728631 (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mk. I just thought there would/should be some template that'd flag the file with a request to delete a prior version, I guess. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- You mean using the template? I don't think so. Either you have to ask an admin directly (whether via a user talk message, or a request here), or you could tag the page with {{db|see talk page}} and then explain on the talk page what's needed. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a way within a G7 nom to specify that the uploader wants the previous file version to be deleted, and not the file entirely? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yep, all looks good from a technical perspective, and it's definitely a good situation for G7 author-requested deletion. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Point taken. But you could still use {{db-reason}} and write some specific rationale into it. De728631 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's one way of doing a "custom request"; the thing I proposed and a note at this page are also workable kinds of custom requests. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
3 templates
3 templates:
are generally duplicating themselves. Is any any *good* reason to keep 3 single templates instead of 1, fully described? The last one mentiod seems to be best of them (as for technical arrangement view). 149.156.172.74 (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- You would have to discuss that on the talkpage of the templates themselves ES&L 14:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- All were created by the same user; I've left a note asking if there were a need to have them separate. Unless the creator supplies a rationale that makes sense to me, I'll probably take them to Templates for Merging. Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- The place for such a pre-TFM discussion would be on the talk page of one of them, linked to from the other 2. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- All were created by the same user; I've left a note asking if there were a need to have them separate. Unless the creator supplies a rationale that makes sense to me, I'll probably take them to Templates for Merging. Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Personal information on WP
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ResolvedAt Talk:Indian general election, 2014, an IP has posted personal information on the page. I have removed it from the talk page but it is still in th e history links. Theres not issue here to block or anything but I believe it was a policy not to have this on WP. Just bringing to notice here to delete it if need be, if not doesn't bother. Also as such theres no one to notify.Lihaas (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. In the future I would recommend contacting the oversight team about posting personal information. Mike V • Talk 03:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Ancient Egypt
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized with immediate effect for all pages relating to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles, broadly construed. This supersedes the existing article probation remedy enacted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation. This motion does not affect any actions presently in effect that were taken in enforcement of the old article probation remedy.
For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 02:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)