Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AN)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than six days are
archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

  • Issues appropriate for this page include general announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.
The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion


Requests for closure[edit]

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Administrative discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:HOUND[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:HOUND (Initiated 23 days ago on 30 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel (Initiated 28 days ago on 25 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line[edit]


Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy (2nd request)[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy (Initiated 116 days ago on 27 January 2017)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added a part of the overall discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Concrete_proposal_1, separately below. Without comment on what the results should be, I believe that the overall discussion will be difficult to close, but that Concrete proposal 1, should be very easy to close, and, as the original proposer, I'd rather not see it get lost in the shuffle. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Link to a request for a three-person close of the RfC: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Re-requesting closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho:--I feel that all discussions need not be closed esp. given that the spectrum is too broad.Winged Blades Godric 16:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Got it, Godric. BTW, emailed you. George Ho (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories.[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. (Initiated 95 days ago on 17 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at this RfC and perform a close? Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:International Justice Mission#Request for comment on placement of criticism[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Justice Mission#Request for comment on placement of criticism (Initiated 76 days ago on 8 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted due to low participation. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template (Initiated 69 days ago on 15 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again)[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again) (Initiated 52 days ago on 1 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:European Graduate School#RfC about use primary sources in section "Status"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:European Graduate School#RfC about use primary sources in section "Status" (Initiated 55 days ago on 29 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017#RfC rerun: House demolitions[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017#RfC rerun: House demolitions (Initiated 54 days ago on 30 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jewish diaspora#RFC concerning how to present the reasons causing the Diaspora[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish diaspora#RFC concerning how to present the reasons causing the Diaspora (Initiated 47 days ago on 6 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Lithuania#RfC: Lithuania in the USSR debate.[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lithuania#RfC: Lithuania in the USSR debate. (Initiated 55 days ago on 29 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RfC regarding bolding of sponsored names[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RfC regarding bolding of sponsored names (Initiated 51 days ago on 2 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Working Yashovardhan (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 Relisted by Yashovardhan Dhanania.Winged Blades Godric 04:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) thanks. Was just mentioning this! Yashovardhan (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft talk:US Presidents navbox#RfC about whether the draft is appropriate for a merge[edit]

Requesting an uninvolved editor to kindly assess consensus about the draft merge of {{US Presidents}} and {{US Presidential Administrations}}, which strongly overlap each other. (Initiated 44 days ago on 9 April 2017) This RfC is the continuation of a previous debate held at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Template:US Presidential Administrations (29 January – 3 March), following the process suggested by the closer. Thanks, — JFG talk 15:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC: Proposed lead section[edit]

Would an uninvolved editor kindly assess the outcome of this consensus-building effort on the lead section of a controversial article? (Initiated 41 days ago on 12 April 2017)JFG talk 19:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?[edit]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 17 April 2017) This RfC recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Doing...Winged Blades Godric 16:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive[edit]

Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 35 days ago on 18 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Re-requested closure at WP:AN on assumption that more than one closer may be needed. --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Abraham#Infobox RfC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abraham#Infobox RfC (Initiated 41 days ago on 12 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria#RfC: Overall compliance with BLP and neutrality policies[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria#RfC: Overall compliance with BLP and neutrality policies (Initiated 33 days ago on 20 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Cao Bang (1979)#RfC: Number of troops in a division[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Cao Bang (1979)#RfC: Number of troops in a division (Initiated 39 days ago on 14 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure:-I believe the matter is already resolved! Winged Blades Godric 12:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Muhammad#RfC (Initiated 38 days ago on 15 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genocide#RfC (Initiated 36 days ago on 17 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine#RfC: Proposed split[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine#RfC: Proposed split (Initiated 34 days ago on 19 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Abkhazia#Proposal for the Abkhazia Article[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abkhazia#Proposal for the Abkhazia Article (Initiated 45 days ago on 8 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Protests against Donald Trump#RfC: "multiple/several cities"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Protests against Donald Trump#RfC: "multiple/several cities" (Initiated 44 days ago on 9 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC on Jeffrey Carr and IISS[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC on Jeffrey Carr and IISS (Initiated 36 days ago on 17 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)#RfC about Al-Masdar[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)#RfC about Al-Masdar (Initiated 35 days ago on 18 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Plummer v. State#Request for Comment - Internet meme section - 1st revision[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Plummer v. State#Request for Comment - Internet meme section - 1st revision (Initiated 33 days ago on 20 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Category:Television programming by language[edit]

(Initiated 98 days ago on 14 February 2017) Stale discussion, no contributions after early April. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 17#Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments[edit]

(Initiated 95 days ago on 17 February 2017) Looks like there is consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Talk:Lagardère Sports and Entertainment#Merger Proposal[edit]

(Initiated 126 days ago on 17 January 2017) Stale discussion, needs someone to put it out of its misery please. GiantSnowman 08:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 Relisted for RFC to increase participation. --George Ho (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Another request to close this discussion. (Initiated 24 days ago on 29 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories[edit]

Following four discussions were sort of heated (two of them definitely are). As none of the discussions did not achieve consensus, they provide a false impression. Requesting an unbiased closure, based on facts/sources provided in the discussions. this, that, this, and that.usernamekiran(talk) 03:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done-The discusion wasn't an RFC.And this is not a place to ask to close random discussions.Winged Blades Godric 06:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: sure. Where should this be taken to? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Where should this be taken to? —usernamekiran(talk) 22:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't know. Don't care, except that the point I was making was that since these four discussions were not requests for comment, they shouldn't have been listed in the RfCs section of this page, which has four sections, each with a different purpose. They also did not require admin action, and were not pages for deletion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Echo Redrose64.Winged Blades Godric 02:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric and Redrose64: you two geniuses should read this: Wikipedia:Closing discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I thought I already made it clear, we only close RfC and RMs on article talk pages, or if a discussion is especially heated (nuclear). An article talk page is not ANI. We don't close a discussion because a participant thinks it gives the wrong impression. Just make a note of why that is at the bottom of the discussion and any reader can make up their own minds. Insulting editors who are rightly confused by your request is not on. El_C 09:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @El C: I apologise. I thought by "we" you meant admins. Wikipedia:Closing discussions states discussions on talkpage of articles can be closed if the situation calls for it.

If @Winged Blades of Godric: was confused by my request or didn't know what can be requested here then he shouldn't have used {not done} template so confidently, and the words "don't know, don't care".

And no, I didn't insult anybody.

Anyways, I closed the discussions. I think there is no point continuing this discussion. I humbly request everybody to cease communication here. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't know, don't care was not Winged Blades of Godric—that was Redrose64—who told you pretty much what I said before: we, on Wikipedia, don't ordinarily close regular discussions. Calling them "geniuses" is unhelpful, they were just telling you what any one else would have. Your request is unusual. El_C 01:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
So you decide to close them yourself, really? Why should those threads be frozen? What if someone else wants to continue commenting? You provided no convincing reason for this. Also, you're one of the main participants, it is not objective for you to close those yourself(!). This is starting to become disruptive. El_C 09:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Koren Specific Technique#Selective merge[edit]

the discussion has not been edited in over a year, and it has been brought up at AN/I that it was not closed. if this might be considered forumshopping, feel free to refuse. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump talk discussion/survey close request[edit]

Can an admin please review this discussion and survey on Donald Trump talk here and close it? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Taking a look!Am not even sure this qualifies for a closure.Winged Blades Godric 04:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Manchester Arena incident#Requested move 23 May 2017[edit]

The discussion requested a move to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. It's effectively been mooted a short time ago as the police have confirmed that it was, in fact, a bombing. [1] As this is a very high-profile article at the top of the Main Page news section, could an admin please close the discussion and make the move ASAP? Prioryman (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (14 out of 856 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Ranu Uniyal 2017-05-22 19:32 2018-05-22 19:32 create Repeatedly recreated Dlohcierekim
Emily Temple-Wood 2017-05-22 15:55 indefinite edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: AC doesn't seem to be cutting it Primefac
TelGrid 2017-05-22 12:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Yaris678
Jon Hensley 2017-05-22 00:00 2017-06-22 00:00 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Just Chilling
Murder of Seth Rich 2017-05-21 06:36 2017-09-04 16:56 edit,move Up protection El C
Aaron Golbin 2017-05-20 12:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SoWhy
Pandit Prabhakar Karekar 2017-05-20 12:04 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated under other names SoWhy
Aakash Karekar 2017-05-20 12:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SoWhy
Family Party 2 2017-05-20 09:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Dlohcierekim
Headlam Group 2017-05-20 06:41 2017-06-03 04:40 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts CambridgeBayWeather
2017 Huwara shooting 2017-05-19 10:37 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement - See (WP:ARBPIA) Oshwah
Si Thu Moe Min (footballer) 2017-05-19 09:43 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SoWhy
Comey memos 2017-05-19 03:17 2017-08-19 03:17 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Article is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAP2. Protection was requested at WP:RFPP EdJohnston
Jordan 2017-05-18 21:18 indefinite edit New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page Maile66


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to move forward with Mathglot's proposal (see #Proposal), which will cause a mass deletion of the pages on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review, with the option to save certain pages from deletion within a two-week window. As part of the proposal, there is also a consensus to amend WP:X2 in the manner S Marshall specifies in this edit.
Opposition to this change revolved around the argument that the articles which would qualify for mass deletion should be improved instead of deleted. Elinruby proposed alternatively that we should focus on recruiting editors fluent in foreign languages, Mathglot initially proposed to mass-draftify the articles instead of deleting, and Sam Walton argued that the articles contained valid content that didn't deserve mass deletion.
A majority of other editors, however, argued that many of the articles involved are poorly sourced BLPs that have the potential to harm their subjects if left unimproved. Given the large number of articles and low number of editors involved, it will likely be months before these articles are improved. Additionally, a user who is not fluent in both of the languages involved in a translation will not be able to adequately evaluate the validity of the machine-translated content; the article may appear unproblematic to such a user, but the content translation tool could have subtly altered the meaning of statements to something false.
In short, the consensus is that in the long run, the encyclopedia would be better off if these articles were mass deleted. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Addendum: The process for working out how to cause the mass deletion has been established. To mark an article for retention, please strike it out. To unambiguously identify an article for deletion, include the word "kill" in the same line as the article. The articles will be deleted on or after June 6, 2017. Thank you for your patience. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedians. I wanted to give you an update on WP:AN/CXT. Since that discussion was closed about eight months or so ago, we've cleared out about 10% of the articles involved, which were the easiest 10%. The work is now slowing down as more careful examination is needed and as the number of editors drops off, and I'm sad to report that we're still finding BLP issues. The temporary speedy deletion criterion, X2, is of little use because it's phrased as a special case of WP:SNOW and I'm not being allowed to improve it. The "it's notable/AFD is not for cleanup" culture at AFD is making it hard for me to remove these articles as well, so I'm spending hours trying to get rid of material generated by a script in seconds. I'm sorry but I'm discouraged and I give up. Recommend the remainder are nuked to protect the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For more context on this issue, please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#X2 revision. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Update: This link is now located at .../Archive_61#X2 revision. Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this, S Marshall, and I don't fault you for your choice. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Isn't there some way to use the sortware to delete all of these in bulk, if only as a one-time thing? Seems like a huge waste of time if it's being done manually by hand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Easily doable as a batch-deletion. I could have it wrapped up in 15 minutes. Unfortunately community consensus did not lean towards approving that option. In fact, most CXT creations which have been reviewed needed cleanup but turned out to be acceptable articles.  · Salvidrim! ·  21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I would support a nuke, a mass draftification, or some loosening of X2. The current situation is not really tenable due to the density of BLP violations. However, ultimately, the broader community needs to discuss what the appropriate action is under the assumption that we are not going to get much more volunteer time to manually check these articles. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • No, the broader community doesn't need to discuss that. It's completely needless and the community has had a huge discussion already. All that needs to happen is for WT:CSD to let me make one bold edit to a CSD that was badly-worded from the get-go, and we'll all be back on track. That's it. The only problem we have is that there are so many editors who want to tell me how to do it, and so few editors willing to get off their butts and do it.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Restored from archive, as it's unhelpful for this to remain unresolved.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support systematic nuke/ revision of X2 to enable this mess to be cleared up. It's not fair that @S Marshall: is being prevented from improving the encyclopedia like this. Amisom (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support @S Marshall:'s revision or a nuke from orbit. I wasn't active when this situation was being discussed originally, but having now read over the discourse on the matter, it is clear that our current approach isn't working. No one else is stepping up to help S Marshall do this absurd amount of reviewing, leaving us stuck with thousands of machine-translated BLP violations. It's all well and good to say that AfD isn't cleanup and deletion solves nothing and we should let articles flower patiently into beautiful gardens, but if no one's pulling the weeds and watering the sprouts, the garden isn't a garden, it's a weed-riddled disaster. Give the gardener a weed whacker already. ♠PMC(talk) 09:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the bold edit required to X2; it's true, of course, that AfD is not clean up- but neither should it be a barrier to clean up. In any case, moving a backlog from one place to another is hardly helpful. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 09:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Question @Elinruby and Yngvadottir: As users who (from a quick glance) seem to have been active looking through these articles, do you think the quality is on average worse than a typical random encyclopedia article, and if so, bad enough that speedy deletion would be preferable to allowing them to be improved over time as with any other article? I don't mean to imply that this is necessarily the case, but I think it should be the bar for concluding whether mass speedy deletion is the correct answer. Sam Walton (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (I wish I'd seen this earlier; thanks for the ping. I feel I have totally let down S Marshall; I just couldn't stand it any more.) On the whole ... yes. Support deletion of those remaining that have not been marked as ok/fixed. As I tried to explain in the initial discussion, the basic premise here is incorrect: as it states somewhere at Pages needing translation into English, a machine translation is worse than no article. It will almost always be either almost impossible to read, incorrect (for example, mistranslating names as ordinary nouns, or omitting negatives ...) or both. Some of these translations have been ok; many have been woefully incomplete (just the start of the lede), and they all require extremely careful checking. Yes, what lies in wait may include BLP violations. I sympathize with the article creators, and I am usually an inclusionist; I put hours of work into checking and improving some of these, and I'm not the only one. But please, enough. We'd wind up with decent articles faster if these were deleted, and the majority that are bad do a disservice to their topics. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You haven't let me down. You've given me a truckload of support with this.—S Marshall T/C 13:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Still oppose mass deletion -- @Sam Walton: What she said: Thank you the ping; this discussion was seeming a bit reiterative and I had mentally checked out. Like @Yngvadottir: I have put considerable effort into some of these articles. In fact, two or three of them are my own translations, which I would not have attempted without the translation tool, btw. Some are from my translations on French law, and I think 1) they cover important and previously missing topics and 2) they are high-quality technical translations. In most cases they speak for themselves. A couple are not perfect, reflecting the state of the French article, yes, and need work. But while these articles -- I am speaking here specifically of my own translations that appear on this list -- may be imperfect they are still reasonable stubs that can be built upon, and they also support more important articles by helping to prevent redlinks in some of the top-level articles on French law and also the French colonial legacy in Rwanda and the Congos etc. See Biens mal acquis for example. That was painful but I am proud of that translation. I have also encountered other people's translations on that list that made me proud of Wikipedia; the one on a cryptology algorithm for example comes to mind, or Essai sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations. I am an inclusionist, I have to admit, and yes yes, great wrongs and all, but I do think it is important that (for example) articles on Congolese history mention that there have been civil wars (beyond "unrest", and no, I am not kidding). The worst BLP problems I am aware of are in the articles on Dilma Rousseff and I don't believe they are on this list or were created with the tool. Some of the worst PNT pages I have seen predate the translation tool, for instance Notre-Dame de la Garde, which took me years to finish, and Annees folles which is as we speak an incredible mess requiring research in addition to copy-editing and translation. Yngvadottir is correct in saying that inappropriately translated proper nouns is a frequent problem. I recall a Hubert de Garde de Vins (fr) who became "wine", and yes, this did reduce the sentence to gibberish. It's annoying enough to make me wanna regex. But. Not mass deletion. I suggest case-by-case intervention in the case of egregious problems with particular users. It's not as though more that a very few users even try to translate. Or perhaps we should revise the criteria for translation user privileges. But even there -- one of the people tagged as delete on sight has created a number of skeleton articles about Quebec. These articles should be be fleshed out not deleted; we should have articles about Quebec. Some of the authors are unquestionably notable, the equivalent in my small culture of Simone de Beauvoir or Colette or Andre Gide. It seems to me that an article that says: this author was born, drank coffee, won the Governor-General's award and wrote these books, is better than having nothing at all. The placeholder takes the topic from unknown unknown to known unknown, or little-known in this context, I guess. We do know a little more about the folk dances of Honduras because there is a very bad article, for which I have done what I could. There are many different problems with the articles on this list. Someone has created multiple articles about, apparently every madrassa in central Tunis. Who am I? Some of the articles I have rescued at PNT were about the medieval wines of Provence, which might seem equally trivial to some. Some of the important but very flawed articles I have noted maybe should not be in the article mainspace -- I am thinking of the ones about the Virgin of Guadeloupe, pretty much everything flagged Mexican historical documents, the Spanish procession of the flowers, etc)--but an interested Spanish speaker could build these out. These topics are unquestionably notable. We should have an article about the Virgin of Guadeloupe, really, people, we should. My suggestion would be recruiting. We desperately need a Portuguese speaker and additional help with Spanish. Some of the unreferenced BLPs sitting around appear to be very fine even though they are unreferenced, and may in fact veer into fluff. But they don't approach liability for libel if that's the concern. I avoid them, personally, because I have in the past deciphered Abidjan l33t about a beloved soccer player, only to be told that we don't as a matter of policy consider these leagues notable. Fine then, they should not be on the PNT to-do list. I'd love to see the translation workflow improved but we should be encouraging the people expanding our horizons is what I think. I am sorry for the very long answer but I appear to be a voice wailing in the desert on this topic and I have now said pretty much the above many times now. Nobody seems to care so oh well, it's not like I don't have other work I can do on the history of the Congo and figuring out what Dilma Rousseff had to say about her impeachment. Reliable sources say she was railroaded (NPR for one) and that is not included in the article at all right now. The articles on Congolese history airily write off genocide and slaughter as "some unrest". In a world where these things are true I really don't care whether on not we find a reference for that Eurovision winner. Someone who cares can do that and I think ethnocentrism is a bigger issue on Wikipedia that these translation attempts. Move the ones that don't meet a minimum standard to some draft space or something. Educate the people who are creating this articles instead of shaking your finger at them. The article creation process is daunting enough and I myself have had to explain to new page patrollers that this punk band is in fact seminal whether you have heard of them or not and whether or not they sing in a language that you can understand. But I have been here enough to do that and I assure you, most people will not. Wikipedia wants to know why its editors grow fewer cough cough wikipedia, lookee here. I will shortly wikilink some of the examples I mention above for easier show-and-tell, for the benefit of anyone who has read this far. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support removal of these attempted articles (especially to avoid BLP problems laying around). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support [2] I'd say "do a disservice to their topics" is a mild way of putting it. --NeilN talk to me 14:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanket deletion. Having just checked a bunch of the remaining articles I found plenty of perfectly reasonable, non-BLP articles here, and any bad articles I did find were certainly not in greater number than you would find by hitting Random Article, nor were they particularly awful; the worst offenses I found were poor but understandable English. There's a lot of valid content here, especially on non-English topics which we need to do a better job of writing about. FWIW I'll happily put some time into going through this list. Sam Walton (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Please take a look at the 20 articles I just reviewed here; none had any issues greater than needing a quick copyedit. Sam Walton (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @Samwalton9: Thanks. It's been a long, hard slog. I appreciate it if any of these can be saved. However, did you check for accuracy? It's possible for a machine translation to be misleadingly wrong. And the miserable translation tool the WMF provides usually doesn't even attempt filmographies: look at that specific section of Asier Etxeandia. This is not acceptable in a BLP. Somebody who reads the original language (Spanish? Catalan?) needs to go through that article sentence by sentence and film by film. Unfortunately it's not a matter of notability (that's almost always attested to by the original article), it's a matter of whether we have time to save this article. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
        • That names of works likely don't get automatically translated properly is a good point that I hadn't considered, thanks for pointing that out. If that's one of the primary issues then I'd favour a semi-automated removal of "filmography" or similar sections, if possible. It just seems that there's a lot of perfectly good content in here. Sam Walton (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
          • I looked at the first one you listed, it is a mass of non-BLP compliant (non-neutral, no-inline source) material. Letting stuff like that hang around is not just bad for that BLP but as an example for other BLPs to be created and remain non-compliant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
            • Sam Walton, you didn't answer Yngvadottir's question. Can you speak the source languages? Remember that because of the defective way that software feature was implemented, you cannot assume that the translator speaks English and in many cases they obviously couldn't. (In practice the source language matters a lot because the software accuracy varies by the language pair. Indo-European languages are often but not always okay, and Spanish-English translations have particularly high accuracy, approaching 80%. Japanese-English, for example, has much, much lower accuracy.) So the correctness of the translation must be, and can only be, checked by someone with dual fluency in the source language and English.

              In the real world you can establish some rules-of-thumb. For example, you can quite safely assume that everything translated by Rosiestep is appropriate and can be retained. The editorial skills of the different translators varied very widely.

              All in all the best solution is for a human who's fluent in the source language and English to look at each of these articles and form an intelligent judgment. The thing that's preventing this solution is that, having looked at the content and formed the judgment, I can't then remove a defective article, because the defective wording in WP:CSD#X2 encourage sysops to decline the deletion unless it's a WP:SNOW case... so I've got to start a full AfD. Every. Single. Time. The effort for me to clean up is out of all proportion to the effort editors put into creating the damn things with a script.

              If you don't want the articles nuked (and that's a reasonable position), then please support the X2 revision I have proposed.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

When you say "the first one you listed" are you talking about Tomokazu Matsuyama? Yes, if so. it is indeed an unreferenced BLP but... I suspect five minutes of quality time with Google would take it out of that category, and it's essentially a resume, something like the placeholder articles I mentioned above. I think that perhaps we are better off knowing that this Japanese contemporary artist exists. Why not do a wikiproject to improve these like the one we just had on Africa top-level articles? It does seem to me that you could use a break from this wikitask and a little gamification might well get er done. I share your sentiment that in some ways we have our fingers in the dyke here, but the dyke does serve a purpose I think...In short I respectfully disagree with the current approach to these articles. Elinruby (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


@Alanscottwalker: I found a reference for his influences in less time than it took to add the ref code....Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Elinruby: Did you mean to ping me back here, many days after I commented, to tell me you found a pretty crappy commercial source? When I looked at it awhile ago, the article was filled with non-npov/non-referenced/BLP violating text. It is, thus, no comfort that since I commented, awhile ago, someone has according to their edit 'removed the worst of the puffery', and you added that crappy commercial source - its still not policy compliant (even if it is marginally better, since I flagged it) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: I brought you back here to tell you that while it may be have been unsourced, fixing this is extremely trivial. I don't give a hoot about this particular article, but his gallery is not a "crappy commercial source" imho and if you want people to fix then article then you should enunciate your problem with it. Sorry if that doesn't fit your preconceptions Elinruby (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Adding a non-independent crappy commercial source is not fixing. It is selling. We are not in the business of selling. What you call "trivial" sourcing does nothing to fix just makes it worse - "trivial" should have tipped you off. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@AlanscottWalker: Um no.... I was using the term in its software development meaning. I apologize for picking the wrong dialect to make my point. I thought, since you were critiquing the software tool, you might know something about software even though you don't seem to be familiar with the features of this instance of it, or for that matter with a representative sample of its users. Commericial, hmm. The same could be said of my article about the thousand-year-old Papal vintages, you know. That vineyard is selling wine today. Is that article also commercial crap? Since it is a direct translation from French Wikipedia, are you saying that French Wikipedia is commercial crap? You really don't want to make me argue this point, seriously. Incidentally what is with the arbitrary insertion of a break in the discussion? Consider, for just a moment, that I might actually have a point. Entertain the notion for a minute. Why are you belittling my statement? Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Critiquing software tool? No, I was clearly critiquing an article in English on the English Wikipedia. And I was referring to the crappy commercial source - you pinged me, remember, so that I would know you added it to the article. That was not done in French, it was done in English. As for break, that is your doing, why should I have any idea why you added the crappy source, and then wanted to tell me about it in this break. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: Let me use small words. CTX is software. Bad translation can happen with or without software. Lack of sources can happen without software. In software development "trivial" means "easy". Do you see now? Be careful who you patronize next time. 01:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@S Marshall:I'd consider supporting your proposal, perhaps, once I have read it, but could you provide a link for we mere mortals who don't normally follow these proposals? I also disagree that all of these articles require a bilingual editor; some just need a few references and/or a copy edit. But you know I disagree at this point. And if you do, god help us, nuke all of these articles as opposed to one of the other courses of action I have (again) suggested above, please move mine to my draft space if you find them that objectionable. Some sort of clue as to what your issue is would also be nice. Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The revision I want to make is this one. The intended effect is so that a human editor, who has reviewed the script-generated content and given it due consideration and exercise of judgment, can recommend the content for deletion and receive assistance rather than bureaucracy from our admin corps.

    The basic problem with these articles is that they are script generated and the scripts are unreliable. Exactly how unreliable they are varies according to the language pair, so for example Spanish-English translations are relatively good, while for example Japanese-English translations are relatively poor; and whether the articles contain specific grammatical constructions that the scripts have trouble with.

    You can test its accuracy, and I recommend you do. The script it used, during the problem period, was Google translate. I've just picked some sample text and run it through Google translate in various language pairs, first into a different language and then the translated text back into English, to see how it did. These were the results:-

Source text Korean Punjabi Farsi
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition Fourth and seventh years ago, our ancestors left the continent, a new country born in Liberty. Four score and seven years on this continent, first our father a new nation, brought freedom and dedicated to the proposition Four score and seven years ago our fathers on this continent, a new nation, the freedom brought, and dedicated to the proposition
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. And when he saw the multitude, he went up to the mountain, and his disciples came, and opened his mouth, and taught him, saying, Blessed are the souls of the poor: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Jesus saw the crowds up on the mountain, and when he sat, his disciples came to him and he opened his mouth, and the poor in spirit was teaching, that theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Yes: interestingly the algorithm interpolated "Jesus" into the text.) And seeing the multitudes, he went to the mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came to him and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for the kingdom of heaven.
Editors agree not to publish biographical material concerning living people unless it is accurate The editors agree not to post electrical materials about living people unless they are the correct person. To publish the biographical material about the editor, it is right to disagree, Editors agree to publish biographies of living people, unless it is accurate.
I encourage you to try these and other examples with different language pairs. Can you see why you need to speak the original language in order to copyedit accurately?—S Marshall T/C 22:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
But that is not a fair test since it magnifies any word choice errors. There *will* be errors, yes. We clean them up at WP:PNT --- ALL THE TIME. And no, it is not necessary to speak the language always, though it certainly help. I really suggest that maybe you just need a wikibreak from this task. Bad english can mostly be fixed. There are the occasional mysteries, yes. There are colloquialisms, yes. This does not justify wholesale destruction of good content. I was just here to get the link as I mentioned your proposal to one of my PNT colleagues; I need to go but I'll look at your proposal the next time I log in Elinruby (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The liquor was strong but the meat was rotten.
Translation wonks will recognize the (apocryphal) story behind the sentence above, concerning literal mistranslations exacerbated from there-and-back translation. (The story perhaps originated after the NY World's Fair of 1964, which had a computer translation exhibit in the Russian Pavilion.) In any case, I'm just getting up to speed on this topic and will comment in more detail later.
Briefly: yes, you definitely have to speak the language to copyedit accurately. I'm actually in favor of a modification to WP:MACHINETRANSLATION to make it stronger. I fully agree with the worse than nothing statement in the policy now, but I'd go one step further: the only thing worse than a machine translation in an encyclopedia, is a machine translation that has been copyedited by a capable and talented monolingual (even worse: by someone who knows a bit of the language and doesn't know what s/he doesn't know) so that the result is beautiful, grammatical, smooth, stylish, wonderful English prose. As a translator, puh-LEEZ leave the crappy, horrible, machine-gobbledygook so that a translator can spot it easily, and fix it accurately. Copyediting it into proper English makes our job much harder.
If it's too painful to leave it exposed in main space, perhaps moving to Draft space could be an alternative. In fact, rather than a mass-delete, why not a mass-Draft-ify? (Apologies if someone has already said this, I'm still reading the thread.) More later. Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
mass-Draftify would work for me. And yeah I disagree with you too a little, but I knew that. My point is, we all agree that an issue exists so what do we do? I also have some more reading to do before I comment on what S Marshall (talk · contribs) is proposing. I have a story about the policy but I want to make sure it pertains to this discussion. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Elinruby is certainly correct to say this "wasn't a fair test", because going through the algorithm twice doubles the error rate. But a lot of people reading this discussion will speak only English so this is the only way I can show them what the problem is ---- without that context, they may well find this, and the original discussion at WP:AN/CXT, rather impenetrable because they won't understand the gravity of the concerns.

    It was even more unfair because it was me who selected the examples and I don't like machine translations. In order to illustrate my point I went with non-European languages and convoluted sentence structures. If you tried the same exercise with a verse from "Green Eggs and Ham" then you'd get perfect translations 99% of the time. (It tripped me up with the Sermon on the Mount because quite clearly, the algorithm recognised that it was dealing with a Bible verse, which I found fascinating.)

    The script is particularly likely to do badly with double-negatives, not-unless constructions, adverbs of time ("since", "during", "for a hundred years"), and the present progressive tense, in some language pairs.

    It would certainly be possible to construct a fairer text using more random samples of language.—S Marshall T/C 10:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall: alright, I grant you that there aren't many bilinguals here. This *is* the problem in my view. I'll also specify that I don't claim expertise outside the Romance languages, and very little for some of those. But allow me please, since I know you speak or at least read French, to propose a better example. There are common translation errors that can occur, depending on which tool exactly was used. The improperly-translated name (nom propre) problem was real but is now mostly fixed. The fact that a writer whose novels were written in French gave them titles in French should come as a shock to nobody. The correct format for a bibliography in such cases *is* title in the actual language of the words in the book, webpage or whatever. Translated title, if the title is not in English, goes in the optional trans-title (or is it trans_title?) field of the cite template. Language switch to be set if at all possible. If it is not, let me know, and I can reduce the number of foreign words that English wikipedia needs to look at. So. In all languages, pretty much, words like fire and sky and take tend to be both native to the original people and likely to carry additional meanings, as in take an oath, take a bus, take a break etc. On the other hand what the software tool does do extremely well is know the correct translation for arcane or specialized terms, often loanwords, like caravel or apse or stronghold. These words are in my recognition vocabulary not my working vocabulary and using the tool in certain instances saves many lookups. When there is a strong degree of ambiguity or divergence in meaning (like the example on my user page) then THEN yes a fluent or very advanced user is needed. There are known divergences that a bilingual would spot that an English speaker would not. Sure. "Je l'aime beaucoup, mon mari" is a good example. But the fact that this is true does not prove that every line of every one of these articles still needs to be checked before they can be permitted to continue to sully Wikipedia, or that each of these lines needs to be checked by you personally. If you feel overwhelmed, take a break. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I speak English, French, German, Gibberish and Filth.  :) Joking aside -- I'm not concerned about noms propres. I'm concerned when the script perverts or even inverts the meaning of the source text. It's quite hard to give you an example because the examples I've discovered have all been deleted, and there's only the one non-English language we share, but perhaps an administrator will confirm for you the sorry history of Daphné Bürki. It was created as a machine translation of fr:Daphné Bürki and the version said she was married to Sylvain Quimène, citing this source. Check it out; the source doesn't say that. In fact she was married to Travis Bürki, at least at one time (can't say whether she's still married to him). We had a biographical article where the subject was married to the wrong bloke. It's not okay to keep these around.

    Draftification is exactly the same as deleting them. Nobody is going to fix these up in draft space. The number of editors who're competent to fix them is small, and the amount of other translation work those editors have on their hands is very large, and it includes a lot of mainspace work that's more urgent than fixing raw machine translations in draft space, and it always will; we can get back to fixing draft space articles about individual artworks when every Leibniz-prizewinning scientist and every European politician with a seat on their national parliament has a biography. (We're on target never to achieve that. The democratic process means new politicians get elected and replaced faster than their biographies get translated from foreign-language wikipedias.)

    I don't object to draftifying these articles if that's the face-saving solution that lets us pretend we're being all inclusionist about it, but it would be more honest to nuke them all from orbit.—S Marshall T/C 00:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I am just coming back to this. I agree about the relatively few translators and the large amount of work, and yet, we so fundamentally disagree. Some of the designated articles do are, in my opinion, within the top percentiles in article quality. Others have in fact been fixed up. You and I consulted about one once. Others, yes, need work, and I at least do get to articles that I say I will get to. Slowly, at times, sure. I have no problem with articles that don't meet a certain standard not going to mainspace, but I don't see why you singly out the translation tool as your criterion. I mention noms propres because I have mentioned one above from Notre-Dame de la Garde where Commander de Vins came across as wine, and this did make the sentence gibberish. But that article did not come out of the CTX tool. Ihave no idea what the Leibniz prize is, but I am not sure it's more notable, in the abstract, than Marcel Proust, but fine. Work on that all you like, sure. But don't tell me it's more important that some mention in Congolese history that there have been civil wars, or I will just laugh at you. The sort of error you mention above with Daphné Büki -- I'll look at it myself shortly, if it's from French I don't need an admin -- can be made by anyone who knows less than they think they do. Automated translation not needed. Now, I propose that since we are talking about this we work out some sort of saner translation process. For instance, if African football leagues are by policy not notable, as someone once told me, fine then, the article should not be in the translation queue. Put something in there about a minimum number of references, require the use of trans-title in the references, whatever is agreed upon is ok with me. Your proposed change would preserve most of by not all of the articles that have been worked on, which is a slight improvement I guess, except you'll also nuke the 3-4 articles that needed nothing and a whole lot of biography that I've avoid because people tend to write me snooty messages to inform me that the person isn't notable, and why waste work when articles like History of Nicaragua are so lacking? Elinruby (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Okay, I've gone through this and thought about it, and I'm conditionally a Yes on change to X2 and nuking the list, with an option to save certain files.

S Marshall, I take your point about draftification being pointless, as they'll just sit there with most of them never being edited ever.

I believe you've also persuaded me that the nuke is appropriate, given some conditions below. In order to keep Elinruby and Sam Walton (and me, and others) happy about not deleting certain files we are working on or wish to work on, I had an idea: what if we agree to allow a delay of two weeks to allow interested parties to go through and mark files in the list we want to keep so when the nuke-a-bot comes through, it can pass over the files thus marked. (I don't know if we can gin this up for two weeks from yesterday, but that would be auspicious.)

More specifically, to Elinruby's (22:03, 1 April) "So what do we do?" question, I think here's what we do:

  • Those of us who want to retain files, mark them with {{bots|deny=X2-nukebot}} to vaccinate them against nuking.
  • Change X2 accordingly
  • Somebody develops the nuke script
  • Nuke script should nuke "without prejudice" so that if someone changes their mind later and wants to recreate a file, it shouldn't be "salted" or require admin action to "undelete"; you just recreate it in the normal way you create any new file.
  • If needed, we run a pre-nuke test against sandbox files, or can we just trust the vaccination will be respected?
  • Start the script up and let 'er rip

Elinruby, if this proposal were accepted, would you change your no to X2 modif to a yes? Sam Walton, would you?

Naturally for this to have any value, we'd have to agree to not vaccinate the whole list, but just the ones we reasonably expect to work on, or judge worthy of keeping. If desired, I can envisage a way to greatly speed up the first step (vaccination) for all of us. Personally, I won't mark any file translated from a language I don't know well enough to evaluate the translation. But, going through all 3500 files is a burden, since there's no point my even clicking on the ones in languages I don't know. If I knew in advance which ones are from Spanish, French, etc., that would be a huge help. If you look at 1300-1350, you'll see that I've marked them with a language code (and a byte count; but that was for something else). I could commit to marking another 200 or 300 with the lang code, maybe more. If we could break up the work that way and everybody just mark the files for lang code, then once that's done, we could all go through the whole list much more quickly, to see which ones we wanted to evaluate for vaccination.

I really think this could be wrapped up in a couple of weeks, if we get agreement. Mathglot (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Entirely happy with this idea.—S Marshall T/C 19:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. Amisom (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This is fine with me. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Are there any objections to moving forward with this? Tazerdadog (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Almost two weeks of SILENCE sounds like "go for it". Primefac (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm still good with this as proposer, of course, but just to reiterate: we'd still need a two-week moratorium *after acceptance* of the proposal before nuking, to allow interested parties to vaccinate such articles as they chose to. I assumed that was clear, but that "go for it" got me a little scared, so thought I'd better raise it again.
On Tazerdadog's point, what is the procedure for deciding when to go forward with a proposal? Are we there now? Whatever the procedure is, and whenever we deem "acceptance" to happen, can someone close it at that point and box it up like I see on Rfcs, so we can then start the two-week, innoculation period timer ticking without having more opinions straggle in after it's already been decided? Or what's the right way to do this? Mathglot (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Request formal close, per Mathglot. Do I need to post on ANRFC?—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

X2-nuke interim period[edit]

Wow, cool! Glad we made some progress, and just trying to nail down the next steps to keep things moving smoothly. To recap my understanding:

  • we are now in the "inoculation period" with a fortnight-timer which expires 23:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC) an interim period where we figure out how to implement this.
  • during this period, anyone may tag articles in the list at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review with the proper tag to prevent nuking two weeks hence

A couple of questions:

  • do we have to recruit someone to write a script to do the actual nuking?
  • what form should the actual "vaccination" tag have? In the proposal above, I just kind of threw out that expression: {{bots|deny=X2-nukebot}} but I have no idea how we really need to tag the articles, and maybe that's a question for the script writer?
  • will the bot also observe strikeout type as an indicator not to nuke? A possible issue is inconsistent usage among editors: for example, some editors have not used strikeout for articles they have reviewed and clearly wish to save (e.g. see #1601-1622)

As for me, I will continue to tag a couple hundred more articles with language-tags as I did previously in the 1301-1600 range, to make it easier for everyone to find articles translated from languages they are comfortable working with, and that they therefore might wish to tag. Mathglot (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Updated by Mathglot (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Let's make two lists, one of articles to delete and the other of articles to retain for the moment. I don't think that it will be necessary to formally request a bot. We have quite a few sysops who could clean them all out with or without scripted assistance.—S Marshall T/C 15:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    I would implement it as a giant sortable wikitable - Something that looks like this:
Name Language Vaccinated Notes
Jimbo Wales es Tazerdadog (talk) Translation checked
Earth ar -- Probably Notable
My mother's garage band fr -- X2'd, not notable

Tazerdadog (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the current list easier to deal with than creating a new table, or two new ones? Can we just go based on strikeout type, or add some unambiguous token like, nuke=yes in the content of the items in the enumerated list that need to be deleted? I'm just trying to think what would be the least work to set up, and easiest to mark for those interested in vaccinating articles.
If we decide to go with a table, I might be able to use a fancy regex to create a table from the current bullet list. Although I definitely see why a table is easier to view and interpret once it's set up, I'm not (yet) persuaded that there's an advantage to setting one up in the first place. For one thing, it's harder to edit a table than a bullet list, because of the risk of screwing up cells or rows. Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The real advantage of the table is the ability to sort by language. This way, if we have a volunteer who speaks (for example) only English and Spanish, they can just sort the table by language, and all of the Spanish articles will be shown together. It's harder to edit, but in my opinion, the ease of viewing and extracting the information far outweighs this.
I have created a list that removes all struck items at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review/Tazerdadog cleanup list. I'm currently working on getting rid of the redlinks as well. Once that is done, we can move to a vaccination model on the articles that have not been cleaned up in the articles thus far. The vaccination can take virtually any form as long as everyone agrees on what it is - I'd recommend that we vaccinate at the central list/table rather than on the article however. Once the two weeks expire, it's trivial to extract the unvaccinated articles and poke a sysop for deletion. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tazerdadog: This was posted over at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review as well but wanted to mention it here. Timotheus Canens has created a language-sortable table in their sandbox at User:Timotheus Canens/sandbox that I think is similar to what you were thinking. Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
And we may have to recreate the table, as I didn't notice it and have been continuing to mark language codes on the main list (and shall continue to do so, unless someone yells "Stop!"). Also, not sure how trivial it is: given a full set of instructions what to do, then, yes, it's trivial, but this is not formatted data (yet) and there are all sorts of questions a sysop might have, such as, what to do with ones marked "moved", or "redirected", and other situations I've come across while going through the list that don't spring to mind. We don't want to burden the sysop with an illy-defined task, so all of those situations should be spelled out before we ask them to take their time to do it, as if there are too many questions, they'll either give up, or they'll do whatever they feel like. Mathglot (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Timotheus Canens: Tazerdadog (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
And am still doing so on the main page, and so have at least six others since the message just above this one was written. Mathglot (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

X2 countdown and vaccinate indicators[edit]

Floating a proposal to get the clock started on the two weeks. Any user can write "Vaccinated" (or anything equivalent , as long as the meaning is understood) on the list on the same line as the Strike out any article they want to vaccinate. I can then go through and use regex to remove the vaccinated articles line-by-line from the delete list. I will then separate out the articles with no substantive commentary attached (anything beyond a language or a byte count is substantive) for an admin to delete or draftify. Any article which has been individually substantively discussed will be evaluated independently. If this is OK, we can start the clock. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Updated Tazerdadog (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

People are already using strikeout type as the "vaccinate" flag so no additional method is needed though I see nothing wrong with using both, if someone has already started with the the other method. Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, I have been placing substantive commentary on plenty of articles, with the intention of facilitating the work of the group as a whole, in order to aid people in deciding whether that article is worth their time to look at and evaluate. In my case at least, substantive commentary does not indicate a desire to save, and if you intend to use it that way in the general case, then you need to suggest another indication I can use as a "poison pill" indicator to ensure it is nuked despite the substantive commentary. Mathglot (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Strikeout works even better than my idea, as it is easier to write the regex for. I was figuring that substantive commentary at least deserved to be read before we nuked them, although unless a comment was actively positive on the article I would have sorted it as a delete. If you want every article you commented on to be deleted, I can use your signature as the poison pill. Otherwise, use what you want, just make sure it is clear what it is. Ideally, place it at the start of a line, so I don't have to think when writing the regex. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Tazerdadog: If you need a tester, feel free to shoot me a pattern; I'm a bit of a regex wonk myself, plus I have a nice test app for it. Can't use my sig as poison pill, cuz often my commentary is unsigned cuz I did them 20 or 50 at a time, with the edit summary carefully explaining what was done, but no sig on the individual line items. Beyond that, quite a few have commentary by multiple people, so even if I did comment (and even sign) others may have, too. The only clear way to do this, afaics, is to have an unequivocal keep (or nuke) indicator (or more than one is okay, if you want to OR them) but anything judg-y like "substantive commentary" seems risky to me. In the latter case, we should just get everyone to review all their edits they forgot to strike, and strike them now, or forever hold their peace. In my own case, no matter how positive my comment, or how long, if there's no strike on the article title, it's a "nuke". It occurs to me we should poll everyone and get positive buy-in from all concerned that they understand the indicator system, to make sure everyone knows "strike" equals "keep" and anything else is nuke (or whatever we decide). It won't do to have 2,000 articles nuked, and then the day after, "Oh, but I thought..." Know what I mean?Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: I think the solution is to draftify until everyone agrees that no mistakes have been made, then delete. I'm happy to do the grunt work of the manual checking of longer entries, and I don't think it is particularly risky to do so. However, the vast majority are short, and can and should be handed with a little regex script. We do need to make sure that the expectation of strikeout = delete instead of strikeout = resolved was clear to all parties. As for a deleteword, literally anything will do if it is unique and impossible to misinterpret. I would recommend "kill" as this deleteword, as it is clear what the meaning is, possible to write the regex for, and currently has only a couple of false hits in the page that can be worked around easily. Does this work for you?
The reasoning for checking longer entries is to try to catch entries like this:

|Battle_of_Urica -seems fine, at least not a translation issueElinruby (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Tazerdadog (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: If by "draftify" you mean quarantine, i.e., staging/moving all the to-be-deleted files someplace prior to the hard delete, I totally agree. (Whether that should actually be the current Draft namespace is debatable, but might be the right solution.) As far as regexes, I count 738 <s> tags, 732 </s> tags, 587 keepers, and 2785 nukers as of May 7 ver. 779254187. Mathglot (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Ok, sounds good. By draftify, i meant "Move out of mainspace to a different namespace where the content is accessible for translators, but unlikely to be stumbled upon accidentally by someone who thins they are reading an actual encyclopedia article." it also should be noted that when any of these pages are deleted, it should be a WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. if someone asks for a small number to be restored after they have been deleted so that they can work on them they can just ask any admin to do so. I think that's all that needs to be resolved for now, so I'm going to go ahead and start the two week countdown until someone yells at me to stop. Pinging some participants: @S Marshall:@Elinruby:@Yngvadottir: Tazerdadog (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

For clarity, the process is: At the deadline, June 6, 2017 all struck articles listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review will be retained, and all unstruck articles will be deleted. Articles with significant commentary attached will have the commentary read before the deletion, but the default is the struck/unstruck status unless the commentary indicates clearly the opposite result is better. The work "kill" may be added to unambiguously mark an article for deletion. On or after June 6th, the regex nerds will compile a list of articles to delete and retain. The delete list will be moved to draft space (or subpages of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review), where it will be audited briefly just to make sure nobody made a systematic error, then deleted. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Per #deadline it's June 6. Your clarifications on "draftify" and the process all sound good, otherwise.
P.S. Note that one article matches /kill/i but none matches /\bkill\b/i. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Fixed, I was unaware of that discussion, thank you. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot and Tazerdog: so for purposes of making life easier I will strike what I think should be struck. At one point people were checking my work so I was rather tentative initially. I am following the regex discussion but haven't used it in a while so save me the trouble of looking this up -- did you conclude that "kill" would be useful, or not? Elinruby (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Elinruby: If the title is strikeout type, it will be kept; if it isn't, it won't. Placing "Kill" on an article has no effect at nuke time, but it does have a beneficial effect now:, i.e., it saves time for others. It lets others know that you have looked at this one and found it wanting, so they should save their breath and not even bother looking at it. For example: You marked #18 Stevia_cultivation_in_Paraguay "really, really bad". That was enough for me not to bother looking at it, so you saved me time, there. If you want to place "kill" on the non-deserving items you pass by, that will help everybody else. I may do the same. But in the end, on Nuke day, the "kill" markings won't have any effect. Make sense? Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: yeah it does, thanks. And indeed I seem to be the most inclusionist in the discussion so if I think it's more work than it's worth I doubt that anyone else in the discussion would disagree. Elinruby (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Re-pinging@Tazerdadog: on Elinruby's behalf for confirmation. Due to the ping typo above, he may not have seen this, and it's really his call, not mine. Mathglot (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot's interpretation above is basically correct. Please do not duplicate work you've already done just to add the kill flag, but please strike entities that could be ambiguous (I will manually evaluate your intention based on comments that you left, but the default is the struck/unstruck status unless you are clear in your comments otherwise). Please do use these flags from now on, or on any where your intention is unclear. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog I'm looking at formation of the strikeout tags enclosing the linked titles, and found 43 anomalies that might trip up the nuke pattern. I'll probably starting fixing these tomorrow. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

assumption for User space items[edit]

@Tazerdadog: I notice that various contributors are strikeout-tagging Userspace items: see #14, 15, 691, and 695 for example. I have not been tagging any of them, my assumption being that all User space items will be kept automatically regardless of presence/absence of strikeout title (and ignoring any "kill"), and since it's trivial to skip over them with the regex it's not necessary to tag them. If you agree, please make a note at WT:CXT/PTR, or let me know and I will, so everyone can save their breath marking these. Mathglot (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That was my assumption as well, all entries outside of mainspace should be fine. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

rescuing clobbers by CXT[edit]

@Tazerdadog: I just rescued #2611 Garbacz. This was a good stub created in 2008, then clobbered in 2016 by ContentTranslation tool, leaving a rubbish translation deserving of deletion. I just rescued it by reverting it back to the last good version before the clobber, and struck it as a keeper.

I'm concerned that there may be an unknown number of formerly good articles of long standing in the list that we don't want to delete, simply because they got clobbered by CXT at some point and thus ended up in the list, and time ran out before anybody got a chance to look at them. If I can get a list of potential clobbers in the next week, I will check them all out. (Am betting it's less than a couple hundred, total; but maybe S Marshall would help out, if it turns out to be more than that.) Shouldn't be too hard to create such a list:

pseudocode to generate a list of possible CXT clobbers
# Print out names of Titles in CXT/PTR that may be clobbers of good, older articles. 
# (Doesn't handle the case where oldest version is CXT, followed by user edits to make it good,
#    followed by 2nd cxt later which clobbers the good version; but that's probably rare.)
For each item in WP:CXT/PTR list do:
  $line = text from next <ol> item in list
  If the bracketed article title near the beginning of $line is within s-tags, next loop
  Extract $title from the $line
  If $title is not in article space, next loop
  Read Rev History of $title into array @RevHist
  Get $oldest_es = edit summary string of oldest version (last index in @RevHist)
  If 'ContentTranslation' is a substring of $oldest_es, next loop
  Pop @RevHist: drop oldest summary from @RevHist so it now contains all versions except the oldest one
  If 'ContentTranslation' is a substring of @RevHist viewed as a single string, do:
    Print "$title possibly clobbered by CXT"
End For

Are you able to create a list like this, or do you know someone who could? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Why not just ask the deleting administrators to check the translation is the first revision before they push the button?—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
That would be a shitton of work for the deleting admin. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
3.6 metric shit tonnes, to be exact. ;-) And thanks for the ping, Taz. Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: I think I've maybe got your query: I see from Samtar's query that you use MySQL. If that's the case, then to do this, I think you can take Samtar's query 11275 exactly as it is, with one more WHERE clause, to exclude the oldest revision:


where @MIN_REV_DATE is either separately selected and assigned to a variable [as there would be one min value per title, it would have to either be an array variable or more likely a 2-col temp table with title and MIN date, which could be joined to rev.] Edited by Mathglot (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC), or probably more efficiently, a subquery getting the oldest rev date for that page using standard "minimum value of a column" techniques. So the result will be a subset of Samtar's original query, limited to cases where ct_tag was equal to 'ContentTranslation' somewhere other than in the oldest revision for that page. (By the way, I don't have access to your file structure, so I have no idea if '' really exists, but what I mean by that, is the TIMESTAMP of that particular revision, whatever the field is really called. Also, again depending on the file structure, you might need to use techqniques for groupwise minimum of a column to get the min rev date for each page.) Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Unfortunately, I've never used MySQL before. I was hoping I could muddle through with some luck and googling, but I had no such luck. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Tazerdadog: And I could totally do it if I had the file structure but I don't; but my strong hunch is that this is very easy, and needs one additional "WHERE" plus another query (probably the groupwise MIN thing) to grab the min value to exclude in the new WHERE. OTOH, if you have access to Quarry, shoot me your query by email if you want, and I'll fix it up, and you can take that and try again, and with several back-and-forths I bet we can get it. Or if you've got zip, I can try a few establishing queries for you to try, and then we can try to build the real one depending on the results you get from those. (Or, we can just wait for someone else to do it, if they will; it really should only take minutes.) Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Tazerdadog and S Marshall: I don't think this is getting enough attention, and your previous request appears to have stalled at V Pump. This is not good. We need to get this list. Is there someone you can lean on, or request help from, to kick-start this? Alternatively, if someone will give me access to Quarry, a MySQL account permitting SELECT and CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE (or even better, MEMORY table) and a pointer to the file structure descriptions, I can do this myself and create a list to protect these articles. Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Re-requesting closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy[edit]

Someone already requested a closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy, which concerns outing/paid editor/harassment/COI... whatever. However, Casliber says that more than one closer, preferably three-person, may be needed. I wonder whether more than one closer is necessary. If so, this indicates that the discussion would be another one of more difficult discussions we've seen lately. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not obvious from the discussion and the number of editors participating and the number of proposals made that it's a difficult and controversial topic? --NeilN talk to me 19:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
To me, closing the whole discussion is very difficult because of the controversy of the topic. However, I concentrated more on milieus and proposals. To be honest, I saw two milieus and one concrete proposal receiving support from the majority. I concentrated on the straw polls and arguments. How about this: close separate milieus and proposals separately? They aren't that difficult to separately close due to other milieus and proposals not likely to pass. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Closing each one separately probably makes more sense from a numbers perspective. However, it should still be one group of editors that does it, since there is the possibility (mentioned on the discussion) that some of the milieus could contradict each other depending on what gets passed. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Milieus 1, 2, and 5 are easy to close as the majority opposes them individually. Milieu 3 and concrete proposal 1 received majority support, so those would be also easy to close. But you're right; one same group of editors should do the individual closures. However, I won't be part of the closing group, so I'll await the uninvolved closers then. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I would be willing to be involved in a group closure on this. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I cast a !vote in the discussion which I had forgotten about - it would therefore be grossly inappropriate for me to participate in this closure Tazerdadog (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess this means we're putting the band back together ;) Primefac (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
We still need one more volunteer for this. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll step up, if you like.—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
And... we're back down to 2. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Needed: Another closer please!—S Marshall T/C 15:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you just go ahead with however many closers you have now. I further suggest that the "milieux" were intended to get a "general view of the community" and were very vaguely worded, so that if all you can say is "there was no apparent consensus", then so be it. As far as concrete proposal 1, which I proposed, the 28-6 result seems to make the close obvious. You might as well just go ahead and close it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Meh, let's just go for it. I think I've still got your email kicking about. I'll send you my thoughts hopefully in the next 24 hours. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll write mine independently over the same period, and we can see if we agree.  :)—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I've re-opened the RFC. Re-opening interest for other editors willing to work on a close. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Take your time. ;) Meanwhile, what happened to closing separate, individual milieux and proposals? George Ho (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll go back to what I said 4 comment above. The milieux can be very difficult to close because of the wording. I thought the reverted close was a very good attempt to make sense out of M.3 in that it focused on what the consensus there actually agreed on, but that aroused a storm and nobody seems to be able to agree on what was actually agreed on. Concrete proposal 1, which I proposed, is very much the opposite and I think can be easily closed. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll help close it, but I think the section below the actual RFC should be considered as well, since they're actively discussing the RFC and how to proceed. Maybe we should wait just a little while longer to see how that develops. Katietalk 23:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. No point in cutting off productive discourse. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac, KrakatoaKatie, and S Marshall: I'm going to close a couple separate milieus that receive huge opposition. Casliber, the proposer, is fine with it. However, may I summarize the tally votes as just short rationales? I'll leave the others open. --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me, George Ho. It'll make the overall close a bit cleaner. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Closed milieu 1 and milieu 5. I closed milieu 2 as "no consensus", but I commented that another closer can summarize that better than me. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I changed my mind and briefly summarized milieu 2. --George Ho (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Milieu 3, Concrete proposal 1, and Concrete proposal 2 are closed by Winged Blades of Godric. Give Godric thanks for the closures. George Ho (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been thinking. After closing all the milieus and concrete proposals, I wonder whether closing the remainder of the whole discussion as a whole is possible. If not, how about separately closing "RfC discussion" (including Break 1), Break 2, and Break 3? George Ho (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC); rescinding this consideration. 18:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Milieu 4 and Concrete proposal 3 still remain. --George Ho (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Nonadmin Close review at Alternative for Germany[edit]

An RfC at the article above was closed in this diff.

The close speaks to the RfC question about removing one "ideology" item from the infobox, and also "closes" a discussion among a few editors in the discussion section about removing many more ideology items from the infobox, saying Appropriate contents for the infobox "ideology" field have been agreed upon in the discussion section and should be applied, although this was not part of the formal RfC question.

One of the participants in that discussion section promptly took action based on that part of the close, in this diff.

I asked the editor who made the close, User:JFG, to retract that part of the close, here. Here, they said they would not.

Per their contribs, JFG is very active in US populist politics, and was just made subject to a DS action on contemporary US politics per this notice. It was unwise for JFG to make this non-admin close at all.

I am not contesting the close of the RfC question but I am asking for the the quoted section to be struck. The basis is that this was a discussion and agreement by a small set of editors who share a view on this political party. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

While I have been editing for years in US politics, I am totally uninvolved in German politics, and happened on this RfC by chance when browsing through WP:RFC/POL; I took up the close as it looked like a clear consensus. Jytdog is exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on a content issue where he happened to find himself in the minority. He could easily discuss the extra "ideology" items with his fellow editors instead of contesting a close which simply attempted to reflect the balance of the RfC discussion.
Concerning Jytdog's innuendo about my editing activities, the "do not revert" sanction levied today against me is totally irrelevant to my close decision. In case anyone here is interested, they can refer to my appeal for clarification. — JFG talk 23:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
No battleground; I am not objecting to the main close. I am objecting to the over-reach. If you cannot see the continuity between AfD's politics and Trump/US populism I don't know what to say to you. I will not respond further here unless asked to. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand your objection, I considered your arguments carefully and I stood by my close because you look very isolated in your refusal to trim the other infobox entries. I advised you to open a new discussion if you want them back. Regarding similarities between AfD and Trump's political positions, they are indeed obvious, so what? How does this fact have any bearing on the validity of my closing statement? — JFG talk 00:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem is that you (JFG) are asserting a consensus in your close when that was not the question asked, and as such we don't know if there was really the consensus you are claiming (maybe those that disagreed just didn't participate in the discussion section). Can you explain to me why you think there was a broad consensus on this topic (as a close of an RfC usually is) despite the fact that it was "not part of the formal RfC question"? -Obsidi (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to provide a more detailed reasoning behind my closing statement. (For a shorter version, see Talk:JFG#Close at Alternative for Germany.) Prior to the RfC, there had been abundant discussion on the talk page about what was perceived as bloat in the infobox field "Ideology" that included up to 10 items (see for example this version of the article. Some editors argued that "ideology" should not be a laundry list of political positions or policies, whereas others were adamant that such policies reflected the core values of the party and should therefore be included. Some argued that articles about other political parties did not include such long lists. There were some semantic discussions about what can and cannot be called an ideology. Accusations of "whitewashing", "trolling", being "childish" or "dysfunctional" were thrown around, so clearly it was time to assess community consensus more formally.
The RfC was opened with a question to include or exclude a particular item from that list: "Climate change denial". In the survey and in the discussion, the issue of the other items was addressed again. At closing time, I saw not only a very broad consensus to exclude "Climate change denial", but also an emerging consensus among many commenters about the 3, 4 or 5 items that should remain in the "Ideology" box. Conversely, I saw no comments arguing to keep any of the extra items not included in those five. This situation informed my reading of the consensus: closing only on the narrow first item would have been a misrepresentation of the balance of the discussion, hence my wording. While consensus was to trim the list, there was no prejudice in my mind against adding back an extra item if people would agree on it separately. But I also felt it was more helpful for editors to start from a core list that most everybody agreed on, and build from there, rather than starting from a long list that had already created a lot of noise, and arguing each item to death.
In the event, the list was trimmed to the "top 5" ideology items that most people agreed upon, and in the next couple days a straw poll was open to discuss the whole list: Talk:Alternative for Germany#Ideology field. As of this writing, most commenters in the poll agree with the reduced list and would even remove another item: "German nationalism". Again, I see no pledge yet to add some of the five deleted items. As you said, this may be due to lack of participation, but on Wikipedia Warnock's dilemma is generally interpreted in the Latin tradition of Qui tacet consentire videtur per WP:SILENCE. Most editors who had been active on the talk page also participated in the RfC, and seeing the discussion veering into what to keep in general, they could have voiced their opinion about items they deemed important to retain. Of course, those who speak up now can argue for inclusion of any item that has been excluded, and see if they get consensus. — JFG talk 14:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
What it sounds like you are describing is a WP:Local Consensus as to changing the Ideology field as you describe. The question is one of if there is a different level of consensus for an RfC. I've always understood RfC's bring in the entire community to decide the issue, as such they shouldn't usually be overturned shortly after they are closed even by a local consensus. (After a long period of time or a intervening new event/facts, then potentially a local consensus might change the consensus.) By incorporating it into the RfC closure, it seems to be expressing a community consensus on a wider scale than is necessarily occurring. You say those who speak up now can argue for inclusion of any item that has been excluded, and see if they get consensus, but if this is the consensus of the RfC than trying to change that consensus would usually be considered disruptive so quickly after the RfC was closed. For instance, look at what happened on this very page when someone tried to create a new RfC about the same topic as a recently closed RfC: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Third_time_unlucky_RfC_at_Talk:Human.23Proposed_merge_with_Homo_sapiens. I don't have a problem with the straw poll or with you changing the Ideology field as you describe, if there really is a local consensus on the issue. But I would prefer if that line was removed from the RfC's closure. -Obsidi (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Obsidi: Thanks for your cogent remarks. I still stand by my closing statement which I consider a fair and neutral reading of the discussion among editors. However I would be happy to clarify it by adding "No prejudice against further discussion of the exact contents of the "Ideology" field, starting from the baseline of 5 items that have attained local consensus at the time of closing this RfC." @Jytdog: Would this take care of your concerns? — JFG talk 22:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This has been kind of upstaged by the far more interesting stuff below, but I would be grateful if this could be reviewed and decided upon, as the 2nd consensus claimed in the RfC is now governing that page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome of this technical dispute, there would not appear to be a consensus at the moment on the talk page to restore any of the material in question. You will need to discuss this with us on the talk page before you make any changes, though I understand that you may not have done so yet because of the outcome of the RfC. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
There is no deadline here, and consensus and descriptions of what there is consensus for, are important. If this part of the close is overturned, then of course we will discuss what should be in the field, on the basis that there is indeed no consensus about that. It is important to follow sound process with regard to consensus building. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Needing more than one to close RfC discussion at WT:V[edit]

The discussion "Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Recent changes to policy about verifiability as a reason for inclusion" started in April. Then the discussion got larger and larger, making the discussion very complex. I discussed it with the proposer S Marshall, who says that several closers are needed. I welcome at least two volunteers. --George Ho (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho:--I am willing to serve as a closer.Winged Blades Godric 09:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Godric, and I welcome that. I also need another or more closers for teamwork closure. --George Ho (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, I created the subsection Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#How to best close this discussion? for team closers to discuss preparing the closure. --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edits[edit]

I had been making some minor edits to a couple of pages that were badly in need of attention and also hadn't had any talk page discussion since 2012. Apparently that drew the attention of an editor who merged three pages into one (Divine madness). I thought that it was a good move. But then I noticed that this editor had changed the wording in a quote that he moved, and it seemed as if it was in order to make the quote support the minor content he had created to replace major content that was lost/destroyed. There were also various edits to the (merged) article that showed a blatant lack of understanding of the subject matter (rather than a difference of opinion or viewpoint), which resulted in edits that actually changed the meaning of the original content, thwarting the entire concept of the article subject. Then, after having been confronted concerning the misquote, the editor in question then seemed to do a lot of talking and misdirection to hide what he had done; on top of that, radical edits were suddenly made to an otherwise agreed upon consensus, seemingly as both revenge edits and as a ploy to cover up irresponsible (unethical?) editing. All of the aforementioned has been documented on the Talk page. Can someone please intervene? I'm basically a gnome and an inclusionist, and my honest and sincere concern is the preservation of content and the integrity of the work. Thank you! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiEditorial101 has now reverted three times different edits I made to this article, to preserve his preferred version. The first times he re-inserted full quotes which I had shortened, while I'd kept the full quotes in notes; and he re-inserted info which was removed by MSW; the second and third time he reverted the addition of info from reliable sources. The sequence:
At Talk:Divine madness (religion)#Administrive intervention WE101 states:

The most recent edits ruined the lead, equating Divine madness with clinical mental illness and had an overall negative tone; my concern is not just with the quality of the article, but that the article communicates an accurate understanding of this phenomenon. Because of recent edits that I found to be (unintentionally) destructive, and because there is the issue of misquoting Tungpa, I am requesting administrive intervention in this matter and respectfully ask that no further edits be made until I can get someone in to moderate, else this become an edit war. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

  • The lead was updated with info from reliable sources, in contrast to the sentence "is the universal phenomenon of any unconventional, outrageous, unexpected, or unpredictable behavior that is considered to be a manifestation of spiritual accomplishment." I tagged this sentence with a "source needed"-tag; this tag was removed by WE101; it is not supported by the info in the article, making to broad claims. In contrast, I added info which questioned this sentence and it's interpretation of divine madness; this info was fremoved by WE101's wholesale reverts.
  • Both June McDaniel and David DiValerio make the comparison with mental illness; and explain why divine madness is not mental illness, but derives it's name from this comparison.
  • The "accurate understabding" og WE101 seems to be mainly based on Feuerstein, a source which is discredited by DiValerio, as explained in a note (this was removed too by WE101) and noted at the talkpage (Talk:Divine madness (religion)#Additional sources and info).
  • "Destructive" is a misqualification of the edits by me and MSW
  • WE101 has now three times asserted that I changed the Trungpa-quote when I shortened it; I've explained two times that I didn't change the wording (Talk:Divine madness (religion)#Trungpa-quote: "Nothing was changed to these three sentences."; "No, I didn't change the wording. If the quote was incorrect, that was not my work."). Somehow this doesn't get through to him.
WE101 seems to be taking ownership of this page, and unwilling to reaxch a compromise. So far so good, but removing sourced info from University Press published schlarly sources is unacceptable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This doesn't belong here. It might belong at ANI or ANEW, that is, if either of those were literally the first step in the dispute resolution process, which they aren't. The two of you have spent all of 72 hours "discussing" the issue, with almost zero input from anyone else. Consider WP:3O, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, and... basically everything on WP:DR other than here. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Timothyjosephwood. I've also stated this yet. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Too early, WikiEditorial101, this content dispute is. Even for DRN, leave aside AN. As Timothyjosephwood notes, this needs more discussion on the talk page, then if necessary by other dispute resolution process. AN is not appropriate as the first stop. You are edit warring, which needs to stop. Further in an AN case, WikiEditorial101, always provide edit diffs whenever you allege/accuse anything significant by anyone. This is a borderline WP:Boomerang case, but I urge that this case be closed without action AGF. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
(ps) I am too busy IRL, will review that article later this week. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@(ps): okay; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Closing this thread: issue resolved, and this wasn't the right place for this anyway. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Mass creation of improperly referenced BLPs by User:SwisterTwister[edit]

SwisterTwister is mass-creating articles on scientists: John Enemark, Mark Groudine, John Joannapoulos, Charles S. Apperson and literally hundreds more. None of those I checked contained even a single reliable independent source; they're all based on what the subjects, and organizations they are affiliated with, say about themselves. The subjects may well be notable according to WP:PROF, but as that guideline says (and as SwisterTwister knows), merely satisfying notability in the absence of reliable independent sources is not enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. This goes doubly for the at times promotional content of the drafts ("recognized for his contributions to an understanding of the host-feeding habits of mosquitoes" - says his own research paper?). Creating hundreds of BLPs without independent sources is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Doing so despite being aware of the requirements is disruptive. SwisterTwister should be admonished, and someone who creates articles like the above should not hold the autopatrolled right. I have had my disagreements with SwisterTwister in the past and thus bring it up here instead of just doing what needs to be done. Huon (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ouch, you're not exaggerating with "mass creation". Yes, on a dip-sample none of these appear to be adequately referenced for BLPs—I'd agree that at minimum the autopatrolled bit needs to be removed, and consideration needs to be given to a mass deletion unless he's willing to undertake to fix them. ‑ Iridescent 21:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
A relatively minor issue compared to the above, but a quick sample found many stub-ish articles without a stub tag. That seems like something that an experienced user should be including by default, especially where volume is involved and they are autopatrolled. It seems like an imbalance between quantity and quality. Also not assigned to any WikiProjects, which reduces the visibility and chances of the right people fleshing them out. Murph9000 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The first one I looked at was John Joannapoulos and the man's name is spelled incorrectly. It's John Joannopoulos according to the sources. Capeo (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I've moved the page to correct the error, and left a redirect (as it's a plausible misspelling of the name). Waggie (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
SwisterTwister appears to be creating articles for Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which would meet WP:NACADEMIC#3. They are citing the AAAS fellowship listing, which is admittedly really sparse. According to WP:PRIMARY: ...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care. I think the AAAS fellowship listings would be considered a "...primary source...reputably published". Academics are notoriously difficult to source to popular secondary sources, after all. I think if I saw, say, John Markley come up at AfD, I would argue for keeping on that basis or, failing that, merging to Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:NACADEMIC #3 says fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (my emphasis). I'm not in the least convinced that's the case here; looking at the list on their website and sorting it by "year elected", they dished out 377 of the things in 2016 alone. ‑ Iridescent 22:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
In a country as big as the U.S, its perfectly plausible for 377 to still be a selective group. Percentages are more important. For example, the NFL Draft just concluded selected 253 players from the 73,660 that play NCAA football[3] but I don't think anyone would challenge the notion that the NFL is highly selective within the world of American football. In sciences, according to the Congressional Research Service, in 2014 there were 6.2 million working scientists and engineers in the US.[4]. Even assuming half of those are engineers and not eligible, that's still a pretty selective group. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is being looked at, but the list linked appears to only have a total of 329 elected fellows for all years [5]? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I find it weird that not only does no-one say anything earlier but that something is said AFTER I added him back to AfC as there was no consensus to remove him... I feel like theres something more going on not related to ST, I have IRC logs of people, whom for now will be unnamed, not only disrespecting ST but criticizing him. If all parties approve I will release the logs. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
What exactly are you insinuating here? If you're trying to claim that Huon and I are part of some IRC conspiracy, you're seriously barking up the wrong tree; if you're complaining that someone's criticising ST, so what? If he's done something that warrants criticism, he should be criticised, as is the case for every other editor. ‑ Iridescent 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I thought the TOS for IRC said logging sessions wasn't kosher? Dennis Brown - 23:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no TOS for IRC. Some networks have them but in regards to logging it is public logging that is not kosher. Almost everyone that frequents IRC has private logs that they take to refer back to. Publishing those without explicit consent from all parties involved is grounds for a ban from all related channels though. --Majora (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm only saying that, when I added ST to afc reviewers after Primefac removed him, was this brought up, all in the same exact few days, I mean I'm a little crazy, but I'm surely not the only one that could see these events being connected... in other words... I think DR is in order rather than AN. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 23:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Zppix: No, you've threatened blackmailing Wikipedians based on what they said in IRC. Perhaps you might be leaving Wikipedia, too? Chris Troutman (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Chris troutman, if they didnt want the possiblity of me using those logs against them, then they should of done that in private, not to mention your threating me now. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 23:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
"I have IRC logs of people, whom for now will be unnamed, [...] If all parties approve I will release the logs." - it will be difficult for the parties to approve if they don't know they're a party. Anyway, I tried to discuss the issue on SwisterTwister's talk page; they removed the thread. That was about 200 improperly referenced BLPs ago. This doesn't need dispute resolution, this needs SwisterTwister to stop creating inappropriately sourced articles. Huon (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I would say that you were in a better position before you decided to say; if they didnt want the possibility of me using the logs against them. So you're admitting to considering blackmail here? Article on blackmail; Essentially, it is coercion involving threats to reveal substantially true or false information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates, or threats of physical harm or criminal prosecution and WP:BLACKMAIL; Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Chris, they originally said they would reveal the chat logs if all parties approve. That would indicate, to me at least, that blackmail is not on the cards here. I'm now entirely lost on whether Zppix actually intends to coerce the other parties, "expose" them without consent or request their consent to reveal logs. I'd like a definitive statement on intent here. Do you intend to release these logs regardless of whether you receive consent? or only if you have the consent of the other party(ies)? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Zppix: WP:TINC might be worth a read for you. Ks0stm (TCGE) 00:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
This is about on-wiki behavior, we can all see what the articles look like, so the vague insinuations of IRC conspiracies strike me as entirely missing the point. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I am in support of removal of the autopatrolled right. There are simply too many potentially problematic stubs for me to be comfortable with him mass-creating without someone checking his work (in addition to the issues mentioned above, a random spot-check showed about 75% of them are orphans). I'm not sure we need to go to S.v.G. levels of article nuking, but I wouldn't be opposed if someone were to put it up for debate. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised to see SwisterTwister do this, because he's a stickler for good sourcing at AfC. SarahSV (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • And had issues in the past at AfD with leaving generic "delete" comments...does seem to be a 180 in philosophy but I'm sure there's a reason for it. ansh666 01:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Primefac removed SwisterTwister as an AfC participant on 15:02, 4 May, [6] because of concerns about copyvios not being spotted, and ST began creating the stubs at 21:28, 4 May. SarahSV (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Would it be beneficial to take a route similar to the handling of SvG's articles? Meaning, all the ST articles with BLP violations are placed in a draft space for the time being to allow editors an opportunity to clean them up or delete them after a pre-determined deadline. I must add I am surprised this issue originates from an editor like ST.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't followed past SwisterTwister-related issues, but I'm surprised to see this from an experienced editor. On the one hand, most if not all of these people would pass WP:PROF, and it's not unusual for academic articles to rely on limited and non-independent sources for basic biographical and career information. We're not going to suspect that the University of Pittsburgh is lying when they say that Rocky Tuan is on their faculty. The main problem with these articles isn't so much that they fall short of some WP:ALLCAPS, it's that they're useless. These days, a good rule of thumb on whether or not to create a new article is "will this article be a better resource for readers than what's already at the top of the google search results?" None of these articles actually serve that purpose; they just regurgitate a small amount of already-easily-available information. That doesn't serve any purpose other than playing high-score games, and in fact it might make it less likely that these people will get proper articles written about them in the future. While one-line articles listing people's faculty positions are unlikely to contain overt BLP violations - at least, I haven't found any on spot-checking - some of these are so devoid of content that their emptiness itself feels like a BLP issue. Given that this type of mass stub creation has recurred a few times with different editors, it may be that we need more effective guidance on creating a new BLP. (I might be willing to just make it simple and say that a BLP should never be a stub.) For the time being, I'd be in favor of draftifying or deleting any that haven't been substantially edited by others. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This is utterly absurd. Every individual Fellow of the AAAS , the ACS or the APS is notable, as is every member of the National Academy of Sciences , as is every person holding a distinguished professorship at a major research university. The relevant guideline is not WP:GNG, but WP:PROF. I note a comment above doubting this for the AAAS, burt I cannot recall a single case where this has been successfully challenged at AfD. (The only example mentioned above is someone who is not just in the AAAS, but holds a distinguished professorship at Wisconsin.) Furthermore the society membership can best be understood as a shorthand to simplify discussion, because I cannot imagine a case where the would not have met the really key part of the WP:PROF guideline, being a major influence in their field, as shown by book reviews or citations. Unlike the sometimes confusing status of the other special notability guidelines, WP:PROF is explicitly an alternative--it is enough to meet it without having to pay any attention at all to the GNG.
All that is necessary is to prove they are indeed Fellows, etc. Ideally this should be from the organization's announcements of lists. But the person's official CV is also acceptable, as is an official university page. Out of the 5 or 10 thousand academic bios I've looked at here, I recall just one where the official CV was challenged, and was in fact making a claim, (to a doctorate) that could not be demonstrated. (I spent a day of checking all possible sources for it under any likely error in name or year or university before coming to that conclusion, because it was so extraordinary). Other sources are a little more dubious, because newspapers and publishers and conference organizers sometimes get things a little bit wrong. (I've just commented at a bio talk p. about one such a bio that was a little oversimplified to the point of making an incorrect implication).
I've looks at a few of these articles. I have not found one yet that would not have 100% success rate at AfD. The cited description of above that is called promotionalism, is in fact the exact quotation from the award from a professional society--most such academic field descriptions that might sound like puffery are. Yes, it should have been sourced more explicitly, but the source was in the reference list. (I normally remove a few adjectives from such statements, since they do tend to be a little flowery.)
I am going to check the entire list tomorrow. If there is any I think actually inadequate, I'll deal with it. For everything else, I will defend any prof article that I think meets WP:PROF as strongly as I can, just the same as I always do .
It sometimes has been regarded as inappropriate here to mass produce stubs of this sort without a fuller description & better sourcing. Personally, I do not myself think it wrong. I even would urge doing this here and in similar cases--people have done it, for example, for Olympic athletes, or winners of major prizes, or those holding positions in legislatures. All of those were good things to do, and so is this. In fact, I have planned to do just this myself, probably starting with the National Academy of Science list all the way back to the beginning and going on from there. Not really having the time, I've instead just urged other people to do this. Now, seeing this challenge here makes it very much more likely that I will take the time out from dealing with paid editors and do just that. It is not prohibited to create stubs--the argument for them is that other people can then build on them, and are more likely to do so when they find an article has already been started. We have sometimes reverted such additions--but only in cases where it could be shown that the method or sourcing was actually wrong , such as geographic stubs taken incorrectly from a census in a language the contributor could not read. Otherwise, attempts to make a speedy criterion for stubs have been overwhelmingly rejected several times.
I do agree that doing these in this large a number can be imprudent, especially for editors who realize that some other editors are not all that happy with some of their other work. I very strongly urge Swistertwister to immediately start filling them in. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
PROF is not the only issue. The pages I looked at were WP:PRIMARY violations because they relied entirely on primary sources. Policies apart, the question is whether these pages are useful for readers. The micro-stubs aren't. SarahSV (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I must be missing something. Neither WP:PRIMARY nor WP:BLPPRIMARY says that. Certain primary sources, e.g., trial transcripts, are indeed against policy but a distinguished society's own list of fellows or a university's designation of a distinguished professorship are nowhere prohibited that I can see. These policies say, "use caution," and verifying such facts against authoritative sources seems very cautious. Do we really think the AAAS or (for example) University of Wisconsin can't verify these facts? I also fail to find any policy that says BLP with only primary sources is not permitted. WP:BLP says that the non-negotiables are NPOV, verifiability, and NOR. These seem to have those qualities and notability under previously-agreed standards. Is "no primary-source stubs" enshrined in policy somewhere hidden? Am I being obtuse about this? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Eggishorn, WP:PRIMARY, which is policy: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."
I only looked at a few of the micro-stubs, but they were based only on primary sources. SarahSV (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, @SlimVirgin:, WP:PRIMARY also says:...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia.... Again, is there anything to suggest that these universities and the AAAS not reputable publishers? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Primary sources can be excellent sources, but articles should be based on secondary sources. SarahSV (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Eggishorn, you're not really missing anything other than that "primary" sources are likely to be more common in academic biographies and less so in most other biographical topic areas. It doesn't make sense to object that these articles about AAAS fellows source that claim to the list of AAAS fellows published by the AAAS. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis:, thank you. I think that was my point. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The point of the policy is to avoid articles like this, where we have no way of judging how notable the person is. That's why we need secondary sources. Another consideration is that not everyone wants a BLP. Creating borderline-notable BLPs on people who may never have sought attention from secondary sources is problematic. SarahSV (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
DGG, I thought that at first too. What's going on here, people are dragging someone to the stocks for not using stub tags? But defending them on the grounds that the topics are notable overlooks the sheer uselessness of the articles, which displace more substantive resources in search results and are so sparse that they do a disservice to their subjects. I have no doubt these were created as a good-faith de-redlinking effort - as were the masses of stubs about athletes before this, and the masses of stubs about villages before that, and the masses of stubs about beetles, and the masses of stubs about algae, etc. I think it's been pretty well established by this point that indiscriminate stub creation from a list of redlinks without adding any substance to the articles is not a good way of growing the encyclopedia. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I think they are useful. At least, they are useful to people l who are much more likely to expand an article than to write one. Reasons why people do this differ: For me, I check thousands of articles, and I try to fix or add something about anything that I look at. They are useful to students and beginners, who may not know how to start an article and not want to figure out, but they know enough to add information, especially with the visual editor. They are very useful at Editathons. At least in NYC we generally advise people to start by expanding an existing article. in order to gain confidence. The number of editors who add material is much greater than those who write new ones,, and we need both . They are even useful to readers, who may see a vague reference to some academic in a press release , because they'll at least see the basics. WP grows. Almost all articles were stubs in the beginning. Any stub article on an academic is expandable. If we can find a cv we can add the full biographical data and positions and significant honors. Even if we can't we can add their most cited articles, and their books. We can go further add reviews of their books. We can say what the most important articles actually did. We can check for notable students. As I said, I am myself going to follow my own advice, and do a hundred or so brief stubs. Challenge my user rights if you care to. DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
And this reflects the fact that, despite their importance and contributions to knowledge, academics and scientists just do not get anywhere close to detailed coverage compared to sports, and hence, while arguably being honored by these societies is one of the highest honors in academics, does not presume notability can be met (that is, it seems very doubtful that NACADEMICS#3 is really appropriate here). We've had to stop editors in past mass creating one-line BLPs on athletes, this is no different here. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
If WP:PROF makes every AAAS fellow notable then it needs some overhauling in my view. I just went through a bunch of these stubs and couldn't find a single one that could be more than the single sentence they currently are due to there being no other sources out there other than these people's papers. In essence that equates to thousands of articles that will never be more than, "So and so is a professor at this school who researches this, this and that and became an AAAS fellow in (fill in the year)." What's the point of that?Capeo (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It is with deep regret that I also must support removal of autopatrolled rights from SwisterTwister. Mass creation of poorly sourced articles is most certainly detrimental to the encyclopedia, especially when not adding those articles to the appropriate WikiProjects, or adding to stub categories. Indeed, SwisterTwister's continued lack of tangible response to criticism on his talk page is extremely disconcerting. I also attempted to work with ST regarding one of these articles that he removed the CSD tag from one of them, they simply refused to respond other than leaving an edit summary that there was no violation of guidelines. Frankly, I'm surprised that they would consider all this acceptable, while still declining articles at AfC with no better reason that "Not satisfying the applied notability standards.". Also, while this thread isn't about SwisterTwister's behavior at AfC, Zppix complains about the removal of ST from AfC and of some great IRC cabal conspiracy while citing logs he claims to have as evidence. ST was removed from AfC for allowing numerous copyvios to pass through un-checked by an administrator and continuing to do so after being alerted to the problem. There is a discussion on the topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants#Removal_of_SwisterTwister if anyone wishes to review it. I've tried to help SwisterTwister in the past, and even defended them more than once here at ANI desperately trying to get them to just slow down a bit, but to no avail. There is no great conspiracy. ST's lack of due diligence is affecting people across the project in many ways and now it's finally coming to a head - it was bound to happen eventually. I'm very sad to see it happen, and I tried to prevent it, even spending hours on IRC trying to work with them on improvement but with obviously few results. Waggie (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • If ST is going to mass create stubs, he should at least tag them appropriately. I've just spent 3 and a half hours going through them adding stub and {{WikiProject Biography}} tags, and there are still umpteen more to do! Adam9007 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I support removal of the right. I don't see autopatrolled as a right we give to people who have "done nothing wrong" while creating articles. I see it as a right we give to people whose articles are good enough that patrolling would not improve them further. In this case, these articles could be improved through normal patrolling with the addition of stub and WikiProject tags, so autopatrolled should probably be removed to let the patrollers help out. In other words, I don't think the question of whether SwisterTwister's articles violate policy is the only question relevant to whether he should have autopatrolled. ~ Rob13Talk 05:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, please remove the right, and inform them that adding meaningless sentences like "His most cited papers are 324, 322 and 244."[7] or "His most cited papers are 650 and 463 and was especially most cited in 2016."[8] only make the articles worse, not better. I see above that there have been copyvio concerns: looking at Christopher D'Elia, I see "nutrient dynamics in aquatic systems, estuarine ecology, coral reef ecology, algal/invertebrate symbiosisp, science history and policy, math and science education, marine pollution, global climate change and analytical chemistry" where the source[9] has "Nutrient dynamics in aquatic systems; estuarine ecology; coral reef ecology; algal/invertebrate symbiosisp; science history and policy; math and science education; marine pollution; global climate change; analytical chemistry." including the same "symbiosisp" typo. Fram (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The speed of creation: n-n-n-nineteen all at 06:12 and another nineteen at 06:13?!? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 08:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Fram, what's missing there is just a link to those heavily-cited articles. Citation figures like that are meaningful though they can need interpretation, and if they are that high go very far to proving notability . I always add them to any article I write about a contemporary scientist. I've advised people to add them wen they ask me how to write about an academic in the sciences, and I have some standing information to that effect on my talk p. that I ought to convert to an essay. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
No, DGG, what's missing there is readable English. "[...]and was especially most cited in 2016." won't be saved by just adding a link, such "sentences" need a complete rewrite, and someone who adds these meaningless lines to his stubs in response to the ANI discussion here (instead of contributing here or making high-value improvements) gives every indication of being an editor who needs a close watch. Fram (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Which explains why even in such short articles they get the facts wrong, like at Barbara Fried (who is not the "Marc and Eva Stern Professor of Law and Business at Columbia Law School"). Fram (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Wasnt SwisterTwister restricted recently in some way regarding deletions? Or was it another of the threads that went nowhere - the archives are full of so many SwisterTwister threads and our search is so crap its difficult to pin down one event. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fram and Only in death: It's worrying, definitely. Actually that's putting it mildly in the context of this conversation. ST has previously been discussed here (deletion activities), here (AfD again), here(reviewing), and here (alleged aspersions). Nil consensium. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed ST's autopatrolled rights per the above discussion. Autopatrolled is a right which should be given to those users whose articles require no further immediate checks by other users, including - but not limited to - copyright violations and tagging. Since ST's articles have had to be tagged with WikiProjects and stub tags, cleared of some copyright violations, and multiple users have raised concern about their quality, it is clear that further oversight of ST's articles by new page patrollers would be beneficial to the project. Sam Walton (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The claim that the AAAS elected fellow page is primary as to the professor is just not accurate. The AAAS is not the professor, and it provides "independent" "evaluation" of the professor, all of which makes it WP:SECONDARY as to the professor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The AAAS is a primary source on who is an AAAS member. If the AAAS was being used as a reference for the content of the *work* of one of its members, it would most likely be secondary, however as it has an inherant conflict of interest in the promotion of AAAS members it would fail to qualify as an indicator of notability. Secondary sources are not required to be independant of the subject, sources to demonstrate notability are. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
No. The professor's work is independently evaluated by the AAAS to make them an elected fellow. And the elected fellow is elected by other scientists based on the independent criteria. That makes them secondary as to the professor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Still no. AAAS are a primary source on who is an AAAS member. As all organisations are on their own members/fellows. This is the context in which ST has been creating stubs 'Is a member of AAAS - source AAAS'. Their evaluation of his work would be secondary, but that is not what is actually under discussion. It would still also not be independant for the purposes of notability because they are reviewing his work in the specific context of him becoming a member/fellow of their society. Primary or secondary do not come into it. To demonstrate that mere membership/elected fellow of the AAAS is inherantly notable, you have to demonstrate that they as an organisation pass NPROF 3. NAS elects less than 100 a year, the Royal Society 50ish. In 2016 AAAS added closer to 400. If we are using the examples in NPROF, thats a very big difference in numbers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That's called goal-post moving since you now claim primary/secondary does not matter, and I am addressing primary/secondary. Mere membership is not the evidence I said my OP is about, the evidence is elected fellow. As for whether the process of AAAS elected fellow is NPROF3 worthy enough, that's best dealt with at AfD (or in an RfC), since DGG has already argued it is. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no goalpost moving. The evidence of elected fellow is their membership of the AAAS, sourced to the AAAS. That is a primary source. Used correctly for how a primary source should be used. If you cant understand that basic fact about primary/secondary then there is no point continuing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
No. Elected Fellow is not mere membership in the AAAS. Elected Fellow is an independent process of evaluation of the professor's work by other scientists. The plain words of wp:secondary for AAAS fellow are met -- while it's true that secondary does not have to be "independent", and what matters for secondary is that it is evaluation of the subject by the author, here the author is the AAAS making an "evaluation", and the subject is a professor, and here it's an independent judgement, too. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That's synthesis, though, because the links provided in these articles don't contain any of that evaluation, they merely say that someone is a member. For a proper secondary source I'd expect some review of their work and/or the reason why they were elected a member. I'm not saying they're not notable, incidentally, simply that currently there aren't any useful secondary sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Definitely not. No one on Wikipedia is making up anything about the professor being elected. And a claim of not knowing what of the word, elected, means is no basis for a claim of original research. The why and the how of elected at the AAAS is explicitly wp:verifiable in black and white. They have told you why and how they elected him [[10]]. No one on Wikipedia is inventing or making anything up -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we can verify the process by which they are elected, but AAAS does not publish much of the justification of why academic A was selected over Academic B, just that Academic A was selected as a Fellow. That gives us no secondary information to work with. Contrast that to what the Nobel Prize committee does, usually providing a great deal of rationale of why the selected awardees were picked and the importance of their research/contributions to humanity (eg what is linked too off this page [11]). If the AAAS provided something even close to these lines, that might be something, but they do not give any reasoning, just that their selected Fellows were from the output of their process. They clearly did some critical analysis but their lack of publication of this analysis means we can't use them as a secondary source. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
No. Your comment just admitted while trying to not admit it there is information there ("not publish much" you argue). Whatever you claim is peculiarly enough for you is irrelevant. They have said why, with adjectives and everything which in ordinary plain English mark him out above others by the judgment of scientists, not himself, but by the judgement of other scientists in several rounds reviewing primary sources they tell you about - secondary in every way. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking at [12] and subsequently linked pages and I see no secondary information about these people. Secondary information involves transformation of primary and other sources (evaluation, critical analysis, synthesis, etc.), and a catchall statement of how fellow are elected by the AAAS fails this test. If they told us a summary of those rounds of elections unique to each person, then yes, there is something, but AAAS membership is a primary source and does not contribute to notability, given the limited information they provide about each. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I linked above, [13] and your talking about mere membership just means you are ignoring what has been stated multiple times, we are not talking about mere membership. That you claim to not be able see the superlatives and the adjectives of evaluation just means your not reading the source. That you claim to not be able to see the list of primary documents upon which the evaluation is made just means you are not reading the source. As to the professor, that is secondary in every way. 14:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I read that, it explains very well how they are selected. That's great. But because they do not publish any of the specifics for how a random Fellow is brought to nomination and elected is the problem. From the encyclopedic side, it gives us zero information we can use to expand the article beyond "they are an AAAS Fellow", and as this discussion has shown, being an AAAS fellow is certainly not a guarantee that secondary sources for that person can be found. Again, contrast that to what the Nobel committee posts about all their winners, a high-level but reasonably deep explanation of why the recipients' contribution was important to human development. For something like AAAS Fellowships, I wouldn't expect that much coverage, but I would expect at least a paragraph for each Fellow that explains why their work is important. Secondary sources are based on transformation of information, not relationship (that's captured by the independent-vs-dependent axis) and that is completely lacking here. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, to be brutally honest, having been a member of similar professional societies, the "AAAS Fellow" feels more like a rite of passage and/or a tenure after you've spent 4 years in the organization; there is nothing in the way that every 4+ year serving member of AAAS could become a Fellow (which of course would clearly make it a non-unique achievement and thus far unsuitable for notability). In contrast, the IEEE Fellow sets a specific limit [14] "The total number selected in any one year does not exceed one-tenth of one percent of the total voting Institute membership.". (And to add, at least the IEEE has a sentence or two for each Fellow as to why they were named such [15]). The way the AAAS is set up is the nature of how these professional societies work. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Understood that some want to make the fellowship not PROF, but you do that in an RfC, and don't use the intellectually dishonest game of saying it is not secondary as to the professor, because such a claim is absurd. The adjectives of evaluation "distinguished" "meritorious", etc. etc. by the scientists are there, and the primary sources for their evaluation, the professor's articles, recommendations, etc, etc. are listed. Secondary all the way round. (What I would want to do with bio stubs is make lists, if anything, but I am not going to make up silly claims that that website and organization is as if it is a personal blog, and it does not say what it says). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, based on past problems of the years from other editors in mass article creation, we should have had consensus confirmation that AAAS Fellowship merited inclusion by PROF #3 before the mass creation was run. It would be completely appropriate to do a mass creation on IEEE Fellows - it is specifically called out in PROF #3, but AAAS doesn't appear to have been evaluated by consensus, putting the onus on ST to have checked that before creation. Clearly, now, there is probably a need for an RFC to clarified PROF #3, but this should have been done before the point of mass creation and now we have to deal with cleanup.
Separately, a catchall description of the Fellowship using vague words like "distinguished" and "meritorious", which are being applying to 300+ people per year, doesn't sound at all like a secondary source. I stress the need for a unique reason why these people were selected as AAAS Fellows, and from the general process for AAAS fellowship, at some stage, that reasoning had had to be made internally to the AAAS, but it is not published to the outside world. We cannot verify the exact reasons, and even though we could like access the CV and article lists does not allow us to make the original research-leap of logic of why the AAAS selected them. So no, we don't have any secondary information about the Fellows strictly off being named an AAAS Fellow. It's not an attempt to be dishonest, it is practically speaking that the reasons that would attribute to being a secondary source of information are not published and can't be verified. We can speak to the fellowship being given in context of a much broader biograph, it's not a bad primary source, but it has no weight to be a sufficient secondary source due to lack of publication of reasoning. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
More absurdity, we are not here to see if the work of sources is reproducible, like you wish to do with the AAAS. We are not leaping anywhere -- they have expressly told you why and how they elected him. Your job as an editor here is not to make your own original research to see if you can reproduce the AAAS judgement and argue they got it wrong or right and should not have done what they did in finding him distinguished, meritorious, etc. etc. It is their clear secondary judgement. That your logic is indefensible and dishonest on the point of secondary sourcing is patent -- if they would have written more you argue, your argument would consider it secondary, but because they did not write more, your argument wishes to pretend it's primary - none of that has anything to do with primary or secondary, it is secondary as judgement by others, not because of how voluable they are. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it is secondary, but the lack of rational makes it a very useless secondary statement for purposes of meeting the GNG and building an encyclopedic article. They have told us how they elect Fellows, and by obvious logic, how random Fellow A was elected, but they have not told us why random Fellow A was elected. Yes, the "how" gives us qualities they look for, but these are very broad, vague terms, and effectively leads to a empty, fluffy statement from an encyclopedic view: "Prof. John Q Smith was elected an AAAS Fellow for his distinguished and meritorious work." Maybe it is secondary, but it certainly does not satisfy the "significant coverage" that secondary sources are supposed to provide for meeting the GNG (and further, it is technically neither independent, since the Fellow must have already been a member of AAAS). Note that this is not casting doubt at the judgment of AAAS, but that because they don't give us any more to work with, just being noted as an elected Fellow of AAAS is not qualified enough to meet the GNG. (The question of NPROF #3 remains, but as noted, at that point we can use primary sources. But from what others have shown, there doesn't seem to be a good correlation between being an AAAS Fellow and having a deal of other secondary sources written about that person, making whether NPROF #3 really applies here in question). --MASEM (t) 16:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I plan on releasing the logs if needed AFTER I personally get consent from the parties involved, I never had an intent to blackmail anyone, I only intend for the correct thing to be done, however if anything should be done is that, ST would have to go to those creations and tag them properly, I really don't see the point of removing a right when they could just fix it themselves... not to mention, WP:SOFIXIT exists. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 12:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC) I moved this from the new subsection below because it belongs up here. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Zppix, WP:SOFIXIT was not intended for mass-creation of stubs of dubious encyclopedic value. Are we supposed to follow SwisterTwister around the project and clean up after him instead of insisting he actually improve or doing constructive editing ourselves? As someone else pointed out, nineteen a minute! That's a full time job just going around and performing the basic due diligence that is expected of an experienced editor. Truly, removing auto-patrolled is really the bare minimum we need to do here, as he is clearly not getting the message that haste is not appropriate. Almost all of these AN and ANI threads regarding him all boil down to him being overly hasty and completely disregarding others when they ask him to slow down and collaborate effectively. People are airing serious and long-term grievances here, and for you to tell them "fix it yourselves" is quite a slap in the face to them. As I've mentioned above, I like ST, and have defended in quite strongly in the past and even tried desperately to help him improve, but feel like it's resulted in nothing tangible. I'm just not sure what else to do for him at this point. Waggie (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
With reference to O Fortuna's comment above, SwisterTwister has repeatedly been discussed at admin noticeboards for their editing over the years. The area changes - AFC, AfD, NPP, now article creations - but the pattern is the same: editing far too quickly and with too little care. Each time they just escaped a consensus to restrict their editing, though Primefac removed them from being an AFC reviewer this month. I don't know if this is a problem of competence or temperament, but SwisterTwister does not seem to be well-suited to being a constructive Wikipedian. I can think of restrictions that may help: 1. SwisterTwister will not create articles without reliable secondary sources; 2. SwisterTwister will not make more than one edit a minute; 3. SwisterTwister will follow WP:BEFORE in all areas related to deletion. Fences&Windows 13:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I've disagreed with Swister several times, but I strongly believe he's a constructive Wikipedian. Given that in the past he's been far too rigid (my opinion) in his notability interpretations and sourcing requirements, is it possible he's attempting to gain some empathy for the editors whose articles he is patrolling? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I looked at a couple, and they are copied word for word from the one web site. Shouldn't there be quotes or a cc license included? --2601:648:8503:4467:31C4:7809:BB3F:FBC0 (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    If that's the case, then those pages need to be nominated for G12 speedy deletion. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems there's a lot of discussion here about AAAS and whether it is primary or secondary, and whether it's a reliable source in either category. That would actually seem to be a discussion for RSN, not here. I propose moving that aspect of this discussion to there, as the problem would affect other articles as well, and we should make sure that the same standards apply to all articles, not just the mass-creations by ST. It is important that the same rules apply to everyone. Waggie (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary split regarding general mass/quick creation[edit]

  • Circling back to Opibina's point is there a guideline that can be created on mass/quick stub bio creation? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, though it should probably just read "don't do it". Primefac (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    OK. I note for example there is this stub-article Edwin Ross Williams, which was not part of this editor's mass creation, but according to the history was created because he is an APS fellow, so it seems we do need to target by guideline mass/quick creation, if we both allow Edwin Ross Williams and the like but want to not have mass/quick creation. Unless Opibina or others think they can get get a non-stub rule. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    While there are undoubtedly similar articles to the ones we're discussing, I think the issue with mass-creation is that it's harder to patrol. 19 articles per minute being created? That's just nuts. It implies that there is zero thought actually being given to the pages being created. This is what brings it back into SvG territory - that many creations can't easily be checked for accuracy, and as mentioned above there are a few ST creations that have factual errors. The autopatrolled made things worse, but even then the speed and volume would still make patrolling rather difficult. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    Wikipedia as a whole would better off if we got a firm handle on mass stub creation. I've seen this many times by many editors over the years. In reality, stubs that are one or two sentences provide no substantive information to the reader. Mass stub creation like this serves no purpose but to create more work for oversight like this. Wish someone would come up with a definitive policy to ban mass stub creation. — Maile (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    Perhaps a sentence at WP:STUB creating stubs section would do for a beginning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    I'd like to see something about this added to the BLP policy. SarahSV (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    Even I wouldn't propose an outright ban on mass stub creation, though it would probably be reasonable to say that one should get consensus (or at least absence of serious objections) before starting the work, and ideally provide samples of articles created using your intended process and data sources before scaling up. I think Sarah has the right idea in suggesting that any new guidance should focus on BLP stubs. I can imagine cases where they're created from a well-curated and thorough data source and therefore are OK, but in most real examples there have been too many problems that leave carelessly written and error-laden articles in mainspace where they will be unlikely to attract further editing in a timely manner. While it could use some fleshing out, I think this is actually already implicit in the text of the BLP policy: The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Membership in AAAS is very different from being a Fellow of the AAAS (which, confusingly, is again different from AAAS Fellowships) I see no arguments above that AAAS members are notable, only that AAAS Fellows are. Here is a description of the process for becoming a Fellow, and the honor is selective and peer-reviewed, exactly what our notability standards ask for. They are a significantly limited selection of AAAS members, for starters. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I see. But I checked a few these pages, and they only included information about person X being a scientist in the field Y. That was sourced only to their University or Society pages. These are actually self-published materials. I do not think anyone should create BLP pages sourced only to self-published materials and publications by the person on the subject of his/her scientific research (i.e. primary sources). My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal regarding page deletions[edit]

SwisterTwister has created ~1700 articles, all but 200 of which are <1000 bytes, and most are still the (current) version. There are so many issues mentioned above, and more seem to be mentioned every third post. Thus, I am proposing that, similar to S.v.G., these articles be moved to draft space, checked by editors, and any unacceptable pages left over after a period of 60 120 days be deleted. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: Due to some concerns below I've upped the timeframe to 120 days. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


  1. As proposer. While I don't particularly like the idea of nuking articles, when people's names are spelled wrong and their job title isn't even accurate, we have BLP issues to think about. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. I concur, these should be moved to Draftspace for more careful review, as there's simply too many issues with them to leave them in mainspace. Waggie (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Edit: I support, but would like each to have the usual 6 months in draftspace providing there isn't blpvio or copyvio issues. Waggie (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Obviously, since I proposed this earlier, I support this method. Unfortunately, there is too many concerns to be addressed but on the bright side the encyclopedia will not be too affected if most of these articles are just one or sentences long.
    Also, why hasn't ST come here to respond to this discussion? Does he not care about the outcome?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. That's a good idea. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. Indeed. I've looked at a more since I found the name spelled wrong and there seems to be some issues of extremely close paraphrasing in some instances. I also found issues where the person's areas of research were described incorrectly or incompletely. Many list specific areas of research that are so exact that they are meaningless without the broader context of the field the person researches in. This context is usually provided in the sources already there. Capeo (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  7. I agree. Leaving aside issues of notability or verifiability, in the 200 or so I've looked at I've found too many errors of the kind I fix in copy editing and cleanup work. While ST fixed the ones I mentioned on his talk page, more remain. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support. This allows for them to be checked and possibly salvaged, which is what the draft space is for. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  9. Support. I noticed one of these via a new maths pages lists and considered prodding it myself, as lacking both proper sources and any indication why they were notable. But on such a scale dealing with them manually would be impractical, creating work for everyone. Better to mass nuke them, keeping only the ones that other editors are able to find proper sources that establish notability.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  10. Support for lack of better solution. I do want to note my concern about the sixty day requirement considering the backlog in AfC, though.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  11. Support; it does not (in my opinion) help the encyclopedia to create stub articles in this fashion. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  12. Support:--Good proposal!Winged Blades Godric 05:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  13. Support. And the irony that it is our most notorious deletionist mass-creating all these stubs is not wasted on me, nor I suppose on anyone else who has ANI on their watch list. Softlavender (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  14. Support. Came here following the trail from ST's talk page after I happened on a couple of these and went to drop him a note. This mass creation of sometimes erroneous, generally under-referenced stubs is an imposition on others to clean up the mess. Which in itself isn't that bad (after all cleaning up is what one does on WP much of the time). But making a mess, shrugging and walking off without comment shouldn't get the seal of approval, otherwise the next batch may be thrice that size and lead to real problems. Proposal is a good compromise of salvaging what's good but making the point.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  15. Support. But how long can people tolerate ST wasting their time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  16. Support, less about the notability issue and more about possible copyvios and unreferenced BLPs that have been identified. This seems like a proper way to quarantine questionable material until other editors can vet it further. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  17. Support, and trout DGG for assuming bad faith on anyone who sees a problem here that warrants further action. Fram (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  18. Move these pages to draft space or userfy. Most of them do not satisfy even minimal requirements in terms of notability (this must be proven by sources currently used on each page) and content (no significant info about the persons). My very best wishes (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  19. Support – 120 days of review ought to be enough to salvage the truly notable ones. Others can be placed in a list, as suggested on Swister's talk page, to no answer. — JFG talk 07:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  20. Support moving these articles to draft space or userfying them. These are very sloppy, make-work sub-stubs which amount to line-item list entries broken up into hundreds of individual pages. Giving them 120 days quarantine is adequate time for ST to improve them if they want to, and (crucially) to save other eidts the endless job of cleaning up after ST. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


  • I oppose blanket discrimination against a class of BLP articles that have sources and are likely notable, as detailed by DGG and myself above. The porn tabstar/professor problem has been academically noted and is not new. An attempt to address this issue isn't a problem unless we make it one. SwisterTwister may have gone about their creations quickly but nuking them for that reason is a poor excuse for actual examination and deliberation. Many of the reasons for disliking these articles given above, e.g., they're based on primary sources, they're just stubs, they're created too fast for careful creation, etc. are not actual policy-based reasons for deletion. No one has yet convincingly argued that these professors and other academics are not notable under WP:PROF nor (with one possible copyright issue) have they been identified as otherwise against inclusion criteria. This case is easily distinguished from the SvG one on the grounds that there were no likely basis for notability for the vast majority of those. We haven't yet heard good rebuttal to the idea that these are of people that have verifiable qualifications for notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
What little I paid attention to the SvG case, claims of notability were made (a lot of olympians), but sources were in fact used incorrectly, or mis-read. In this case I think they should be moved to draft space not because there is no claim of notability, but because multiple issues have been brought to light, not the least of which is copyright concerns, which certainly is a policy-based reason for deletion. I would oppose outright deleting them, which would truly be "Nuking", this option gives the community time to review them. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Just because multiple notability guidelines are too permissive doesn't mean we should create thousands of non-notable articles. The problem with all these walled garden project guidelines is that nobody pushes back against them. That's how we end up with thousands of non-notable porn star articles and athlete articles. To me the answer is to cull not keep making more chaff. Even looking at WP:PROF I don't think being a fellow of the AAAS would cut it. They give out way too many fellowships. They also give out awards yearly that they themselves say are for notable accomplishments. That I could see being worthy of an article and I'm trying to find some of these stubs that may be these people to try to expand. I understand other editors don't agree with my interpretation of notability as far as these article subjects are concerned, and that's fine, because we're not talking about deleting them. Everyone is free to clean them up, and they need some serious cleaning up. These are BLPs and myself and others have already found a slew of basic errors. That has to be taken seriously. Capeo (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)ttps://
@78.26: and @Capeo:, I understand the quality concerns. I wonder, on the other hand, what is "too many" fellowships? As mentioned above, 377 a year out of a working population of millions seems hardly non-selective. That's a side issue, however. If we want to modify WP:NPROF, then this isn't the right venue (an RfC on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) would give everyone a chance for input). More importantly, however, is that this discussion seems tending towards the SvG outcome, which is a short-circuit of the established deletion processes. If we had AfD's on one of these and the deletion rationale was: "There's too many cleanup issues." then WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP would be linked in an eyeblink. I would counter-propose that we send the copyright vio's that 78.26 mentions straight to CSD#G12. If there's a reason to perform a mass AfD, then let it go through the normal process unless it can be demonstrated that there are reasons to avoid those processes. Poor quality hasn't been a reason historically to avoid established processes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: I agree. I don't want to see everything deleted via G12, because I doubt all the articles have that issue. Moving them to draft, and letting editors such as yourself look at them seems to be the most prudent course of action. There appears to be enough issues that leaving them in mainspace also does not seem prudent. Primefac's proposal seems to be the most moderate approach. It is because I don't want to see all of these articles outright deleted that I support this. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@78.26:I think my real issue is the 60 day limit in Primefac's proposal, after which these are to be removed. If there really is no deadline, why limit it? Especially when we seem to agree that there is at least a reasonable possibility of notability? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Look at these stubs. I haven't looked at all of them obviously but the ones I have have shown nothing but decently published academics that have done nothing of note. Not a single of the ones I've looked at has advanced their field in any notable way outside of any typical working field. No theories that have made any traction nor any practical applications that have lead to any actual technical or procedural advances. To me, I see no point in filling an encyclopedia with CVs. That said, I know most here don't agree with me as far as notability in general, so I'll just reiterate the sloppiness of these mass created stubs that include enough errors, already found, that BLP has to be the overriding factor. Not to mention, how many of these people would actually want a stub on WP that pops in searches above their CVs? That's already happening. Do a google search on these names. Do you think these people want that? Add in the errors and I can't see how one would have a problem with throwing these articles into draft and seeing if anything can be made of them. If most articles get nuked in 60 days it's not like the list of AAAS fellows on their website suddenly disappeared. Capeo (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
None of these arguments address any basis for deletion in our documented deletion policy. They all amount to some combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an re-definition of notability for academics. Again, if we want to have a discussion on standards for academic notability, this isn't the place for it. WP:BLP is not a reason for deletion, as BLP requires adherence to NPOV, V, and NOR, none of which are violated by stubs. Is ANI to become an undocumented but de facto fourth deletion process for the project? If so, then we are doing readers and article creators a huge disservice by making it possible to delete large bodies of work based on whoever happens to show up in this corner of the project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, we are not talking about these stubs being deleted at this moment. Not that any particular policy matters here. IAR-based common sense does when dealing with, yet another, mass, speedy creation mess. Particularly when it's mass creation of BLPs. This proposal is not unlike other solutions the community has come up with to deal with similar circumstances. I've looked at a ton more of these and many are not good. Many have areas of research that are unintelligible because it seems ST just cut and paste terms without understanding their scientific meaning. I guarantee you most of the article subjects would rather have nothing on WP instead of a single run-on sentence that doesn't represent their research. Capeo (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Deletion is exactly what this process points towards, though. The 60120 day limit in the proposal all but guarantees mass deletion. Furthermore, at the risk of repeating myself yet again, "not good" is not a reason for deletion. Just to test the proposition that these are unredeemable, I picked one SlimVirgin identified as useless above, Stephen Pearton. SwisterTwister created this, which gave me enough information to add his Distinguished Professorship, fields of study, two books he co-authored (one with the inventor of semiconductor lasers, a hugely important scientific/engineering advance), two very important academic awards, and four distinguished Fellowships in selective academic societies[16]. This article is about a subject that ticks so many boxes of WP:PROF it isn't even funny. Arguably, all of #'s1-6. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Updated post because I hadn't seen Primefac amended proposal. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't identify this as "useless". Here is what I wrote. SarahSV (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
You'll notice I didn't put it in quotes which was specifically so as not to put words into your keyboard. That said, you also said: ...the question is whether these pages are useful for readers. The micro-stubs aren't and soon after identified Stephen Pearton as one of the articles that policies are in place to prevent from being created. My point is the article you pointed out was as one that should not be part of the project was actually about a person who is notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Eggishorn, looking at Stephen Pearton actually shows the issues with these stubs, even after you expanded it. You're using two primary sources to say what Pearson's primary areas of study are rather than a secondary bio or, if you insist on using a primary source, it should be at least Pearson's own words about his focus. You basically decided yourself that those sources mean those must be his main areas of research. In this case this is easily fixed because he has secondary bios on the pages of some the institutions that granted him membership or awards, which should be the sources rather than simply the lists anyway. They go into better depth as to what he is known for in his field. This article, amongst I'm sure a ton of these mass creations, could actually be brought past being just a stub. The point is, they all need to be gone through to see if this is the case. Even if they have to remain stubs they have to be checked for the basic errors that have already popped up. Putting this many BLPs out there that could well contain errors isn't something we should be doing. I have time this weekend and hope to expand those stubs that can be expanded whatever the outcome of this discussion. I'm just in favor of prudence when it comes to living people. As of this moment google already suggests his WP article in the search bar first and the article is already the 4th link after the search. For most of these people their WP stub is first after the search, more than any of their accomplishments. WP is hugely favored in searches and, especially with living people, serious thought needs to be given to tossing out a one sentence, possibly inaccurate, stub about them. Capeo (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Capeo< I know I'm going to sound like a broken record, but none of those reasons you identify are reasons for deletion. Deletion is not cleanup. Primary sources are acceptable (as mentioned above) for establishing notability. Stephen Pearton satisfies several criteria for notability. There is no policy-based reason to quarantine under threat of mass-deletion notable subjects. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources can only be used for notability if we are talking about showing how a subject-specific notability guideline is met (the general notability guideline requires secondary sources). But there is a question that is begged is if AAAS Fellowship is something that qualifies under WP:NPROF #3. If AAAS had been previously established via consensus as an organization that fit that SNG, then mass creation would have been fine, though I'm sure we'd be arguing over how these could be expanded. But AAAS never seemed to be discussed as an appropriate organization that would fit NPROF #3, so we presently have a huge number of mass created articles that fail the subject-specific guideline and lack secondary sources, and others have found most cannot be expanded ("cleaned up") to qualify for an encyclopedic article, so we need to consider deletion or at least isolation off mainspace to figure which ones can be salvaged. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
We're both starting to sound like broken records ;) I didn't bring up the problem of primary sources establishing notability. I said you used primary sources, two books co-authored by the subject, to make them claim of what research they are know for, instead of secondary sources like their bios at some of the institutions that granted him recognition. Those bios actually give the history of his notable research and it doesn't gel precisely with what you wrote. That's neither here nor there at the moment though. As I said I don't care about the deletion policy in this instance. There is no policy for every situation, especially the mass, speedy creation of hundreds upon hundreds of BLPs. It's times like this when the community must IAR and come up with a creative compromise. I think putting them in draft and having interested parties go through them is the best compromise. Capeo (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Just an example of the type of secondary source bio I was talking about for Pearton [17] in regards to an award you mention in the article. Definitely a notable award by the way. Given out once per year from a prestigious institution that outlines its selection criteria. That's the type of stuff we'd hope to find for some of these stubs. Capeo (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I took the day limit into consideration and bumped it to 120 days, but if that's still an issue it could be negotiated. Primefac (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I amended my above statement to reflect that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we have enough interested parties here at this point, on both sides of the discussion, that these would not be left alone in draftspace. I support (as noted above) that the articles be given the full 6 months. Outright deletion isn't being discussed here, just trying to give these articles a chance to improve without ending up in Google search results where they would potentially be very problematic for us if there are blpvios or copyvios that we haven't caught yet (other folks already caught a few). The fact that an experienced editor committed copyvio in even just a few of these should really be a clarion call here that each of these really does need to be reviewed in a more careful and "quarantined" manner. Experienced editors should know that copy/pasting content is absolutely unacceptable here, yet it was clearly done. I just don't understand why the copyvios found so far aren't a good enough reason (never mind all the other arguments), to "quarantine" these mass-creations until we can get a handle on what might be copyvio or not. Waggie (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I went back through the conversation above, and I see only one article where a copyvio has been asserted, Christopher D'Elia, which Primefac has already removed. I am aware that ST's autopatrolled bit has been removed because of copyvio issues prior to this creation of academics' articles. That doesn't mean that there's any rash of copyvios in this set of articles, or even "just a few." As of now, we have zero (thanks to Primefac). If we find more, then maybe it needs a separate process. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose -- would such a proposal mean that we could also move other stub-class BLPs into Draft? In my experience, numerous sports bio articles would fall under this category. See for example: Priit Tomson, among many. In addition, 60 days seems arbitrary. Abandoned AfCs are generally given 6 months before they can be speedy deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose 95% of these articles are about notable individuals. Almost all of them adequately document the essential elements of notability. Most of them are incomplete. Some have errors.I estimate the proportion of unacceptable articles is lower than one percent. Voting for this is a vote to abandon the policy that stubs are permitted--or at least to abandon it if the editor is unpopular. I see above some very questionable statement ,
for example, that most are copyvios. I do not see that demonstrated either. I don't see it demonstrated that 10% are, or 1% (In fact, most of the articles are composed of non-copyrightable facts that have a limited number of ways of expression)
or that there is an unacceptably high proportion of errors. I see that based on 1 or 2 examples. Not on evidence that 10% or so have major errors. Or 1%. If all the people working to try to discredit the editor have been able to find only these, there can't be many.
I see a mention of one article where the person was confused with someone else. I do not see that even 10% of them are. In fact, I don't see that even 1% of them are.
I see a statement that AAAS Fellows are not notable. Even if we disregard the established convention that they are, I thing 90% at least can be shown notable by the other parts of WP:PROF. I see not a single example of even an attempt to find any examples or evidence to the contrary.
I see the absurd statement that an organization is not a RS for the list of its members.
I see a far-reaching statement that we should revise the WP:STUB policy, by which I suppose mean eliminate it. It was overwhelmingly supported in the past. It would require very wide consensus to change it, not just here. If we did forbid stubs, it would indeed have an effect00it would greatly decrease the growth of the encyclopedia and the new contributors. I gather some see that as a good thing.
I see a remarkably over-reaching statement we should change WP:BIO, I suppose to require independent sources for everything ,not just reliable sources. And I see some of the comments here by "independent" mean totally disconnected. That's overkill based on this one case, and would of course require very wide consensus.
I suspect that some of the people mean by this they would eliminate WP:PROF. By the same principle, we could eliminate state legislatures, and geographic places. We'd also omit al the early Olympic athletes, and I know some here do have said elsewhere that they fact want to do that also. We would certainly greatly reduce our already pitiably small coverage of the less-developed nations, and even the most developed nations that do not use the Latin alphabet. alternatively, it might mean only professors. There are in fact a few people who have expressed from time to time the view that they were not notable unless they were in effect famous--that is , to effectually eliminate a whole field on the basis of IDONTTHINKTHEYREIMPORTANT.
I am going to make a prediction here--if this passes, I and others shall personally be able to fix or verify 95% or more of the articles. (I hope others will do some of it, but rather than abandon two of our basic working principles that hundreds of editors have used, WP:STUB and WP:PROF I would even do it myself. ) In practice, a 5% error rate is as good as one can hope for in an encyclopedia like ours'. The best editors can sometimes reach 2%,but not most people.
I've been asked why I care: I came here to improve our coverage of science and scientific bios-- I found that the sciences that I knew were pretty well handled, but not scientific bio. I think some of the negative attitudes that I found here about them was do to bias--that people just didn't think that ordinary science was as important as ordinary films, or ordinary politics. I've always been an inclusionist for most topics--(except local topics), which means that I think small variations in WP:N are not actually more important than the gross violations we have throughout WP in some of the other factors of NOT. I care about stubs because I write that way myself, in successive improvements. Many other people do also. Many of our best articles were written that way.
I also care because I want to get away from the very foolish and destructive idea that we should base general rules on individual cases, and from the even more destructive idea that we should act on the basis of isolated examples. We have elements of the herd mentality here--there's a tendency to panic over things we could perfectly well handle carefully. That's a very poor basis for cooperative work.
An even worse basis for cooperative work is instability. To me, it has always seemed obvious that the key part of the inclusion policy is that it should be predictable. People should know what they can expect to find here. People should know what they can expect to be able write about. People like to have some idea whether what they do is going to be accepted to the group they're joining. One or two of my first articles were rejected. I stayed anyway, because I cam here with a longer term plan I'm the exception. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Has anyone actually found any real concern with the content of the articles? Are there massive BLP issues? Copyvios? Other areas to worry about? As there are 1,700 articles in scope, take a random 1% of them to AfD to see what happens. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, people have been pointing out copyvio issues, primary source issues (BLP's need secondary sources to verify the contents), etc. Waggie (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Which ones specifically? Please list a few here and we can take a look at them. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Lugnuts. Already posted below in the discuss sub-section at the bottom. Waggie (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose In addition to the good points made by DGG and others above, it seems clear that these are skeletal stubs which don't say much and so it wouldn't be a significant problem to leave them where they are. If you make them red links, then they are likely to get recreated and this would cause chaos and confusion if there's another draft elsewhere. If people think there's a problem then just stick a clean-up tag on them. Note also the case of stubs like Farukh Abitov. That's still a two sentence-stub which was nominated for deletion by John Pack Lambert. He was sanctioned for going up against WP:NFOOTY. Is it one law for football players and another law for professors? Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I actually came upon one of ST's stubs while doing NPP, which was striking to me since I knew he was an established editor (still not sure how it happened, since it was either last week or the week before – prior to this discussion being enjoined). Then I discovered this discussion going on. Seems to me most of the support !votes are based more on a dislike for ST than on actual policy. Are they stubs? Yes. Is there a policy against making stubs? No. Are they poorly sourced? Yes. Is that against policy? No. Are they incomplete (missing stub tags, talk pages, etc.) Yes. Is that against policy? No. The one issue that is a problem is the copyvio issue. I am not sure how prevalent that is. I've reviewed (and added stub tags) to well over 100 of ST's stubs, and that hasn't been an issue. In all those stubs there was only one which I found with questionable notability as well. As per WP:DELETE, if these articles' subjects are deemed to be notable, which according to current guidelines they are, then as per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." And I see no advantage to moving them to draft space. Would all of them be moved to draft space, even the hundreds which have already been looked over by other editors? Talk about making more work for folks. I think the more coherent arguments in this discussion are by Eggishorn and DGG. Especially DGG's final point: People need to feel secure in that the same rules apply to everyone. Onel5969 TT me 11:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for good reasons expressed by editors Eggishorn and DGG. The pages are identified now as stubs, or they could/should be tagged that way. The editor's article creations are no longer auto-patrolled (by removal of auto-patrol right during this discussion). If there is some way to toggle the status of the articles created already, so that they show as unpatrolled, bringing them to new page patrollers' attention, that could be done. But simply put, stub articles on notable topics are allowed, and I don't want to see Wikipedia changed that way. Also I tend to think all these topics are notable, that the recognition of fellow status is in effect secondary, reflecting judgment of a group, and is difficult to achieve. What would be primary and unusable would be individual nomination documents that assert a given professor should be accepted to fellow status. --doncram 15:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
doncram, my concern is that some of these aren't notable stubs, and there's no way to know the percentage without actually checking them all. It seems appropriate (and again, I reference the SvG case) to move them to draft as a stopgap measure - it allows us to check the pages, approve the actually notable ones, and delete the non-PROF pages. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
You can create a worklist of articles to be checked (perhaps at a subpage of WikiProject Biography), and check them, without removing them to Draft space. --doncram 15:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes there is a way to know the percentage without checking them all: use random sampling upon the articles in a full list created by copying the results of Xtools on the editor's contributions. A sample size of about 30 will suffice to assert a 90 percent confidence interval on what the percentage is. I'll help with the statistical reasoning, including about what sample size is reasonable to measure the rate of non-notability within some specific range like +/- 5 percent, if you start such an effort. --doncram 15:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with DGG, the proposal is an irrational waste of time given that the stubs are almost all notable (I looked through about 20 and couldn't find on that was not notable). --I am One of Many (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Out of curiosity, I am One of Many, did you check them for copyright violations? Primefac (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
      • No, but since when are copyright violations a criterion for notability? --I am One of Many (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
        • A criterion for notability? They're not. A criterion for deleting a page? Always. Copyright violations must be deleted. I genuinely can't believe I have to spell that out. Primefac (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting we should leave copyvios in mainspace because the subject is notable? People aren't stating categorically that the subjects aren't notable, in fact most people are saying that they are, but that the articles probably need serious attention. We need time to identify whether each article has copyvios in it, as it's clear that it's more than just one or two that have copyvios issues. Copyvios isn't about inclusion criteria, arguments over WP:PROF, or people not liking ST, it's about possible legal ramifications for the WMF that we need to act on with efficiency and due diligence. Waggie (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
          • You fix copyright violations when you find them. It is a safe bet that there are currently thousand of undetected copyright violation in articles. Should we move all articles in to draft space to be on the safe side? --I am One of Many (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
            • Hi I am One of Many, thanks for your reply! Most new articles are subject to NPP or AfC review, which should (ostensibly) be copyvio checked. What's happening here is that most of these creations have been marked auto-patrolled and thus circumvent any prompt review and checking for copyvio. Some articles that have been in mainspace for awhile do get copyyvio that creeps in, and we try to catch that as we can. The big difference here is that an experienced and auto-patrolled editor shouldn't be the one introducing any of that copyvio. I've provided some samples of problematic content from these articles (in a copyvio sense) at the bottom of the Discuss sub-section below. Waggie (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless someone can point me to where someone checked a significant sample of these articles for copyright problems and found an unacceptably high percentage. The noability issue seems to have been addressed - the articles are presumed notable per WP:PROF. Maybe that SNG is too loose, resulting in useless articles, but if that is the case the SNG needs to be amended, instead of backdooring it here. Similarly the sourcing concerns also seem weak to me. Secondary sources are certainly preferred, but primary sources are still permitted with narrow exceptions. The big concern is copyright, and if anyone can show me a pattern of copyright issues, I'll quickly change my tune. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Your wish is my command, Tazerdadog. Provided below at the bottom of the Discuss section. Regarding the notability issue, I'm not sure it has been addressed. I agree, though, that this is not the correct venue for discussing whether or not AAAS or a professor's own school website is a reliable source for meeting WP:NPROF. Waggie (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment' Many copyright problems are very easily fixed. If a few word is cited from a persons or his institution's web site, which is what is usually the case for bio copyvios of the sort being discussed here, they just need the reference added. If a plain list of non-copyrightable material is added from such a site, tho it is not copyvio, the attribution needs to be added. If a sentence or two of unessential material is a copyvio, it can be removed. (I will say that a list of academic fields from a persons or university web page is essential to understanding, and should be sourced, not removed) This is very different from the sort of copyvio spam where essentially all of a long articles is lifted directly from the web site. If the person is extremely notable, it is possible to quickly rewrite, but usually, it isn't worth it i've come across academic bios like that, and I delete them except on the very rare occasion nowadays I have time to rewrite them. Usually such a copyvio is promotional as well, and both reasons should be given--if only to discourage the person from going to the fruitless effort to license what will be deleted anyway. I very much doubt if there are any copyvio here of that sort, but if there are, I shall either delete or rewrite them. We cannot tolerate copyvio, but the preferred way to deal with it is to fix them or stubbify or find a noncopyvio version, but that does not seem to apply here).
As for notability let's see what happens at AfD. I cannot exactly predict, for AfD is subject to pile-ons of various sorts. and even for straightforward cases, results are erratic. I am going to make again a more exact statement of what I said before. I think it likely that essentially every AfD brought on the basis that AAAS fellows do not meet WP:PROf or that WP:PROF is not a valid guideline, will fail, and both principles will be upheld. But even if it is decided that AAAS Fellow is not sufficient to meet the guideline, I am certain that I can show that at least 90% of them meet the WP:PROF guideline on other grounds--most of them here have distinguished chairs, and almost all the rest will have stellar citation records to show they are considered authorities in their field. I am going to say this even before I individually examine them, because I am familiar with the in-practice decisions generally used by AAAS. If I am wrong about AAAS, I shall say so. If 90% jhold up, will the people challenging them say as much?
The sort of bullying that is being seen here is not very unusual at AN/ANI. What is unusual is the variety of issues used as an excuse, and , most of all, the disproportionality of the condemnation by small sample; usually there's more of a pretense at representative evidence. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi DGG, did you see my response to you earlier with the diffs of collaboration issues? Could you look at that response and respond in return, please? I hope you don't see it as a "pretense at representative evidence." I'm not bullying SwisterTwister, I've been trying to help him, but have been clearly rebuffed. I was his friend for almost a year on IRC, but he finally stopped talking to me when I kept trying to coach him on collaborating more effectively. I have never been mean to him, spoken poorly of him, or intended anything but to help him - I've even defended him from bullying (more than he knows). Have you considered that the variety of issues is unusual because there's simply a lot of issues going on with him in many areas of the project? People are frustrated and it's been building up for a good long while, so the level of frustration is breaking through, which I believe contributes to the seeming disproportion you refer to. Yes, some people are mean to him, which is highly inappropriate and needs to be handled with a very firm hand, but there ARE issues here that need to be addressed. I really want him to do well here at Wikipedia, and I want him to learn and grow here, because he has a lot to offer the project, and we have a lot to offer him. Waggie (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The pretense at representative evidence is your listings of purported copyvios. 1. that someone else added a copyvio is not blame of tST, who did not add it. 2. A list of publications has no copyright--it has an extremely limited possible way of presentation. 3. It is impossible to say without copying or close paraphrase the material that says X held a position or received an honour. One is inevitably going to have to write one of 3 or 4 variations. Your examples are at best your own misunderstandings. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I do need to clarify that though I think some here are indeed bullying , some or undoubtedly not realizing the nature of the bullying, and are joining the hue and cry out of genuine concern. And there are genuine concerns: he generally works too fast and consequently not as carefully as he should. I've said that in the previous discussions, and it is true here also. I apologize if I gave a different impression. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
DGG, I added the list as an absolutely fair representation of what I found, for people to make up their own minds. Would you rather I had not disclosed my results fairly? I sampled a variety of articles, and I selected ones that had a copyvio score above 25%. If I was making a pretense, I would not have posted these, or I would have searched extensively for the most egregious violations I could find and only posted those. Note also, that I was extremely careful to clearly point out that someone else had added the Bertram Bruce copyvio, did you miss that? I pointed it out because it was hijacked within days to add the copyvio and promo content, for people to make of it what they wished. Also I wouldn't call this just saying "X holds Y position", nor this, they are clearly copy/pasted detailed descriptions of various fields of study with some slight modifications, but the order of the fields of study aren't even changed. I am of the opinion that ST is not exercising care in creating these stubs, simply copy/pasting "X does Y" with some quick modifications, and sourcing it to the subject's own school or awarding institution. This is not improving the encyclopedia, it's simply posting a huge number of stubs based on primary sources. Regarding impressions, you definitely gave a different impression, as you've been repeatedly defending him in various forums even when it's clear he's been problematic, such as at AfC with the copyvios he was accepting there, and also by not responding to my earlier comments regarding his lack of collaboration with other editors. I am genuinely concerned that he focuses far more on quantity, rather than quality, pretty much to the point of disruption until he wears out his welcome in a particular venue, then just moves elsewhere on the project. Editors clearly have tried to engage him in discussion and are simply blown off. That is a clear problem. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I like SwisterTwister and wish him well, he really just needs to slow down and actually collaborate. Waggie (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This oppose is based on my personal principles. I cannot, in good conscience, accept a 60-day countdown to nuke option. This is especially true when the proposal calls for automatic deletion of pages if people don't take action. I can forsee ahead that those who want to see such pages gone to simply stand around and not do anything. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    As a minor point of interest, OhanaUnited, I upped the timeframe to 120 days about 16 hours before you posted. I know that probably doesn't change your overall opinion but I felt it should be mentioned. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Most of these are notable and problematic articles can be fixed. This is a Wiki after all, and it's meant to be improved on. -FASTILY 06:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Of course there is one law for football, if you nominate people for deletion who meet the criteria, you will be sanctioned. There is another law for subjects that do not apply heavily to hard core males. So I guess heavy deletion nominations of articles on female porn starts might earn a sanction, especially if the aritcles deleted included photos. Nominating sports figures earns a special level of hate. Actually, this whole discussion shows another problem with Wikipedia. There is not enough defense against hounding. Bascially SwisterTwister is actually trying to do the common work of crafting a set of guidelines for the encyclopedia and leaving it to others to flesh out the project. Now, maybe this should be done with much clearer under collaborators in mind. I may be among the few who feel biographical articles should tell us at least a little about a person's life and not just be a list of citations. However I hold that even with these articles we can say more of them as people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Look at something like this. Maybe he is notable expert, I do not know. However, this is not at all clear from the "referencing", which is something essentially self-published. Moreover, the page does not tell anything of significance about the person. As written, this is advertisement, pure and simple, regardless to motivations. This whole discussion is actually about responsibility in creating new pages. Everyone who creates new page must be responsible to satisfy at least some very minimal requirements for a stub. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify: you can't tell from that stub whether some-one holding a named professorship at Harvard Business School is a notable expert in their field? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have reviewed several of these articles (before the listing here) and there were OK. It may be annoying to have an article with so little information, and I have recently requested another writer doing the same thing to put in worthwhile information. TS may be rushing too fast through whatever tasks performed (AFC, stub creation, AFD listing) and not apparently changing behaviour on request. But in this case, a small fraction of problems does not warrant any more than a patrol by someone else, no more than other random article creations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The majority of the concerns which led to SvG's articles being mass deleted were the additions of incorrect measurements of height and weight to BLPs. The majority of SwisterTwister's BLPs simply list awards and what the scientist has done. The whole situation is radically different from the SvG scuffle. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


What if there're pages that haven't been reviewed after 60 days? The wording on the proposal seems to suggest that any unreviewed pages are defaulted to nuke option. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

OhanaUnited I think that is the case. Like with the SvG scenario, any article that is not reviewed will be nuked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I think there's reasonable concern that 60 days may be too soon. I would support a modification of the timeframe to simply match the G13 criteria. Waggie (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I think six months is a little extreme, but I just picked 60 as a relatively round number (and two months seemed like a reasonable timeframe to go through 1700 two-sentence stubs). If the general preference is to make it longer, I have no objections. Now that I write this out, I realize that 60 may have been too short... Primefac (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone else... bothered that he has not replied once to this discussion? --Tarage (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You are not alone Tarage. I quipped about that in my support to the proposal above.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I've been wondering about that as well. He removed posts from his talk page from BrownHairedGirl and Huon with the edit summary "I have nothing else to say here, questions have been answered," having addressed only the notability concerns by citing PROF. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
And that is part of the larger problem here, he doesn't see a problem or doesn't want to deal with it, and that's simply not collaborative editing which is part of th Wikipedia Five Pillars ("Editors should treat each other with respect and civility"). It concerns me quite deeply. Waggie (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm less concerned about a lack of response here (although it seems odd behaviour that an established user would not at least give a brief statement to present the rationale behind their actions, rather than leaving it to be inferred). If someone chooses not to respond to a noticeboard discussion, that is their prerogative, even if it's possibly not the most prudent choice.
What I find more concerning is that the issue about not including stub tags was politely raised on 11 May, then removed without response. Removing without response on the talk page is ok at a low level, although it seems odd to not just reply to a polite request with some sort of thanks / acknowledgement. Removing it without response either in talk or in subsequent actions, does not seem ok. As noted in a new followup message, even a generic {{stub}} tag would be significantly better than no stub tag, although I find it a little difficult to justify an experienced editor not just using a more specific appropriate tag each time. These articles would all fall within either a single specific stub cat, or a small group of stub cats, wouldn't they? So, it shouldn't need a huge amount of additional effort to just use a reasonably correct tag?
In my earlier note about stub tags, I expressed surprise that they were not included, characterising it as a relatively minor issue. That changes to concern when I discover that the issue had been politely raised and apparently ignored.
Murph9000 (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
When I bought the lack of stub tags up with ST a week ago, he removed it in a way that it didn't ping me. Unfortunately, I'm unsurprised that ST has yet to respond. I'm sure he is well aware of the discussion, but is being avoidant of it. It's pretty characteristic of him to do so both on-wiki and on IRC.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, he would be unwise to respond to an attack like this, one which is clearly based on some degree of dislike. I judge this by the series of attacks on his work that have been brought here and ANI for different things over the last fe months. (I suppose one or another is the root cause, but it's hard to tell.) When attacked by a group, sensible people try to get away. Some would-be heroes would rather go down fighting. We have here a perfect example of why I advise people to keep far away from ANB/ANI. From arb com also; the reason I became an arb is to attempt to at least limit the harm they do. Just as I'm trying to do here. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
You need to stop excusing ST's disruptive behaviour. The issue with their 'stub' creation has been explained to them on their talk page, and they ignored it. The issue with their new article reviewing has been explained to them, and they ignored it. The issue with them failing to check new content for copyright issues has been explained to them, and they ignored it. I don't think people are asking for much when they ask SwisterTwister to do things in the normal way that they're normally done on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a collaborative project, we do need people to discuss issues when they're raised and to actually collaborate, SwisterTwister primarily finds themselves at AN/ANI not because of what they are doing, but because they ignore concerns and refuse to collaborate with other users. Nick (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Nick. And I also feel that ST is heading for an ArbCom case to evaluate all of these continued disruptions if he persists in repeated disruptive non-collaborative behaviors. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
You feel that Huon is attacking SwisterTwister by registering his concerns here after being simply brushed off on ST's talk page? Folks tried to communicate with him and their concerns were effectively ignored, and so it ended up here. I, myself, have tried to work with ST before on his talk page and been brushed off. I realize there have been unjust and specious complaints about ST in the past, and I regard them with disdain, this isn't one of them. Here's a few smattering of examples both recent and past of SwisterTwister not collaborating to resolve an issue: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24],[25],[26], and here, only a couple months after an AfD keep consensus. It's his prerogative to not respond here, but he is expected to collaborate constructively with other editors. I like SwisterTwister and think he can do a lot of good here if he slows down, performs due diligence, and works to collaborate more effectively (and part of that is accepting constructive criticism). I respect that you're trying to defend people from attacks, but there is genuine concern about a pattern of behavior here. If he won't collaborate on his talk page, and won't address them here, where WILL he address them? If there is a venue in which he'll communicate, discuss, and accept constructive criticism, I would truly enjoy working with him further. Waggie (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if any of these could be effectively "trans-wikied" to Wikidata. "Alice Expert is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science", sourced to the authoritative AAAS list of fellows, would presumably fall into their scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
certainly it belongs in Wikidata, as do all other subjects of WP articles. The place to challenge his notability is AfD, not by bringing actions at ANB against the ed. who wrote the article. ANB, of course, does not deal with questions of notability , for no admin has a greater voice in that than any other editor. Before blaming people for disruptively writing inadequate articles on non0notable people, it is appropriate to see if the articles hold up at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A couple of folks have asked for samples of copyvio or similar issues. I did some spot checks and found:

Close paraphrasing: Mark Berliner Mark Chance Nicholas Roy Guhan Subramanian Charles Stewart III

Lists of publications copied in part or whole: Amedeo Odoni

Clear copyvio: Bertram Bruce (note however: most of the copyvio was added by User:Chipbruce - presumably the subject themselves - not SwisterTwister)

Methodology: I took a fairly random sampling from the top of the list, a few scattered in between, and a few around the 1000 mark. The examples above represent approximately 10-15% of the articles I sampled.

That's high enough to warrant some serious concern here, I think. There were quite a few other articles that had very close paraphrasing, but the text was short enough to not warrant inclusion here (because it was only a one sentence article to begin with). Waggie (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think your samples support your conclusion. The article you called an example of clear copyvio, is one you admit SwisterTwister didn't create with the violation. It has no probative value to demonstrating whether ST's creations are being put into the project without proper care. The "close paraphrasing" examples include many phrases highlighted by Earwig's tool that have limited or no other ways to re-express. For example, "American Association for the Advancement of Science" is a phrase long enough to be tripped by the tool, but is the name of the organization. From the Mark Berliner article it picks out "...early research focused on Bayesian statistics, decision theory, and robust Bayesian analysis." and I can't think of too many ways to restate that information without gross grammatical torturing. I appreciate the obvious effort you put into this sampling, but the limited number of at best borderline examples is not indicative of a copyright violation problem that requires special handling. I would venture to say that a similar sample of articles that have been approved through AfC, especially on scientific or academic subjects, would find similar levels of paraphrasing. If these weren't the articles created by ST, I doubt this would be considered problematic. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Waggie: I really don't want to move the goalposts here, but I think that almost all of these are either not a copyright violation (Name of an organization or professorship), borderline ( short complicated technical phrase which is difficult to reword), or do not reflect on ST because the copyvio was added by a different editor. The copied list of publications really is a problem, but if that is the only problem, we can just excise such lists from ST's articles using manually assisted regex, and move on with our lives. Thank you for assembling the data - it makes it much easier to have a discussion about what to do about the articles. I don't think a 5-7% borderline copyvio rate and a 1-3% serious copyvio rate warrants a quarantine and nuke approach, but the converse position is totally defensible. Are there any indicators in ST's work beyond a list of publications that may indicate a copyvio is likely? Tazerdadog (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Tazerdadog and Eggishorn, please see my reply above to DGG. There are two such examples that are more than just a name of an organization/professorship, but clear copy/pastes of someone's fields of study (in detail) that are barely changed at all. As I mentioned in my reply to DGG, I intended the results of my analysis to be fair and objective, so I did not skew or cherry-pick my results to give a "pretense of evidence" as DGG calls it. Thank you for discussing this with me. Waggie (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
You say 2 examples of clear copyvio, but in your list of them above you give only 1 as clear copyvio--and then say the copyvio was added by someone else. That makes zero. You have made an accusation that your own evidence disproves. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello DGG, thanks again for your reply. If you had followed the diff to my reply above that I provided, you would see which examples I'm referring to, neither of which is the Bertram Bruce article. In fact, you were actually pinged in that diff and instead you replied to the post that you weren't pinged in, which I find interesting. No, I did not characterize these examples as "clear copyvio" in my initial posting of the samples, I was attempting to offer the samples without too much characterization. With respect, you keep treating me like I'm trying to bully ST. I'm really not. Waggie (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • SwisterTwister is conspicuously absent from this entire thread. I'm not sure what to make of that. It's clear that he has not created any further articles since it began and, since he has archived this page, it's pretty certain he's seen it. ST, I think a comment here regarding your intentions, any plans for the future, and your opinions regarding this thread would be helpful. I think the ideal scenario would be for you to commit to going back through these articles to check for (and fix) copyright issues, make sure they're notable, and address the other issues brought up in this thread. And, importantly, to commit to discussing any future mass creations. I think if that if you committed to that, then there are some users who would probably want to check up on these articles (or even help), but I think this thread would head towards a relatively quick closure. IMO, anyway. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I note the time is now 120 days. They will all be reviewed by then, though there will probably be a number of AfDs that will need longer discussion. Enough people seem to be interested . DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course I knew the articles were not complete, but I would have gone back and fixed them. People should have let me do it, rather than find every possible reason to pick on the few mistakes in a few of the articles. I recognize now that it would have been better if I had gone slower, and written them in more detail initially. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I have not been able to read beyond the start of this discussion. However my basic reaction is that it would be best for editors to at least do a search to see if they can find more sources on the people involved than to complain that all these articles were created. I know such takes work, but with the admission that some may well be notable, it would behove us to do the work to seek for the references, which often do exist for people, they are just hard to find.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Some people seem to have the view that creating lots of articles on under-covered in our encyclopedia professions (academics, especially scienctists), or under-represented biographical populations (women, especially those who are writers, academics, lawyers and politicians and maybe a few other such professions), ethnic-minority group members in Europe and especially the US, Canada and Australia, people from the world outside of those areas, members of religious minority groups, and a few others, will somehow make for a more inclusive better encyclopedia. I can in general see this sentiment, I have deliberately created articles on people who fit one or more of these criteria Emmanuel Abu Kissi and Joseph W. Sitati are the two that come to mind the fastest, and Edward Dube if I created that article. I still agree with this sentiment in general, however I am not sure that an article like the one of John Enemark that says virtually nothing substantive about him really advances the encyclopedia. Will we really be better off if we go from more articles on porn actors than scientist to more articles on scienctists, but a high percentage of the later are two sentance articles that say nothing of meaning?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    • A fact we need to face: up until about a few decades ago, and even today, the human mindset did a crap job of covering females, minorities, non-Western/non-Asian citizens, and professions that were important to advancement but didn't have the glamor of celebrity or the draw of money. We can't change that, and that means we are going to have imbalance of articles favoring white and male people up to and including the 21st century. We cannot create information that does not exist (as being asked here), nor should we weaken our sourcing, verification, and notability policies/guidelines just to enable poor or nearly-absent sourced to be used to "correct" that imbalance that we did not create. As an academic myself, it sucks that the bulk of sources overlook the people that actually do the science, but that's how the world works, and we are not here to right great wrongs. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Actually we can change the level of coverage received be certain people before any given year. The caveat is that it cannot be changed by original reseach in Wikipedia. However no Wikipedia notability guidelines requires a person to have been covered in contemporary reliable sources. Thus Elijah Abel merits an article based on 21st-century coverage of this 19th-century man, to give one example that came to my head quickly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Absolutely true, but my point is that if you turn to sources of the 19th century (to use an example), they are going to be very woefully overrepresenting men and dismissive of females, minorities, etc.. That happened, society is trying to fix it, but we cant retroactively change what was or what wasn't written then. If anything, contemporary sources are going to a more likely shot to cover the underrepresented classes then. That still doesn't mean we should weaking our sourcing requirements to be more inclusive as if try to fix that historical systematic bias. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This would probably make more sense above, but I think there is goal post moving. Early on someone complained these articles are based on "primary sources". However then it was correctly pointed out that the published membership of a society is a secondary source. Weather it is fully independent is another issue, but it is not a primary source. While there is some wiggle room, a primary source is generally one that is not published, if a source is published in some form it is secondary. Weather it is either independent or reliable is another matter, but it is not primary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Being listed as a member or a fellow of a society is a primary source. A secondary source requires novel transformation of primary and other information, and we would be expecting things like analysis, critique, synthesis, and other aspects (effectively, why each person stood out to be elected a member), and that is completely absent here. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
this is one of the cases where that source is the best source. How can it possibly be mistaken or ambiguous? It speaks for itself. The subject's own source is reliable for this also, but a report by a journalist can not be certain to get the nature or name of the distinction right. It's exactly the same as our using a legislative register to show someone occupied an office. (If one wants to be technical, the true primary source is the certificate of the award given to the person, and the listing just an authoritative report on it, or for a political office, the report of the body certifying the election ) Trying to reject article content because of this is getting sourcing exactly upside-down. The true problem is that for some awards and memberships we have no easily accessible membership register. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Having looked at the actual articles, so many of these people not only have done lots of research but hold named chairs from research universities and have done other important work in their fields, that draftifying this is a backward approach. All we need is a few people with the time and temperment to write good bios of scientists to step forward. I have worked to flesh a few bios out, but do not claim a deep enough understanding of science to feel like trying more. However I might if I got some time. 120 days is just too little of a time, that is only 4 months, and a good fleshing out will take a while.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Time to do something about Vote (X) for Change[edit]

Vote (X) for Change has been disrupting Wikipedia for years now (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vote_(X)_for_Change). Since he was banned in 2010, his disruption has mostly been harrassment of individual Admins. It has a knock-on effect, in that his actions often lead to semi-protection being applied to pages which other IP's should be allowed to access. He is in the UK and in that time the police here have started to crack down heavily on online harrassment and related issues. Who do we have to prod at the WMF with a big stick to get them to actually take action on this? And I dont mean their usual 'we are looking at ways of improving dealing with harrassment blah blah' fob off, I mean actually lodging a formal complaint with the local police authority. And no I am not joking about this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And also Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. Supposedly the Foundation was informed last February following an ArbCom motion and they responded something to the effect of it being on their list of things to look at, which looks to me exactly like what you'd expect a dismissive hand wave from an authority that doesn't give a crap to look like. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • While I have no idea with how to proceed with that, I am in full support of any measures taken to remove an LTA from our noticeboard. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a question/observation, not a proposal: how many Wikipedias have disabled IP editing? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: IIRC no WMF Wikipedia, disables IP editing... Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 13:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Not directly related, but in general, there's been quite a lot of stalking of users (offwiki) who I will not name. I've asked Jalexander (Jalexander-WMF) if the harassment which, strictly construed, falls under California law, is being responded to and he said that him and the WMF have attempted to help the victims. Hopefully something legal could happen with these LTAs. Dat GuyTalkContribs 14:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I am also aware of such cases, and yes, I also know that the foundation legal team DOES assist, where it can, people who are experiencing harassment which originated on Wikipedia and has reached the level where legal action needs to be taken. Being annoying and refusing to go away is not even in the same ballpark when dealing with the sorts of harassment these cases have shown, which is scary as hell. Being told to leave and keep coming back to post on Wikipedia is, while a pain in the ass, not going to be something that the legal team gets involved with. They've got bigger fish to fry, honestly. That doesn't mean there isn't some middle ground between "Taking them to court" and "Doing nothing", but to compare what Vote (X) is doing to the sorts of legal cases that are out there (if we're thinking of the same one) doesn't even compare. Vote (X) is annoying, but generally gets shut down within seconds. If we wanted to, perhaps something in the Edit Filter way could be used to shut it down for a while, but really, this will probably go away on its own; Willy on Wheels did, Mascotguy did, Davidyork71 did, etc, etc. This sort of low-level trolling and refusal to go away isn't the worst thing we deal with; it seems like a bigger problem than it is because it's one person, but it's not hard to shut down, really. --Jayron32 16:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Its been seven years. No sign of them getting bored yet. Perhaps you like to deal with this crap endlessly, but there are other options. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, yes, we did contact the Foundation about this last year. I wouldn't call the response "dismissive", but it did sound like this was not (then) at a level that would make dealing with it a priority for them. To be fair, being a long-term nuisance on-wiki but not (AFAIK) pursuing people off-wiki or harassing them elsewhere is fairly small-scale compared to other issues on their plate. I understand there's some new efforts at the Foundation aimed at dealing with harassment, and engaging with those efforts might be the best path forward for issues like this that are chronic irritants rather than serious threats. A range-specific semiprotection tool might be useful? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Vote (X) for Change posts irrelevant stuff but not actual patent nonsense, admins revert and block, cycle repeats. He turned up on my page, I ignored him as a crank and he went away of his own accord. So why don't we all try doing that - he's obviously trolling admins and having a laugh at those who rise to the bait. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, you might be quite the baseball player with all those WP:RBI. RickinBaltimore (talk)
@Ritchie333: It's not that straightforward. Vote (X) for Change posts are a mix of irrelevant stuff, half-truths, and outright lies that can fool editors into thinking there's something to them if they don't know they're dealing with a LTA. You yourself re-added one of their posts to a RFA after it had been removed by another editor. And then proceeded on a wild good chase that caused a rather heated argument between us. So, yes, RBI but realize they do occasionally cause significant disruption for unsuspecting editors. --NeilN talk to me 12:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I can't even remember what you're talking about or when that was - and I'm not saying that to be belittling, it's just it wasn't significant enough to lodge in my memory. For me, it's the articles that are the main draw, everything else is just background noise I can tune out. It's the admins who can't let this go that keep using their tools like Sisyphus pushing his rock up a hill, and wondering why it never ends. Again, not being nasty, just stating experience. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, I was blocked for restoring some of (apparently) his posts to my talkpage which I felt were perfectly benign, and was declared by the blocking admin to be "proxying for a banned editor". Thankfully some common sense prevailed after 17 minutes... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The only solution would be to have him physically restrained from Wikipedia or design a bot which can instantly recognize his posts & edits, that would immediately revert/delete them. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted some of the LTA user's edits. Then I found out that Vote (X) for Change's activities extended to Wikimedia Commons, solely contributions from December 2016. This user used one of IPs and a username "Miletian" there. --George Ho (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The troll in question is not important enough to do anything special about. There are many of us and only one of him, and typically his garbage gets thrown away quickly. The mere existence of this discussion, however well-meaning, does nothing except to feed that troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Question - Short of GoodDay's proposal, obviously intended flippantly, to design a bot that would instantly recognize troll posts and revert them, what is anyone suggesting be done? We agree that this troll is a problem, but not every problem has an obvious solution. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:HOAX at Murder of Seth Rich[edit]

Really need quick eyes on this and some admin intervention, cause it's a BLP issue with potentially serious implications. The article is Murder of Seth Rich. The controversy is over a report, originally from Fox News (who then altered their story) which then spread through the fringe conspiracy websites, about Rich's "emails to Wikileaks" being discovered by a Private Investigator. It's a hoax. Sources debunking the story are here, here and even here and here (one fox news affiliate debunking the original fox news story, yup).

There are a couple accounts which are trying to both force it into the article (there's some discussion on the talk page and, obviously, no consensus for inclusion) [27]. The user who's trying to add it also accused those who don't want in of being "DNC users" [28].

Another single purpose anonymous account has been edit warring to add this to In The News [29].

Please, at the very least, semi-protect the relevant articles. This is some Sandy-Hook-didn't-happen conspiracy theory bullshit all over again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

from what I can see this editor above is attempting to end around protect the page as he pushes bias about president Trump and it has nothing to do with Seth Rich story - the editor who added the item originally has a long history on wiki of good faith edits --2600:8800:FF04:C00:2169:C266:D9F6:9F08 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
on the other hand the above editor Volunteer Marek has an EXTENSIVE HISTORY OF EDIT WARRING BLOCKING and is currently engaged in multiple issues of POV bias pushing and edit warring --2600:8800:FF04:C00:2169:C266:D9F6:9F08 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
This is the single purpose anonymous account which has been edit warring on multiple articles and adding the crap about Seth Rich to the Portal News. It's also clearly not a new user. WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
not sure who you are referring to I each and every day edit the Current Events page as does Lazorsharp - you on the other hand have never edited that page before and keep swearing instead of making a real arguemnet - I ask again are you a sockpuppet of Geogene or whoever today is also swearing on the current events page?--2600:8800:FF04:C00:2169:C266:D9F6:9F08 (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek Is not a sockpuppet. Be careful with your accusations. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
This anon account has been causing trouble and being disruptive for the past eight hours. It's obviously WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The registered editor has been Blocked by User:Lord Roem for violation of 1RR. I suspect enough people will have eyeballs on the article to prevent a reoccurrence. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Hmm? Are you sure you're in the right section? I don't see anyone involved here blocked. Never mind I see it now. ansh666 17:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The story about Seth Rich and Wikileaks (whether a hoax or not) has gotten enough RS coverage by now that I'd call it encyclopedically notable, so we should document it, carefully of course. Seth Rich himself is also obviously not a living person, though maybe borderline "recently deceased". (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This article does deserve some careful attention, as it has the potential of major BLP violations, but hyperbole such as This is some Sandy-Hook-didn't-happen conspiracy theory bullshit exacerbates the problem, rather than defusing it. There is no doubt that there are some questions to be answered, and we need to be careful about how this article is editied, but the multiple "debunkings" are statements from the family who may or may not know all the facts, regarding one aspect of the story. Words such as "hoax" are not apropos.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the publicity that has been given to this matter, its a notable political hoax, discussed as such by the NYTimes. There is no BLP question, there is no added harm that can be done by repeating the nonsense in Wikipedia. It's at the stage where we must include it as part of the historical record. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Seth Rich himself doesn't present a BLP problem. The BLP hazards are in the claims/inferences floating around that various currently-living people ordered the murder. I haven't been keeping up but I thought the hoax/non-hoax status was still unknown within the margins of reasonable doubt. I did just see something about the family serving notice on the PI to shut his trap about the matter, but there are conflicts of interest all around. (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with DGG that WP:BLP is no longer an issue in respect to Mr. Rich. If you stick to WP:RS and frame the information in the voice of those RSs and not in Wikipedia's voice, BLP shouldn't be an issue for living parties. Whether or not to include should be decided at the talk page, not here, btw. Dennis Brown - 00:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
HOAX and BLP are not issues. TFD (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Wolf Trolling[edit]

The editor Wesley Wolf (formerly Mouse), has posted abusive comments on the Talk Page of the Eurovision Song Contest 2017 article. He has called editors 'trolls' and referred to them as 'sorry arses'. Clearly abusive terms that should not be acceptable under wikipedia guidelines and certainly are neither welcome or community minded. However, when responding to such comment, I received a warning from another editor, whereas Wesley Wolf has thus far avoided censure and indeed continues to post highly personal and critical comments, none of which have any place in the wikipedia community. I am sure you will take immediate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably belongs at ANI. I've been dealing with this during the past couple hours. User_talk:NeilN#Personal_attacks_from_IPs --NeilN talk to me 20:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Calling anyone "sorry arses" and the level of abuse Wesley Wolf is using is very disturbing and is causing considerable upset and distress to several users. I cannot post this to your ANI page (whatever that is) as it is locked. (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Wolf is now writing in capitals - shouting - abuse and calling editors bullies and other such terms as well as taunting them. Yet I see no trail of any warning about harrassment or bullying posted to their talk page or any remarks concerning their behavior. Please can you advise on the steps to take to escalate this action and have user Wesley Wolf warned without any further delay? It would be appreciated as the personal attacks are insufferable. "Sorry arses" is a highly abusive and frankly disgusting term. @NeilN: (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
And just as a point of interest @NeilN:, I do have an account. I have decided not to log on to respond to this debate as I have seen what Wesley Wolf does and how they handle any criticism before. To avoid having my account blocked or shut down by such a troll, I decided to comment on their behaviour without logging in. I think that is a reasonable self protection. (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Before you posted this, I edit-conflicted adding, "I very much doubt your hands are clean so I'd be careful here.". Now you're blocked for violation of the sock puppetry policy, specifically WP:SCRUTINY. Logging out to post the above is not acceptable. --NeilN talk to me 20:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am finding all of this deeply distressing to say the least. To be accused of trolling, when I have done no such thing is absurd. To note to admins, I have been a victim of long-term harassment, bullying, and hounding over the last 6 years; and yes it has got to the point that I might come across as harsh at times, especially when provoked by IP trolls. I know that CT Cooper has retired from Wikipedia, so I cannot exactly ask call upon him as a key-witness to this long-term provocation. However, other users have recently noticed that I have become a victim of these IPs who are accusing me of "taunting", when in actual fact it is they who are taunting and attacking me directly. The IP above alone has proven the sly attitude by admitting scrutiny in order to attack me while they are "immune" from blocking. I am more than happy to provide evidence to show that certain IPs are targeting me personally and directly with means to cause distress and intimidation. It has even got to the point that I get scared to log on Wikipedia lately, due to the extreme level of attacks that I am being put under. To be called an "elite" and an "acolyte", is unacceptable. OK I am passionate about the topical area that I work on, but I do not and have never claimed to own the topical area. I have, however, given advice if users have asked questions, or listened to proposals and ideas they may have put forward. Some have been rather outstanding, and implemented. Others, have not complied with Wikipedia policies, which is what I point out to these people. But when I point out rules and regulations, I get called an "owner". I joined Wikipedia in 2011, and had to change my email address in the last 4 years, due to receiving death threats from someone who claimed to be an IP editor on here. This is how serious the matter has escalated, and I should not have to be put under that sort of intimidation or onslaught. In those emails, the person writing them always used the term "royal we"; and strangely enough I have seen IPs since I changed my email account, post attacking comments directed at myself with the same "royal we" wording. I find it very hard to see those incidents to be unrelated, and easily see them as more connected incidents. This response on my part is probably long enough as it is, and I will be more than happy to cooperate with admins with this matter at any given time. Wes Wolf Talk 23:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about this situation, Wesley Wolf. If in the future you find yourself subject to harassment on Wikipedia, please report these incidents immediately here or at WP:ANI, or through the instructions at WP:EMERGENCY if you feel this is warranted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Wesley Wolf, in addition to the WMF emergency procedure, you should also consider reporting email death threats to law enforcement (if there are any current or new instances, older ones may be too "stale" to reliably gather evidence). It varies by jurisdiction around the world, but there's been a steady increase in prosecutions for online trolling and harassment when it crosses certain lines. Choosing to do that is very much something you have to think about personally, based on how credible and distressing you find the threats (and certainly not to "win" anything, but to try to deal with a problem that's having negative impact on you). If you do that, don't tell us about it here or mention it here (i.e. anywhere public on Wikipedia), because of the WP:NLT policy. Absolutely do not tell any suspects that you are going to involve law enforcement, to keep yourself completely clear of NLT (and because silence is the best response to trolls). You can, however, discuss that with the WMF emergency email people. You can still raise concerns here, just don't mention any parallel legal action. To be clear, I'm suggesting the legal approach only for the most serious of cases (serious real world stuff), things that can't adequately be solved by WMF staff or administrator intervention inside Wikipedia, and because you specifically mentioned "death threats". Murph9000 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector and Murph9000: Thank you for the advice regarding this situation. As I previously mentioned I had raised the issue a few times in the past with CT Cooper; however he is now retired from Wikipedia, so I cannot call upon him as a witness to this historical and long-term abuse. If I had known at the time I received the emails about reporting them to WMF, then I would have done so. However, as I have closed that email account down, I no longer have access, and as Murph points out, they will probably be stale anyway. The IP above has admitted to having an account, and only posting as an IP to hide their account identity and make it immune from blocking - which to me would suggest they have been warned in the past about harassment and probably have a history of such acts towards other Wikipedians. What makes this more astounding, is the emails always used the phrase "royal we" within them, and the IP above and another one which starts 212, have also used the words "royal we" when posting intimidating messages on various talk pages. For me that is too coincidental. And what makes it more evident of harassment and hounding, is that these IP's tend to jump on to talk page discussions that they have had no previous involvement, it is as if they are looking for where I am taking part in discussions and then targeting m directly. I have kept a list within my sandbox of who I suspect the account identity belongs to, but I doubt SPI would be of use in this case, as I'm not suspecting sock-puppeteering, but suspecting severe hounding instead. Any advice on the steps to take hereafter wuold be most grateful and appreciated. Kindest regards, Wes Wolf Talk 08:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no dog in this fight, but I'm just wondering if a SPI is necessary, given the above admission by the IP editor, into their "real" account. Apologies for interjecting. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Eggishorn: A SPI will require the naming of registered editors and behavioral evidence linking IPs to these editors. I want to be clear - the block was only temporary because it's an IP account. The person behind the IP can only edit if they log into their registered account. More evading scrutiny will just result in more blocks. --NeilN talk to me 19:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I am indeed retired though since my name has been mentioned and I do have a long history with Wesley Wolf (talk · contribs), I think it is appropriate for me to comment. For a number of years I worked with Wesley as he took a leadership position in WikiProject Eurovision and Eurovision articles generally by striving to improve article quality, standardise things etc. This unfortunately brought him into conflict with other users, some of which had reasonable editorial disagreements with him, though many others weren't really here to build an encyclopedia and his efforts to shut them down has made him a target for harassment, trolling and other bad behaviour. I did my best as an admin to protect Wesley and other Eurovision editors from harassment and other forms of trouble, though I sometimes had to walk a thin line between being effective at this while complying with WP:UNINVOLVED and avoiding accusations of favouritism. Also in truth, I often had many distractions and personal matters to deal with and I simply wasn't always able to keep up with things – particularly in my last few years on Wikipedia. Both me and Wesley have dealt with some pretty creepy people on Eurovision articles, and while I was not aware that he had ever received death threats by e-mail (which is regrettable, as if I had been aware I would have given advice similar to that given above), I don't find it all that surprising, sadly. I don't know who the offending IP is and if I took the time to create a list of possible suspects, it would be quite long, and while I've given it some thought and noted that their style of writing definitely rings a bell, I can't pinpoint it to anyone I'm afraid. Regardless, I wish to thank NeilN (talk · contribs) for dealing with this situation effectively and credit must go to Wesley for his continued dedication to the project, despite the harassment he has received. In truth, harassment (mostly offwiki and not related to Eurovision) was one of the major factors in my decision to leave the Wikimedia world (for the most part) and I do not want to see others depart for the same reason. CT Cooper · talk 18:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Appeal of my 1RR restriction[edit]

By unanimous consensus, the restriction is revoked.—S Marshall T/C 14:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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

I would like to appeal my WP:1RR restriction, placed by the community here over a year ago (with the minimum waiting period for an appeal set at 6 months). I have, to the best of my knowledge, gone above and beyond in meeting this requirement, attempting discussion after a single revert is challenged (and in some cases without even that one) in all but those cases that fall under WP:3RRNO, and only making another revert after a far longer period than the minimum 24 hours (often a week) if there is no response.

In fact, I plan to continue doing so voluntarily, not least because I have been blocked for as little as two reverts in the distant past. The reason for my appeal is that I would like to return to full good standing with the community, in particular as this would apply to any potential user rights requests and such.

(From a technical perspective, please note that my restriction is currently listed under my former username of "Mdrnpndr" at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. In addition, the closing administrator User:HighInBC confirmed in this diff that the note about civility there is a general expectation, not an actual restriction, and as such is not subject to appeal.) Modernponderer (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. This user has made approximately 1000 edits since being unblocked. In that time, they've avoided blocks and engaged in discussion. They appear to have a solid understanding of the concerns and a specific plan to avoid running into problems again. --Yamla (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - user seems to have a good understanding of the issues which led to the block ban, indicating they will avoid it in the future. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Long enough, time to move on. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This is someone who "gets it". The fact they have avoided any blocks, and have communicated constructively since this restriction was put in place tells me that they should have this removed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Everyone deserves a second chance, particularly if they seem to "get it". Dennis Brown - 17:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, for the reasons everyone else has already given. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - as editing restrictions are preventative, not punitive. Indications are that disruption will not occur if Modernponderer's restrictions are lifted, per above. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

FYI for checkusers[edit]

Somewhat related:

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not at all surprising to me, and I'd hope not particularly surprising to the CUs. No harm in your reminder, Guy, as it's easy to forget how inaccurate it can be, and apparently even the FBI forget how inaccurate it can be. In my personal case, both geolocate tools linked on IP contribs pages provide two different locations, both many hundreds of miles away (in a different country), none of which matches the public whois data. Geolocation can be relatively accurate some of the time, but it can also be wildly inaccurate for a significant proportion of the IP address space. Murph9000 (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Rather than a glitch, I think that it's laziness on the part of mobile ISPs. At any rate, we've been aware of that for pretty much forever. Geolocation of IP addresses is hit-or-miss at best, and in some countries and regions, it is completely useless. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, by "aware", I mean the geolocation issue. I didn't realize what those unfortunate land owners were dealing with, and the ISPs really should do something about it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
What I find more disturbing is that law enforcement apparently was treating the geolocation as a reliable source of information... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Fascinating. Thanks for sharing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Appeal against restrictions accompanying an unban/unblock[edit]

Appeal withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

One year ago today, following my successful appeal here against a ban and block, I had three restrictions applied as conditions of the unban and unblock granted. I was told that I could appeal each of those restrictions independently after one year. So following one year of trouble-free and productive editing (I have made more than 1500 edits in the last year) I would now like to appeal each of those restrictions in turn. I don't plan on any big changes in the types of articles I edit, but I would like to be restored as a fully privileged member of the community without these limitations, and be free to edit in all areas. Please consider my following three appeals. -- de Facto (talk). 20:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Following Tarage's comment, I'll just appeal the first for now. -- de Facto (talk). 21:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Appeal against topic ban[edit]

The first restriction I was given is a topic ban. I was indefinitely topic banned from metrication and units of measure, broadly construed, for all countries and all pages on Wikipedia including, but not at all limited to, talk and user talk pages - with the exception that I may add measurements to articles I created so long as they were in compliance with the WP:MOS. I have complied 100% with this restriction so I would like now to ask for this topic ban to be lifted. -- de Facto (talk). 20:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Appeal against 1RR restriction[edit]

The second restriction applied is a 1RR on all areas of Wikipedia, including articles I created. Again, I have complied 100% with this restriction so am now asking for it to be lifted. -- de Facto (talk). 20:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Appeal against 1 account restriction[edit]

The third restriction applied is a 1 account restriction which also excludes editing whilst logged-out. This restriction too has been complied with 100%, and although I don't envisage using other accounts, I would like to also ask for it to be lifted now. -- de Facto (talk). 20:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment I think perhaps you should start with just one of these to appeal and go from there. Might be easier for folks to swallow rather than getting rid of all three at once. --Tarage (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair comment, I've struck the last two for now. -- de Facto (talk). 21:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose all appeals at this time, and I feel pretty strongly about this. This wasn't a simple unblock and add topic ban. There is a lot of history and I'm familiar with it, most of it ugly, and I hesitate before allowing you to edit in areas that got you blocked and that you continued to stay active in as a puppetmaster. I'm not opposed to you editing, just not in those areas. Dennis Brown - 01:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown: I very much want to return to playing a full part in this enterprise, and to that end I have determinedly kept my nose clean in the year since my unblock, navigating very carefully clear of any articles or article content within the scope of the topic ban, including removing articles related in any way to that topic from my watchlist. Before saving anything I also made a conscious and very determined effort to double-check each of my edits to satisfy myself that nothing I did contravened my restrictions. My fateful block was over five years ago, the "history" you refer to ended more than two years ago, and I have been unblocked and actively editing again for over a year now. What would I have to do before you would accept that I am now an asset once again, rather than a liability, to Wikipedia and worthy of full privileges again? -- de Facto (talk). 19:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Defacto, I really have no personal grudge against you. I am probably more familiar with your case than most, seeing that I worked SPI back then. You had 3-4 years of bad socking. I'm the one that proposed the current unblocking and restrictions, which I think was generous enough, and may have helped you get unblocked. If we are honest, the vote would likely have been more split without the restrictions. And it seems you have done ok since then, but that is what is expected of all editors. The fact is, not enough time has passed for me to consider you getting back into topics like "units of measure". This is what got you started down the dark road to begin with. I would be more flexible on lifting the 1RR restriction, which would give us information to review regarding edits in units of measure in a 6 months to a year. As far as having multiple accounts, you don't give a valid reason to lift that restriction, but it is doubtful I would support this year. That is the best I can do. Dennis Brown - 20:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I bet enough people will be watching you so that any return to troublesome behavior will likely result in a re-ban. I'm willing to AGF that you're committed to editing productively according to the policies. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Any ban appeal without clear mention of a strategy to avoid the trouble that led to the ban should be opposed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: can you elaborate please, with perhaps some hints, tips and examples of the sort of thing you mean. I wanted this appeal to be taken seriously, but failed in my quest to find any relevant guidance. -- de Facto (talk). 08:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Am I right in thinking there were unending arguments at various talk pages including MOS? The degree of frustration can be gauged by scanning some AN/ANI pages: topic ban March 2012 + indef March 2012 + unban May 2016. Perhaps everyone else was wrong, but this is still a collaborative project and a topic ban is intended to reduce disruption. The only reason to remove a topic ban would be a belief that previous patterns would not be repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: I'm still not sure what you want from me. I can assure you the reason for requesting the lifting of my topic ban is not so that I can disrupt Wikipedia, indeed that has never been my reason for participating here. No, the reason I requested the lifting of the ban is to allow me to edit and improve Wikipedia without the shackles of the topic ban hindering me and making the process stressful for fear of inadvertently crossing the invisible line. I have shown over the last year that I can collaborate and negotiate successfully and amicably with other editors, and I wish to continue in that vain - but with the freedom to cover all topics. Do I need to say something more to persuade you that I have indeed learnt the lessons from the past and have no desire to go through any of that again? -- de Facto (talk). 16:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Declaring my involvement. We lifted the ban in the spirit of WP:ROPE, and so far I don't think we've seen any problems. This IMO puts us in a different position to where we were a year ago - we have a recent record of positive contributions. I would thus be inclined to support lifting the 1RR restriction (with the standard caveat that it can be reimposed if it becomes necessary). We could also try loosening (but not yet completely lifting) the topic ban. Ideas for consideration:
    • We could allow DeFacto to add WP:MOS-compliant measurements on articles he did not create, provided that those articles are otherwise outside the scope of the topic ban. We could also allow him to modify measures on the same pages so long has he does not change the units of measure (i.e. if the sources suggest it's 10 km instead of 8 km, he can change it, but he can't change it to 5 miles).
    • We could allow DeFacto to edit where he is currently topic-banned, except where articles are related to the United Kingdom (broadly construed), to the process metrication, or to the use of measurements on Wikipedia (e.g. WP:MOSNUM). These were the biggest problem areas before. That said, we might want to get the wording nailed down a bit better as with that description I can see a big grey area with e.g. articles on units like Stone (unit) and Mile.
IMO this sort of limiting lifting of the ban keeps with the spirit of WP:ROPE: it gives DeFacto a chance to earn confidence in areas where he has had problems in the past without going all at once.
I would be very unlikely to support lifting the one-account restriction at this time. Kahastok talk 09:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm open to a compromise but someone needs rock solid wording so there is no confusion, both for our sake and his own. Dennis Brown - 21:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I recommend that DeFacto withdraw this request, come back in a week or two with a more limited request that addresses the concerns, and see where that goes. I think you started out by trying to take too large a bite of the apple and if you want to get some relaxing of the restrictions, I recommend you offer a different set of restrictions that is more relaxed, and is concise. Dennis Brown - 15:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Appeal withdrawn, @Dennis Brown: thanks for the advice, and it complements that already given by Tarage. I was already regretting asking for too much at once, so I will take that advice and hereby withdraw this request immediately. Please close or delete this, or whatever happens in such circumstances. And many thanks to those who made constructive comments, I'll now reconsider my approach to this, and be back very soon, hopefully. -- de Facto (talk). 15:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Request for contents of a deleted page[edit]

I recently created a page Kevin Johnston for an individual who has recently become notable. I notice that there was a previous article named Kevin Johnston 10 or so years ago that was deleted. I'm wondering if I can see the contents of the deleted article so I can see if it's teh same person and if any of the info in the previous article can be used today? If this is the wrong page to make this request please direct me to the proper place. Thanks. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's the same person. The article was about a Canadian fellow, but a graphic designer rather than a YouTuber. Deor (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Johnston. There's some similarities. The content was not great, or very substantial, or very usable, and contains more details than I'd be comfortable disclosing. You could try WP:REFUND or CAT:RESTORE and you'd want to enable email.-- zzuuzz (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Looked up the subject's LinkedIn and that does seem to be what he was doing 10 years ago before becoming a YouTuber so possibly the same guy. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to close a discussion by an involved editor[edit]

The user ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants has twice tried to close a discussion that he is involved in. I've reversed both closures but I'm bringing the issue here since he doesn't seem to be showing any signs of stopping. 2602:306:C583:2370:651D:41CC:9232:B7CE (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It is time for all of you to drop the stick. It has crossed into the territory of disruptive editing. --Majora (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Majora has re-closed and I've endorsed the closure. Happy now? --NeilN talk to me 00:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Apparently not, NeilN since they just undid it again and I reverted again. At risk of breaking 3RR if it happens again can you protect the talk page and or block (note if you block you may have to do the /64 due to it being a IPv6 address that has already posted from multiple IPs on that one page). --Majora (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Will do. --NeilN talk to me 00:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice there'd been further replies here. I thought It was the same guy just re-closing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C583:2370:651D:41CC:9232:B7CE (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • That discussion is worth reading if only for the line "the President of the United States isn't a reliable source"... quite. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Postpone ANI report[edit]

An individual has threatened to take me to ANI this weekend, but given my other commitments, I will be unable to defend myself until June 13th. I have let them know I will observe a voluntary topic ban until June if they postpone the report, so that I can give myself a fair hearing, and they have refused. Is there anyway I can put this off until a later date, so that I can explain my position (and raise my concerns about their own behaviour in the relevant dispute).

Context: I have been involved with two content-disputes (and RFCs) on the Alternative for Germany page. A regular user (who does a lot of useful NPOV work on GMO, science-related pages etc, which I appreciate) has found himself in a minority in both cases. The first concerned how information in an infobox field should be displayed, and the second, the meaning of the term German nationalism. Accusations of WP:BADFAITH editing were dished out to several users, but in response to him being in a minority in the second RFC, on the 14th May he made significant changes to the German nationalism lead, which essentially redefined the term and refocused the article in his favour vis-a-vis the dispute on the Alternative for Germany page. The user insists he "updated" the article, and I insist that he fundamentally changed the scope of an article with is focused on German nationalism understood as the German question, the process of German unification, and the consolidation of the German nation-state in the 19th century.

This was a WP:BOLD change, per WP:SILENCE (the user ignored WP:BRD), and this ought to have been an honest disagreement. Instead, I received this (ANI) threat on my talk page (since I left his expansion of the 1945-present section, his argument about 'updating' does not hold). "Several others" presumably refers to the other people who disagree with him on the talk page (at the moment, he and possibly an IP are the only dissenters), so I assume the plan now is to TBAN several people who disagree with his interpretation of German nationalism, and force his views over the consensus.

I will be unable to defend myself on ANI until 13th June at the very earliest, due to RW commitments. I have offered to observe a voluntary TBAN until June if he postpones his report, so that I can give myself a fair hearing (and raise my own concerns about his potential WP:IDHT and WP:GAMING behaviour in this particular dispute) but he has (unfairly) declined.

For anyone interested, I would suggest you read the preceding discussion here, here, and here.

I would very much appreciate if involved persons (people have been involved with these disputes before, bar the user in question who is obviously welcome to respond), do not place hostile messages here, I just want advice. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have actually not responded on the delay or not delay issue. What I am concerned about immediately is:
  1. LR Wormwood's original reverting edit this morning contained one of the most tendentious and ridiculous edit notes I have ever seen in Wikipedia: diff; describing my work to update an obviously not-updated article as violating "consensus by silence". They even repeated that above.
  2. LR Wormwood has subsequently acknowledged that their edit was "sloppy", yet has also said that they "stand by" the edit and its rationale (diff).
So bad edit, bad edit note, but defending it to the ground, and generating all this drama.
Yes, I am going to bring this pattern of behavior to light at ANI. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The above user's behaviour on the AfD page has been appalling, as much will be evident to anyone that reads it. I will ignore all drama until the 13th from now L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
And for the record, that comment was in response to Jytdog's bullying behaviour, and I retract it. He changed the scope of the article, redefined the concept, to support his content dispute on another page, against WP:CONSENSUS. This is WP:GAMING. This term has a very specific meaning. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
So you have said things you didn't mean, and you made a very contentious set of edits, reverted to defend them, and then you say you are not going to be available to discuss them until a month from now? This too is not acceptable behavior.Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't make the changes, you did. Please explain, under the header I left on the talk, why you want to change the scope of the article, and move the focus away from the German nationalist movement (which is the sense in which the term is most often used - an historical term which refers to the period of national unification and the ideas which gave rise to that movement)), towards contemporary dilemmas.
Jytdog has left unpleasant and spurious "warnings" on the talk pages of other users involved in this dispute, as the AfD talk testifies. This really is my last comment for the time being. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you ask for a block? It won't matter; you apparently won't be able to edit/spend time here until then. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I have requested a block from Neil. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Just a note, if I am blocked at my own request, I would expect that Jytdog has the courtesy to not refer me while I am blocked, or if not, that someone explains why I cannot respond on ANI. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
ahd if you go for a self-block and will not stick around to defend your removal of well sourced content, then your edits will be reverted. The other elephant in the room here is that LR Wormwood = Hayek79 who already received a 3 day block in March for disrupting the alternative for germany article per this ANI. That behavior has continued unabated, which is what I will show. It will not be difficult. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, thank you for your attempt to poison the well. Your block log is far longer than mine, but I wouldn't raise that at every opportunity, because it's irrelevant. There has been no disruptive behaviour on my part since that episode (in which your behaviour was hardly edifying), and at the moment there's an extensive record of personal attacks and bad faith accusations from yourself on the talk. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
And I'm sure that's what he'll do on ANI, and may well be successful. Still, I'll have the summer to go through oversight and put a stop to this, he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. He could have just accepted the consensus and moved on, instead, he's wasting everyone's time. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • They are now making inappropriate personal attacks on article Talk pages again; not a thing to do with content but all about me: dif. This is the same behavior that led to the 3-day block before. And per its history, still no substantial response at the talk page, justifying their removal of sourced content from the German nationalism article. They are doing everything other than dealing with the actual content dispute now.
Perhaps I do not need to waste my time gathering diffs; new ones are being provided in real time. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
You keep trying to draw me into this, but I won't comment any further, other than to say that my recent comment was obviously not a WP:PERSONALATTACK. I'm washing my hands of this. Someone else can address the tendentious behaviour until I get back in June. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
You are digging your own hole here. I am not doing much of anything except noting each bite of the shovel. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you actually serious? Honestly? You don't get to hold an entire website hostage to your own timetables. This is a ridiculous request, and the idea that you are self-asking for a block for that duration is baffling. What the hell is this even? I have never seen anything like this ever. --Tarage (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A note that L. R. Wormwood is no stranger to WP:Gaming the system. Shortly after his block as User:Hayek79 (for IDHT editing on Talk:Alternative for Germany) was over he changed his screenname, attempting to put distance between himself and his editing history. (This was not a WP:CLEANSTART, as L. R. Wormwood immediately began editing the same articles and subjects that Hayek79 had edited.) He was told at the time that any sanctions or warnings which has accrued to Hayek79 were attached to the person doing the editing, and not simply to the screenname being used at the moment, and was pressed to connect the old user pages to the new ones. [30] Now it seems he's continuing the same Hayek79 behavior pattern as L. R. Wormwood, so Jytdog's mention of his block was not "poisoning the well", it was informing the community of the history of this editor, which is necessary to make a proper evaluation of his fitness as an editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted his revert on German nationalism. You don't get to hold an article hostage like that. --Tarage (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Prod backlog[edit]

Was processed by admins. — xaosflux Talk 23:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Category:Proposed deletion as of 10 May 2017 still has 24 articles in it. At least one article I prodded 9 days ago is still sitting in the queue. Can some admins take care of this? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified[edit]

The consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:

Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 00:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 00:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified

RFPP backlog[edit]

For the last week, we have about 30-50 items at WP:RFPP, which is way bigger than normal. I am not quite sure what is going on, and I see that other areas are also backlogged, but any help will be much appreciated. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Cleared up, thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible outing related issue[edit]

Could someone fix this page history, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

(1) Please don't put OUTING-related issues at a public noticeboard; report them by email or at least a private message at someone's talk page, please. (2) Speculation about the person using an IP address, while not particularly helpful most of the time, isn't an OUTING thing; OUTING is when you give out private information that you know (or claim to know) about a person, based on off-wiki sources. Merely saying "This IP [or "This account"] is behaving as if it's operated by X" isn't a problem; behavioral analysis can be problematic, but it's entirely based on publicly available information. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay. prokaryotes (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up! Maybe my response sounds harsh or complaining: I wasn't at all trying to sound that way. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
No it's fine. And I wasn't too focused, edited a little, then a door bell ring, had to work on something else, and in between i've noticed the talk page. All good :) prokaryotes (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree - it is outing, per WP:OUTING itself Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia A user has posted what they believe to be the I.P users real name, even though it wasn't revealed anywhere on Wikipedia. I've removed the post and would second the request that it be rev'del'd.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I moved the above from the section below; not sure who it's replying to. ansh666 21:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This isn't outing. This was questioning if the subject of the article was also a participant, a WP:COI question. An IP by itself is not so "personally identifiable" in most circumstances as it theoretically only gives you an idea of a region they are in at that given moment, and in many countries (the UK for example) it is totally useless to geolocate someone. Nyttend is utterly correct here. Dennis Brown - 21:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Besides, i suggest such matters should be brought up on a talk page first. prokaryotes (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you User:Dennis Brown for your truly perspicacious arrival at the truth, you are absolutely correct here, in that a conflict of interest was indeed exactly why I posted this on the talk page.
Is there a better way to raise such concerns to prevent a recurrence of users such as prokaryotes, being entertained in their jumping to these bloviated accusational claims and taking these perhaps, intentionally diversionary maneuvers? As instead of my initial edit being viewed as an the innocent raising of a suspected COI, with the obvious motivation behind it being a heads-up to future editors, who can keep an eye-out for further COI editing on this person. We instead find ourselves here, entertaining the fantastical claim that I'm engaged in "OUTING". I mean, are they for real?
From my shoes this whole claim of "outing", is nothing but a lame attempt at diverting away from the subject at hand, which is that someone "was" involved in editing with a conflict of interest. With that person, perhaps, being Alan Robuck themselves.
User:Dennis Brown, A talk-page template for reporting suspected COI editing, would be helpful? To raise suspected conflict of interests, so that other editors are aware of concerns that the article is being edited by those with a COI. Is there such a helpful template? As I'd naturally use that instead, some sort of template that would prevent these clearly childish "outing" accusations, when in reality, I and many others are merely trying to point out a suspected COI.
In any case. I have since re-edited Alan Robuck's talk page, explicitly delineating the evidence for this IP user, having a conflict of interest.
I haven't been active in quite a while, and getting trumped up alerts, like this claim of "outing", do nothing but really truly make me laugh.
Boundarylayer (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Boundarylayer, you're reading too much into this incident, and as someone pointed out to you on the talk page, you likely made an error. To streamline the process and to better help integrate new editors we should indeed have some sort of template. prokaryotes (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Boundarylayer, I really don't believe we need a new template. If the edits seem a bit COI-ish, just ask them a simple question, and introduce the subject of COI, e.g.: Are you related to, or do you have a direct connection to the subject? Your edits make it seem like you may have a conflict of interest, which we can deal with, but must be disclosed.
If the edits seem quite COI-ish, drop {{subst:uw-coi}} on them, and see what their response is. If they don't have a COI, the wording of that template is not too harsh and you can easily nullify it with a simple "oh, ok then, sorry to disturb you", or similar (if appropriate), or it's there on record to record the suspicion that there may be a COI.
As for the OUTING, there was none here, just suspicion based on public information and editing pattern. IP editors are given fair warning that their IP will be published, so if they don't want to live with the consequences of that they must register an account and always login before editing. If the information is public and trivially available to anyone browsing the site, repeating that information cannot be outing. There was recent strong consensus on AN/I to support that position.
Murph9000 (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Well put, i agree with you Murph. prokaryotes (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
So if I am to understand User:Murph9000 correctly, I may drop {{subst:uw-coi}} on the IP user, and that is all? As from the tone of your comment, are you suggesting that this is the only socially acceptable response I have? In that, I cannot do what I've done, and simply circumvent the pointless wasting of my time talking to a IP address that may be dynamic, or indeed even a public wifi-hotspot, and instead just go raising the fishy COI editing on the talk page of the very article that the suspected COI editing is occurring?
A talk-page of an article on a living person, is in my mind no different from a talk-page on an inanimate object. It is a place for other editors to come in and have a look at potential problems that the article may have. One such problem is living persons, editing their own wikipedia article. That's my thinking on it, but I'd like to know the official word on the matter, from an admin?
Boundarylayer (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Boundarylayer, i see you repeatedly re-edit your comment over at that talk page, after other editors commented, which is against Wikipedia best practises, and confusing. Always add additional input in new comments, after someone else commented.prokaryotes (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Additional, please read WP:GF. prokaryotes (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Boundarylayer: It's not an absolute thing. I see roughly 3 or 4 levels to it, and it's for each editor to judge which approach best fits a situation:
  1. Slight suspicion, try to chat to them (yes, even on an IP), and see if you can either confirm or eliminate the suspicion. This does not really need a template, in my opinion, but it might lead to a later templates depending on what they say. This is fully compatible with WP:AGF, it's just a friendly chat to figure out what's going on, maybe help the editor understand neutrality issues.
  2. Strong suspicion, perhaps based on the nature of the edits, or something they have said (including in edit summaries). {{subst:uw-coi}} isn't unreasonable in that situation, but initially trying to open a conversation (possibly with slightly firmer COI wording) might also be reasonable, or a combination of the two. Note the "if you have" wording in the template, there's nothing stopping you using it for strong suspicion, before disclosure and/or confirmation, it's informational (and can be easily walked back if you get it wrong). It's still WP:AGF, the template is a good faith template (to be used where the need is reasonably clear).
  3. Very strong suspicion, {{subst:uw-coi}} is both appropriate and covers the step of giving them full and fair notice of the policies and guidelines.
  4. Confirmed, or good-as-confirmed (actions and words that basically put it beyond reasonable doubt). {{subst:uw-coi}} on user talk and {{Connected contributor}} on article talk header are strongly recommended, {{COI}} on article if the content needs attention.
You've got to be appropriately creative in how you handle it, being prepared to walk the conversation back if you get it wrong. The lower levels of suspicion, in particular, need diplomatic and creative handling rather than fixed procedure and templates. The upper levels are covered by the policies and guidelines. I'm certainly not saying "that is all"; as with everything, you have to choose your approach and words, then be prepared to justify them later. I'm just suggesting ways the existing tools can be used. If you are not comfortable tackling the issue, let someone else do so, wait until evidence is more clear, or open a new thread on article talk with something simple like "I'm concerned that (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may have a COI, based on their edits." and see what responses you get over a couple of days. There's no rush to it, so take your time and see how the attempts to communicate go. If they turn out to be on a dynamic IP or similar, and won't join in chat on article talk, you may end up needing to go to WP:COIN for help (assuming there is reasonable COI suspicion, or WP:NPOVN for cases that may just be NPOV). The above contains big chunks of personal philosophy on the approach to it, but is built upon the policies and guidelines.
Murph9000 (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal tban Boundarylayer[edit]

Withdrawn by proposer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Besides input made here and over at the talk page, the editor who in the past was blocked for for making legal threats or taking legal action - indefinitely 1, continues to cast aspersions at the talk page. Examples: "... your truly dubious claim...", "..your classic cherry-picking to present the IP editor as problem-free. The reality is, the IP user edited the article on Robock's colleague in the 1980s, Vladimir Alexandrov, who is a suspected homicide victim.", Editors should only summarize references, that is , they should not clandestinely know more about the topic than the reference, and re-write articles, ... from above: prokaryotes, being entertained in their jumping to these bloviated accusational claims and taking these perhaps, intentionally diversionary maneuvers?, You really make me laugh, you know that? You say: The IP user is not a problem...and that's why you just fixed a problem edit of theirs? Are you a little con-man or what? Thus, i propose a tban on the topic of climate related topics and related persons. prokaryotes (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support prokaryotes (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a bit out of scope, imho, in this current discussion. I would oppose simply because this isn't the proper way to address in an unrelated ANI report. Dennis Brown - 21:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
So let me get this straight? First you tried to say "He's OUTING, silence boundarylayer! now it is; "he's being colorful with his language...ban boundarylayer!" Honestly, just what are you going to try to say next? "He is clearly we must send boundarylayer into bizarro-land? As from where I'm standing, it certainly looks to be heading in this ever-fantastical-direction.
Moreover, for those of you who aren't aware. I haven't even been on wikipedia in months, let alone have I edited a "climate related article" in ages. Anyone interested to fact-check this, can go look at my edit history to see this truth for themselves. So with that in mind, I have found this whole charade you have created over my raising of a conflict of interest concern. Really,really illuminating. Especially now that prokaryotes has dropped their earlier pretense and they have just come out with this weirdly specific desire to have me topic banned? I'm not even on wikipedia much at all anymore and they want me topic banned?
So naturally this was all fishy as hell to me, and when things get fishy. It's always a good idea to do a bit of digging. A bit of digging later and it didn't take long to uncover that this really does appear to have been a grand diversionary tactic from the beginning, to take attention away from my January COI concerns. As my concerns were actually then confirmed in March. You did nothing be succeed in truly motivating me today to take another look into exactly who has been editing the Alan Robock page, since the last time bothered to check in January. Since then, As I've detailed on the talk page of Alan Robock, another IP user who is geolocated in Rutger's University. Came along in March and again edited the article on Alan Robock. Now, I'm going to be honest with the admins and tell them, what they probably already know, which is that I don't much care about Alan Robock, but I do think it important to give us registered editors the heads-up that this is kind of conflict-of-interest editing is likely going on, so that someone that does care, can go talk to these two IP:users.
However what I do care about here and now, is appears to be this this tact of editors being deceptive and trying to leverage admins by employing 1 deceit after the next, all in an attempt to silence someone like me, who merely raised some conflict of interest concerns a few months ago.
To let you see where I'm coming from. I literally have never edited Alan Robock's page. I posted a talk-page 1-liner in January that expressed my concerns that Alan Robock was editing the article on himself, and that' it. However when I did a bit of digging I also uncovered that prokaryotes edited the article in 2015, and along with that, it appears that they are a bit of fan of Robock. Though they never told us of that fact.
I would not have even been motivated to look into any of this again, had it not been for this barrage of accusations they began to level at me here in the month of May. prokaryotes, you get that right? The Barbra Streisand effect
Again to re-iterate. I have literally never edited the article on Alan Robock. I posted that January heads-up to be aware of COI, to the talk page. So this whole accusational circus that I've been facing these past few hours, seems to be fairly well explained by the fact that fans of Robock, read what I had written in January, that Alan Robock is very likely editing the wikipedia article on himself. However instead of viewing this as what it was, prokaryotes and other fans got defensive, and moved to delete my talk-page comment and started these motivated wiki-proceedings against me.
I assumed good faith, as after all, you earlier went and wrote to me here on this noticeboard, that - I was "reading too much into" your motivations. So I said to myself, fair enough. I'll assume good faith. Well that was a mistake, wasn't it. As it turns out you're actually a major fan of Robock, someone from Rutger's was again editing with a suspected conflict of interest, and you now want me banned.
Though, for anyone interested in the truth, something of a rare breed these days. You can of course spend a little time looking into prokaryotes cherry-picked quotations of mine and the farcical story of the "ban" they bring up, that happened 5 years ago , and lasted all of an "indefinite" - few days. A ban, that despite prokaryotes's coal-raking attempt here, wasn't really over "legal threats". In reality, the ban was over another editor trying to do whatever they could to distract away from the editorial discussion at hand. So they seized upon my informal use of langauge, to generate the following crocodile tears story; that I was issuing legal threats, not from myself but allegedly, on behalf of the author of a reference based in the US? ...oh heavens, sounds terrible doesn't it? A Trans-oceanic-lawyer-wizard afoot on wikipedia. So yes, there was a few days here on wikipedia were I was indeed banned over apparently being a Trans-oceanic lawyer. As you can imagine, I was of course un-banned when the truth came out a few days later, but I do find it a lovely deja-vu irony how prokaryotes has just reminding us of the days when a likewise disgruntled editor, had convinced an admin that I was apparently a trans-oceanic lawyer wizard. As that whole surreal-circus of an experience, was a lesson in just how low some editors are willing to steep, in the deceptions and deceit they will employ, to silence and de-rail the real editorial discussion at hand. Both back then and now.
Thanks for reminding us of that!
  • I don't think we need a topic ban just yet - there's a lot of accusations being thrown around, but it feels a bit like the heat of the moment. If everyone concerned steps back from the article - which has no pressing concerns at the moment - I suspect everything will drop back to normal without any sanctions being necessary. - Bilby (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What Bilby said. Don't think I can say it better, so I won't try. Dennis Brown - 14:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I hereby retract my proposal to tban Boundarylayer. prokaryotes (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Reverting closure without discussion[edit]

I had closed an RFC at Talk:Catalan Countries (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) based on a request at WP:AN/RFC (Request). The user Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) reverted my closure (diff) with a note calling it personal opinion. I reverted his edit (diff) and took the matter to the talk page asking him to present his reason for overturning my closure (diff). I asked him to show me any points I missed. Before I could reply to his assertions (here), he again removed the RFC closing statement (diff) and left a note asking any other editor to close the discussion.
My reply to his assertions (here) were actually written before he reverted my edits. I asked other editors to comment on my closure. I was working as per WP:closure review where I would have reviewed my own closure and changed the statement had anything meaningful been brought before me or if most of the participants were unhappy with my closure.
Please correct me if my closure was wrong or take action against him if I was in the correct place. Also, I only wanted to resolve the issue with proper discussion but this reverting of closures isn't really helpful. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe WP:AN is better place for this. Capitals00 (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Capitals00:. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

[31] I don't know if this is the place but I've already grown tired of these jibes and personal attacks every time our orbits come into contact. I avoid the guy because he is always creating conflict but I feel he is trying to intimidate me into not commenting with these constant comments. WCMemail 09:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. That's kind of like WP:Battleground behaviour that he's showing. I've notified him of this discussion but he seems to ignore it. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Asilah has displayed battleground behaviour throughout this RfC. He edit-warred continually to add his disputed content back into the first sentence while the RfC was ongoing, even when it was crystal clear that consensus in the RfC was against that content (the choice in the end was between two neutral alternatives to Asilah's version). Then he changed tack and edit-warred to add a "failed verification" tag to the second sentence on the spurious grounds that three citations in the second sentence failed to verify the first sentence. He even admitted that this was what he was doing. Note also the tendentious edit summaries like this and this. Asilah made it clear that he didn't like how the RfC was going, and that if he didn't get the result he wanted, "of course he would take it further". He followed this up by posting "Invalid RfC", though he did strike this when he thought he was going to get the result he wanted. Reverting the close without a policy-based reason is just his latest attempt to disrupt the process.
Asilah has a history. He was indef blocked after this discussion at ANI at the end of last year (you can find the sequel to that – the offer of mentorship and the failure of same – between here and the end of the page, and in this section and this); and although his behaviour has been not quite as egregious since then, he continues to show a battleground mentality on multiple pages. In my opinion he needs to be sent a message. Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
We're running short of messages we can send that don't involve blocks and bans. He's been ticked off by admins before and just ignored it or insisted that he was in the right. We offered him mentorship and he agreed terms - but then reneged on them as soon as they involved actually changing his behaviour in any way.
I have not interacted with Asilah recently because he's mostly stayed away from my areas of interest. The problem back then was that Asilah appeared to believe that anyone who did not unconditionally support his position on any matter was acting in bad faith. He'd claim to AGF but then in the same message insist that you were trying to torment him by asking for evidence to back his position. When I read things like this, along with the other behaviour described here, it is clear to me that this may have moderated but not fundamentally changed. Kahastok talk 17:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I really don't know about his long term behaviour but I did check that he had been blocked earlier. I just think he needs some good mentoring and a lesson about how to discuss at talk pages. For instance, I had notified him of this discussion but he didn't respond here (yet). Instead, he chose to continue discussion about (attacking?) other editors at the article talk page. He is showing childish behaviour which needs to stop (unless he's actially a child). Any case, I again left a note at that article talk page where he was discussing. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Is this really worth an ANI, Yashovardhan? I reverted once or twice then moved to talk page. I disagree with your closure but I have long working hours and I'm not willing to waste more time on this. Asilah1981 (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


Moved to WP:AE. Dennis Brown - 14:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

I have had some interactions with this editor in the past, and have noticed that he seems to have a strong tendency to go from page to page attempting to character-assassinate any people and organisations that he personally disagrees with.

After checking his editing history, I have noticed patterns in the pages that he systematically makes massive changes to, and am concerned that he may be severely slanting many of them to become onesided hit-jobs, which severely damages Wikipedia's overall NPOV informative reliability.

I would greatly appreciate if somebody more knowledgeable and experienced than myself could investigate further. Thank you. David A (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I suspect a WP:LTA type behaviour. Should this be discussed at WP:ANI instead as it's related to user conduct? Yashovardhan (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I do not know. I am not very good at navigating all of the specific regulations and institutions within Wikipedia. David A (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Is... this still a thing? It feels like the last ANI wasn't even a month ago. TimothyJosephWood 18:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Apparently. An admin (TParis) recently expressed the similar concerns: (link). Editor was warned about this then warned again. To me the edits look more like political-party pushing than pov pushing, for example:
Greg Gianforte (R) is a candidate in the May 25th special election. He supports medical marijuana legalization but opposes full legalization. The editor expanded his drug-views section to include the claim he "compar[ed] marijuana to more addictive drugs."
Compare that to the articles Tim Kaine (D) and Political positions of Hillary Clinton (D), which he's edited extensively. They don't mention Clinton's similar characterization of marijuana as a "gateway drug" [32] or Kaine's stringent views on legalization (rated as one of the worse Democrat senators.) [33] [34] [35]
The editor apparently avoids editing Democrat politician pages (the ratio of R to D BLP's is something like 30:1) precisely I believe to avoid exhibiting these inconsistencies; only edit Republican pages and only add information likely to hurt them politically. Examples to the contrary would be welcome. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Well... here is the previous thread. Good luck with that. I thought the election was over? TimothyJosephWood 19:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Given the close of that ANI thread, I think any complains should be sent to WP:AE but would likely need extensive and solid evidence of disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Noping right out of that one. I'm not allowed at AE. I have a doctor's note and everything. TimothyJosephWood 19:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Is this some kind of joke? I added Gianforte's stance on drugs because it happened to be mentioned in one of the articles I was reading. I added Hillary's position on fracking to her article, am i supposed to spend hours finding Gianforte's as well (never seen it in any articles about him) for the sake of some weird balance? I've also edited the pages of Dem politicians Tulsi Gabbard, Jon Ossoff and Rob Quist. I have edited both the pages of high-profile Dem and GOP politicians, it just so happens that GOP politicians get more attention in the Trump era (e.g. will they / won't they support health care reform, Comey firing, call for independent commission etc.) whereas Dem politicians are just assumed to be no's on everything. That hasn't been the case with Gabbard, Quist and Ossoff though who are getting extensive coverage and are interesting enough to bother reading about. I added that both Quist and Gianforte support clean coal technology, I'm curious: which one of them am I trying to hurt by adding that information? Should I have omitted that information from both pages? Ridiculous. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I've also made sure that the pages of Louise Mensch and Michael Chossudovsky (who are popular among conspiracy-minded Democrats) reflect that they are proponents of conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims (all reliably sourced). What's my grand scheme with that, James? Could it be a genuine concern that proponents of conspiracy theories should be described as such (if RS do) or yet another Snoogans plot against Republicans somehow? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Re: "Lambden trying to get me sanctioned again", I didn't start either of the threads above. In fact I don't recall filing any complaints against you but in case I'm mistaken, I don't have much to add so I'll leave this to others. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It's just curious that whenever someone complains about me, you always immediately regardless of the venue pop up to put together some elaborate but nonsensical complaint-list to encourage others to sanction me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Lambden stalks people. He does it to me. He does it to you. He will pop up in completely unrelated places and conversations that have nothing to do with him just to make attacks and insults. If Lambden is stalking you that means you're doing something right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@David A: First, is there a particular area that this user appears to be disruptive in? Second, would you be opposed to someone (me) copy-pasting this over to WP:ANI? Third, do you have any example diffs of the behavior in question (I'm not seeing anything popping out)? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, anything related to immigration, criticism of Islamism, and right-wing or conservative politics are the main areas that I have noted. My apologies for not being of sufficient help regarding specific edits. I am very busy constantly managing my very popular entertainment wiki, so I do not have much time left over for other issues. I was just concerned because I checked his edit history, and noted a frenetic pace of massive edits on such pages, with some past personal experiences in this area. You can copy-paste the thread if you wish btw. David A (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Without knowing specifically what David A has in mind, I'm going to assume it has something to do with my encounters with him on immigration-related Wikipedia pages where he has a tendency to add original research and try to remove reliably sourced content. Here we are spatting on 'Immigration and Crime'[36], 'Gatestone Institute'[37] and most recently at the page of 'Tino Sanandaji'[38] (no discussion on the talk page but my edits amounted to changing text to make it consistent with sources, remove a Kickstarter advertisement and add criticism of his book from two economists). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It still looks an awful lot like you're just combing google news to find political controversy to stick into every crack of an article, especially BLPs (e.g., [39], [40], [41]). And, well, that's basically TL;DR of the previous ANI thread. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
If you notice, all my edits on those pages occur when they are actually prominent in the news, so no, I'm not combing through ancient dirt. In the case of Kobach, I stumbled upon a SPLC article on my feed when he was being considered to run a commission about voter fraud about that mentioned that he was a birther. I thought to myself: "that can't be, I would have seen it before, especially on his Wiki page" but I quickly discovered a bunch of high-quality sources showing that he not only promoted birther conspiracies but used his powers as Kansas Sec of State to act on them. Upon discovering this, I added it to his Wikipedia article, because it was extremely notable. I added it to his Wikipedia, just like I add pretty much everything I read and know isn't already on Wikipedia (if you check my editing history, you can for instance find me adding the most mundane findings from studies almost every day). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Mundane said in a self-depreciating social scientist way... I think the findings are all amazing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
So, are we still doing a TL;DR of the ANI thread? I can't tell. TimothyJosephWood 19:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This would probably best be put together at a case and taken to WP:AE so it can be decided if a topic ban is needed without a lot of fuss. A case at AE needs to be concise and fact filled. If there isn't clear evidence, then it doesn't need to be an ANI anyway. Dennis Brown - 20:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    • There is a lot of evidence. I've personally collected diffs 3 times and asked that someone deal with it. Snoo's generally reverts the immediate offending concerns but continues the overall behavior.--v/r - TP 21:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      • First, "three diffs" ain't nothing. Second, as I pointed out at User:Drmies page, your three diffs (same ones, right?) don't show anything that you claim they show. *You* think there's "UNDUE" going on, but to me and others it looks like sound article improving edits based on reliable sources. This is just your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        You appear to be firing from the hip on this one and haven't spent any time understanding the issue. So I see no need to engage with you.--v/r - TP 22:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Then it definitely belongs at WP:AE. If it goes, ping me, as I would like to review the information there. Politics is an area I avoid, but I do take an interest in ensuring people edit neutrally in those areas. Dennis Brown - 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I just responded to that user's complaints here[42]. The user apparently follows me around and then complains about me on other users' pages without pinging me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Has Snooganssnoogans been given a formal warning via an Arb template regarding modern politics? If not, someone should now. I have to go for the evening, and can't remember the name of the thing. I don't use it a lot, but it would appear that ARb notification template is the next step, if it hasn't already been done. Dennis Brown - 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
          • He was warned they exist in the previous ANI thread.--v/r - TP 22:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
            • Then the real question is: what has transpired since then. Again, I'm busy tonight but I want to keep up on this. Dennis Brown - 22:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
              • Snoogansnoogans edits are fine. Most of the ones I'm familiar with are quite good in fact. This appears to be... I don't know a vendetta, either a personal or ideological one. And it also appears to be the standard "finish off the wounded" tactic. An editor you don't like gets a sanction for whatever reason. The sanction expires or is vacated. The people who got him sanctioned in the first place, then move in for the kill (a longer ban or such) arguing "he's still doing it" and they bring bunk diffs which don't show what they claim they show to support it. That's what appears to be going on here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
                • But it has been an ongoing claim. This is why I would want to see the best evidence out there. If there is nothing there and he is being hounded, I want to know that. If there is a problem with his edits, I want to know that. Because it is politics, AE is the right venue, less drama, less of the peanut gallery. In short, whatever the solution is, I seek a solution. Dennis Brown - 22:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And oh yeah, if you wanna see what actual WP:TENDENTIOUS editing looks like take a look at the original poster's, User:David A's edit history. There's the usual cries of "CENSORSHIP!"[43] (the battlecry of every fringe editor everywhere), borderline bigotry/Islamophobia [44] (the "genocidally bigoted fascists" is pretty much a code phrase used to describe Muslims on the far-right). And more such. User:Malik Shabazz who's had to interact with them on this and possibly other articles might have more insight.

Indeed, Snooganssnoogans edits on topics related to immigration have been excellent - addition of scholarly studies, removal of crappy fringe material etc. - while David A's have been deeply problematic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Let it be noted here that Marek finds absolutely nothing wrong with Snoo's edits. In fact, he appears to wholeheartedly support them.--v/r - TP 22:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The three you posted on Drmies page? Yeah those were fine. Like, for example, what in the world is supposed to be wrong with this one? It adds a notable fact sourced to New York Times. All through out this you just asserted these diffs are "problematic". You have utterly failed to explain what exactly is wrong with them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, this should be closed as its spurious and to cut out any future drama. A tendentious editor posted it. Some opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND warriors who have had disagreements with Snoogans^2 in the past cynically jumped in (and one of them has been stalking Snoogans for awhile). A couple drama board busy bodies got in to get their drama fix... check, check, check, I think we're all done now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Or you have found an editor who edits exactly as you do, and thus feel the need to support him lest criticism of and restriction of his editing methods also restricts your own. TimothyJosephWood description here of Snooganssnoogans editing as "you're just combing google news to find political controversy to stick into every crack of an article, especially BLPs" I think is an accurate description of your editing methodology too. You both systematically edit to promote a particular point of view and through doing it provoke endless arguments over trivialities. Unfortunately, there is no easy remedy for low-scale disruption like this. The AE request will be entirely pointless. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement[edit]

  • I've opened an AE request here.--v/r - TP 02:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Topic ban appeal: EthiopianHabesha[edit]

Appeal denied by unanimous consent. Leaving this open longer is highly unlikely to produce a different result. I think Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi sums up the consensus in a concise manner, so I won't try to paraphrase them. Editor should reread the original ANI discussion if any clarification is needed regarding why the ban was put into place. Dennis Brown - 20:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

In February 2017, EthiopianHabesha (talk · contribs) was topic banned from articles or edits relating to the Horn of Africa.[45]. They wish to appeal this community ban, and the text of that appeal is below (copied from my talkpage at their request). Have also advised them not to breach the topic ban while the appeal is considered. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I Just logged in today after my last edit on 24 January only to find out that I have been banned from editing Horn of African pages. For the last 4 months I stayed away from Wikipedia because some of the editors treated me like I have nothing to say. All I did was to discuss with them politely and try to convince them so that we reach consensus by providing them multiple convincing points supported by reliable sources (almost all sources I use are neutral sources) written by well known scholars. However, I was bullied by some of these editors. They push for my indefinite block but none of them explained to me clearly by giving example diffs and clarify on how it violates Wikipedia rules, if indeed there is one I violated. llywrch in AN/I, regarding to the politics of Ethiopia said " that land tend to be settled not thru words or appeals to reason, but with fists, bullets, & extralegal measures.) In short, there be monsters & landmines here, & many people who might be attracted to improving articles on Ethiopia -- which is understandable, since it is a fascinating country rich in culture & history -- will find themselves getting their fingers burned not only by falling into an example of (2), but knowing little or nothing about it due to (1).".[46]. I agree with him and is the reason why I make long arguments with some of the editors, some even created multiple accounts to push for their agenda. Anyways, I have not checked Ethiopia related articles for 4 months and I will begin reviewing recent edits and for any issues I observe I will report to you or to other editors who specializes in Ethiopian articles and may be they will do the correction. However, one issue is that, as Llywrch said, there are very few Wikipedia editors monitoring Ethiopia (a nation with 100 million people with over 80 ethnic-groups) related pages, and those very few are not interested to tell history from all sides. I will appreciate it if you can give me a second chance and review my contributions. In the future may be I will make proposals to you or any other editors before I make any edits. As I used to do before I will support the proposals with quotes from Google books and will only add or make correction after editors seen the quotes themselves and when consensus is achieved. Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
So they were topic banned, left Wikipedia, came back, and now want that ban reversed while acting like they've learned nothing? Hell no. Edit other articles and prove you've learned what you did wrong. --Tarage (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd be willing to consider an appeal like this only after EthiopianHabesha (talk · contribs) shows that they can contribute constructively to articles in another area wholly unrelated to the Horn of Africa. As it is there's no indication that the problems would not begin again as soon as the topic ban is lifted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC).
  • Comment I'd agree that the whole point of a TBan is to demonstrate that one can edit productively in other areas before appealing it. Not taking a leave of absence for a perceived duration, and then appealing on the grounds of time served. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline. To get a topic ban lifted, an editor needs to show they can edit in a different subject area, in a collegial manner, and not create any more of the same problems that led to the ban - not just log out for a few months and then come back and blame everyone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline. For the reasons by BSZ. We need to see some new constructive editing before we can even evaluate a request like this. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline Not impressed with accusations of sockpuppetry coupled with an attitude of self-victimhood. Katietalk 13:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No clarification provided. Thanks all for taking their time to help on this issue but my apeal is regarding to why I got banned from editing Horn of African pages. In the AN/I discussion [47] leading for the topic ban there is no diffs and policy shortcut provided supporting the topic ban proposal. I thought Eyerusales would transfer the post here together with the clarification I requested here so that the justification for topic ban is discussed. Euryalus, can you please let me know the diffs and policy shortcut used to support the topic ban. I am asking this because it's not clear for me why I am banned. I do not know for which edits and for which policy violation I got banned. Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The ANI is full of diffs. What you have done wrong is consistently violate WP:NPOV and WP:V and when people have tried to work with you to address specific issues, you lead the discussion around in circles. You appear to be WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia in collaboration with other editors, but rather here as an advocate for a particular POV. See the essay WP:ADVOCACY as well as the behaviors described in WP:TENDENTIOUS. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@EthiopianHabesha: thanks for the ping. As Jytdog says, the ANI discussion does include details of the diffs and policies that the community considered when reaching a consensus on the topic ban. If you don't want to read the entire thing, the opening edits by Duqsene and Ms. Sarah Welch are good summaries. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog, two reasons for the topic ban is provided by JD 1)violate WP:NPOV and WP:V 2)advocate for a particular POV. Can you please let me know on which specific topic I violated the NPOV policy. On 2, yes Robert McClenon repeatedly accused me of advocating but the issue is: if some one is an advocate then it should be clear for everyone as to what that person is advocating for. From your understanding of the discussion in the AN/I can you please let me know what you think I am advocating about. Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Euryalus, here is what happened: Duqsene, the filler in the AN/I, opened a section in my talk page before filling for COI. He said this in my talk-page: "while dismissing the existence of Amhara people because of nationalist ties. Therefore it gives me no choice but to report you for conflict of interest." [48][49] I asked Duksene and Robert Mcclenon several times to provide the diffs showing that I have said "Amhara People do not exist" and diffs supporting their reasoning for accusing me of "nationalistic outburst", Duksene ignored this question while Robert Mcclenon replied to me this in the AN/I "It appears that the subject editor is angry that another editor said something that I can't find evidence that they said. Arguing over words that were not said is disruptive."[50]. While Duksene indeed claimed I have said "Amhra people do not exist" in my talk page as well as in COI [51][52][53], Robert said no evidence supporting that. This is to give clarification on the opening edit in AN/I that resulted in topic ban and to show that the filler opened section in my talk-page, in COI and finally in AN/I based on false accusation over something that I have never said. This is why I am requesting for clarification as to why I am banned. Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline - There is nothing provided in the appeal that demonstrates an understanding of the two principal issues that were raised at the AN/I filing that resulted in the topic ban. These are 1) General combativeness and 2) Insufficient English writing skills necessary for coherence. The only thing required to rectify problem 2 is a demonstration of coherency in written English which; All I did was to discuss with them politely and try to convince them so that we reach consensus by providing them multiple convincing points supported by reliable sources (almost all sources I use are neutral sources) written by well known scholars this is not. It's legible, but, poorly written, over-long for a single sentence and even incomplete. Rectifying problem 1 is more of a challenge. First, EH would have to admit that the problem exists and then second actually have a plan on what to do about it. These were the findings at AN/I. I took a slightly deeper look and went into the editing history of EH. I want somebody to square the edits and edit summaries here and here. Note first the poor English and then second the extraordinary claims that edit a is unbalanced, but, edit b is IMPARTIAL, DUE, and NPOV. This is despite using the exact same language, but, talking about the atrocities of Oromo rather than the Amhara Emperor Menelik II. Then I considered this edit and squared it against p.40 of the cited source. The immediate problem is that the cited material is on page 41, not 40. Then I compared the actual material. EH is partly correct and partly incorrect. There is no mention of Abyssianians, so that removal is appropriate. There is explicit mention that Dadader was the commander of the Medra Zega and Menz and that they were Muslims. That removal was incorrect. The last remaining change is a matter of interpretation, but, I agree with EH on it. "All of the Shewa" not just the Muslim regions were invaded. The confusion lies in the phrase "all the lands" of the Muslims. I looked at a few other edits as well but didn't find anything worth specifically noting here. I noticed that some things were controversial not because they were incorrect, but, because they were not relevant to the article. I have no opinion on that finding. Overall, I think EH does want to contribute constructively, but, lacks the pre-requisite skills to do so. In this case I must uphold the TBAN and recommend that EH finds a different topic to contribute constructively to, to demonstrate that they are indeed here to contribute. Then perhaps the TBAN can be reconsidered. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, thanks for the message. Two reasons were given by RD for the justification of the topic ban: 1)combativeness 2) English skill. As for 1 I hope you have noticed in the talkpages that I prefer to deal with the content presented and avoid attacking the editors to reach consensus. Correct me if I am wrong but that is one truth I know and no one mentions that so far. If I do not agree with reasoning provided then I argue with them by telling them that their reasoning contradicts with other scholars POV and try to convince them to include all POV so that readers get balanced information, which I believe is what Wikipedia stands for. See my dialogue here for example with Ms Sarah Welch on the admin Buckshot06 talk page. If that kind of dialogue is not permitted under Wikipedia policy please let me know so that I improve on how I should make arguments. On the second reason, what I know is that all the editors I communicate with understand me and I understand them perfectly but whenever I challenge their edits they raise this topic. Usually, I make proposals in the article talkpage before I make edits so that other editors raise their concerns. Instead of rewording the content to be added or the content found in the sources to what they think is proper English (i.e. ofcourse if the primary concern is about the English) they rather complain about the sourced content. Thanks — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline. No evidence they understand what led to the ban. ~ Rob13Talk 13:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unban - There were two related problems, the editor's combativeness, and the editor's lack of command of English. The editor doesn't seem to be trying to be more collaborative, and still doesn't have a command of English. We should be patient with collaborative editors whose English is poor; this is a non-collaborative editor whose English is poor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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

National liberalism[edit]

I am requesting administrative attention (no specific administrative action at this time) to National liberalism and the pending AFD for that article. That article had an AFD in 2009; the conclusion was Keep. The proponent now is User:Rupert loup. On the one hand, he has the right to propose a new AFD. On the other hand, he is also replying to multiple Keep opinions, which is his right also but which is contentious. He also simultaneously with the AFD filed a thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard, which I closed because the AFD was also running. That looks a lot like forum shopping. I am not requesting any administrative action at this time, but am requesting administrative attention to a contentious AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the keeps are that they are not presenting arguments on why should be a keep, I presented my arguments but no one are demostrating the contrary. I'm trying to have a discution and I was accused of bad faith, It's becoming a forum because the editors are more concerned to discuss about my edits than the notability of the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I have just re-read the deletion policy and related policies, and I don't see where it says that the burden is on the proponents of keeping the article to demonstrate that it should be kept. It is my interpretation that the burden is on the proponent of deletion to show that the article should be deleted. For that reason, the Keep voters do not have to defend their !votes, and arguing with them is badgering. I didn't accuse you of bad faith, and I don't think you are acting in bad faith, but you are badgering. I did say that you were forum shopping. I would have been willing to moderate a discussion at DRN, by the way, if you hadn't also filed the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep voters still need to substantiate their arguments. When asked for a source to back it up, one keep voter replied with 'Its self-evident'. Really? Thats a new reason to keep for me. 'Keep - its self evident what I say is true' - if only I had known all these years. Think how many arguments it would solve! Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It is true that Keep arguments should be substantiated, as should Delete arguments. It is also still true that demanding that every Keep argument, or every Delete argument, be substantiated, is badgering. The proponent says that they want a discussion, or that the AFD is a discussion. Their badgering is not conducive to a constructive discussion, and an AFD is not an open-ended discussion anyway, but a discussion with a specific focus. If they had wanted a more open-ended discussion, they could have held off on the AFD and filed the DRN and let a DRN moderator manage the discussion. As it is, this is a case of bludgeoning the process. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Stale CFD[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_8#Category:Number-one_debut_singles has been opened since the 9th, with a clear consensus to delete. I just want to make sure that it's actually merged because "Debut singles" is still notable. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:AIV is badly backlogged[edit]

Thanks everyone for addressing this quickly. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is currently experiencing an extreme backlog. Based on data kept at this location, AIV's current backlog is among the top 0.3% worst backlogs since July of last year. Your attention is needed. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Many seem related to one IP range it appears. Working on the backlog now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I smacked the range, but short on time, so there's still a lot of work left for others. ~ Rob13Talk 14:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like things are back to normal. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Discussion and Survey close requested[edit]

Can an admin please review this discussion and survey on Donald Trump talk here and close it? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this WP:AN/RFC should've been a better place for this request. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Re-requesting closure on RfC discussion about WP:NSPORTS[edit]

I previously requested closure of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive at WP:ANRFC because someone said one closer is enough. However, another person said that more than one closer, i.e. two closers, may be needed. Therefore, I'm re-requesting a closure here but for two-person teamwork. --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Ban appeal for Paul Bedson[edit]

Paul Bedson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) would like to appeal his 2012 community ban, implemented in 2012 via this user RfC and followed up in 2013 in this ANI thread. Paul contacted arbcom recently to appeal his ban, and since this was originally a community matter, it's being referred to the community for review. Below is a copy of his appeal posted to his talk page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC) (Addendum: please see also this earlier, more detailed version. 23:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC))


I would like to make a statement regarding my ban and request it's reduction to an indefinite topic ban on "fringe" subjects, broadly construed. You can add Anglo-Saxon History to the indefinite topic ban as well if you like.

Almost eight years ago, I visited an untested archaeological site in a place called Aaiha that was very interesting and I began writing Wikipedia about it and surrounding archaeological and historical topics. I am fully aware this has caused a number of problems for Wikipedia, especially around the time of my ban when I was living alone in Nottingham with unsuitable or no employment, without much to do but explore all types of fringe concepts around the subject using inaccurate, primary and old sources that I had not properly read in detail. Sometimes with elements of original research and causing disruption with other editors, accusations of bad faith, using material deleted from other articles, not abiding to consensus, etc. as detailed in the RfC below:

I have read in detail and fully understand the points raised in this RfC. They are mostly criticisms of my edits on fringe subjects and Anglo-Saxon history, which in particular, I have no intention of writing more about. I regret and am sorry for this behaviour and accept that the methods I used in the past to promote the investigation of this site were not acceptable or productive for the Wikipedia project. I do not intend to repeat such behaviour but instead concentrate on productive efforts to expand the coverage of Lebanese Archaeology in general, which has hardly expanded since I was banned and I have a number of unique and hard to find sources that I would like to use to develop this section of Wikipedia again. Most notably, the inventories of Lebanese archaeological sites compiled by Lorraine Copeland and Peter Wescombe in the 1960s, Julien Aliquot’s inventory of Mount Hermon temples, Jacques Cauvin, Graeme Barker along with personal friendships with leading figures in the field such as Lebanon Head of Archaeology at the Directorate General of Antiquities, Assad Seif. I should even be able to provide a letter of reference from Dr. Seif if required. I would like to return to write about Lebanese, Syrian and Israeli Archaeology and Lebanese Heritage Management, which I feel is an important area Wikipedia should help support and document, I would like to demonstrate that I can edit productively to provide useful information for future generations of Heritage Management specialists. I intend to work on articles about sites, lithics, pottery and finds from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age, mainly in the Near East. I have previously sent ArbCom Dr. Seif’s latest article regarding Lebanese Heritage Management for consideration of it’s importance.

Some may question whether my continued work will influence this area to my point of view, to which I would suggest we ignore, as I will the Aaiha plain as the focus of my work previously but rather I will be focusing around Tell Aswad (30km away from Aaiha), where the first emmer wheat was discovered at 8,800BC. This mainstream subject area - the first wheat and settlement development is my specialty and I would suggest is important for the Wikipedia project as it helps document where we came from as a culture; a type of knowledge is of the highest value for both Wikipedia and humanity. I am not out to prove or push any fringe concepts anymore, instead prove myself and concentrate on what I would like to edit Wikipedia about. History is somewhat intertwined with archaeology, so I would request only a topic ban on Anglo-Saxon history if one is deemed necessary. I have shown below pages in this area which I have created or edited that I feel were beneficial and the type of work I would like to continue contributing if the community ban is replaced with a fringe topic ban:

(See talk page for full list)

I would also like to add that I like to think I have matured a lot in the four and a half years since the ban and am at least now over 40. I moved back to my hometown of Coventry, UK and got married. I have a highly successful job which occupies most of my time now, am no longer Druze and converted to Islam, which is also much more mainstream. I look forward to your considerations and would be pleased to provide any further information or answer any questions required. Thanks.
— User:Paul Bedson 17:48, 22 May 2017


  • What about the sock puppetry? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    • In his original, longer request, he stated, "I have read and re-read and fully understand all the reasons for my ban including use of sock puppets which I will not repeat, questionable sources and divergent anomalies sprouting from what was my primary focus at the time of my banishment - the promotion of investigation into the Aaiha plain near Rachaya el-Wadi as the potential starting point of the Neolithic Revolution." His statement was trimmed at my request. --Yamla (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that this user originally posted a longer statement. By my request, he trimmed it down. In the event that you think he did not sufficiently cover a particular area, I urge you to read his page as of this edit in case he specifically trimmed out something relevant. You can compare his original request with the request copied into WP:ANI via this diff. The user should not be penalised because I requested he trim his statement. --Yamla (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jo-Jo Eumerus and Yamla: Sorry, my fault - I repeated that suggestion by email as well. I'll put the link to the original version in the summary at the top of this thread for clarity. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok, I never dealt with Paul Bedson while he was active, however, last year I spend about 6 months cleaning up (..or at least trying to clean up...) the Lebanese villages, and there I met his work. A lot. (And it was a lot to clean up, I think I found some 10-12 villages, where the same village had two different articles about it. Ah, the joy of the multiple ways of transcribing Arabic names into English!)
  • The problem with some of Bensons work there, was that it didn't seem as if anything had happened there for the last couple of thousand of years. Take Tayibe (Lebanon), he basically described it as a Heavy Neolithic archaeological site, (..look through the article history...) alas, it is also a village, very much alive. Or Temnin el-Foka, which he described as a nymphaeum (again, look through the article history), alas, it is the name of a village/town, which happen to have a nymphaeum. Virtually every place in the Middle East have a zillion years of history. The problem was that Benson only saw the archeology part, also that he did not distinguish between the archeology and the modern village. Take Tayibe (Lebanon), from the location that Benson gave, I could see that this was the modern village....but I have still no idea as the where (north, south, east, west) the archeological material were found.
  • I think that if Benson were to be let back into the project, then his work has to be monitored, and given some restraints, Huldra (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I have rechecked the problems that led o the ban. Among them was an inability to understand the difference between fringe and mainstream, and and not recognizing the difference between up to date and obsolete sources-.In the proposed topic area both of these are major sources of error and misunderstanding. And the current appeal shows a lack of understanding of the difference between published and unpublished sources. In archeology, and a reliance upon personal knowledge/ Access to such source and knowledge can be very helpful to a research archeologist, but neither are appropriate for Wikipedia, and encyclopedia that relies upon published accessible sources, and relies on the general consensus of the field rather than individual interpretation. These are all the more important when dealing with a field of knowledge and continuing controversy. There is undoubtedly excellent work Benson can do in this area, but not for Wikipedia. Everything he does would have to be rechecked in detail by an expert--I am not one, but unless we have some who are willing to revise his contributions for WP rather than write their own, I cannot accept that he would make further contributions in this area. I would only support an appeal than included a topic ban for ancient and medieval history, archeology, and genealogy. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Just spent some time going down "memory lane" reading the diffs and pages associated with the RfC/U on Paul. I'm not seeing that he is addressing anything about the major problems he had with understanding what Wikipedia is for, what we do and don't do, how to use sources, or how to determine what is a good source for Wikipedia and what is not. It's not clear to me what exactly these sources that Paul proposes to use are - are they archival collections or actual published works? I would certainly oppose Paul's return to the Anglo-Saxon area where he showed himself woefully unknowledgeable. A major factor in his ban was the AS area where he misused sources, made up novel definitions, either did not read or willfully misread other people's arguments, and generally ate a large amount of time of some very productive editors. None of which is not addressed at all in his statement. I'm normally not easy to get to the point of wanting to ban someone, but Paul's behavior actually got me to deal with the red tape to file an RfC/U.... that's saying his behavior was well beyond what anyone should have to put up with. I'm afraid that, as written, this appeal, if successful, will just mean some poor editors in the Lebanese archaeological area will be stuck spending all their time cleaning up after Paul and trying to make him see reason. Sorry, not convinced its a benefit to wikipedia to have him back. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I was the other user, along with Ealdgyth, who assembled the RfC/U that got Paul banned. I'll keep this short and just say I agree with Ealdgyth's response above. I find it hard to believe Paul would be a net benefit to the project, and I think the ban should stand. Paul, find something else constructive to do with your time; Wikipedia is not the only place you can put your energy into. Too much work has been put into cleaning up after Paul for it to be worth the risk of allowing him back. I dislike being this blunt about it, but I don't believe Paul is capable of being a sufficient asset to Wikipedia to compensate for his lack of understanding of how this place works, even if (and it's a big if) he is completely sincere in his statement above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ealdgyth and Mike Christie, just a request for clarification, since I don't remember hearing of Paul Bedson before. It sounds to me like you're saying that Paul's well-meaning but not competent, basically a WP:RANDY. Is that a good summary of your comments, or do I misunderstand? Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Nyttend, Ealdgyth and Mike Christie can speak for themselves, but I would say that Paul Bedson was not always well-meaning either, but having promised to reform those aspects of behavior, competence remains a significant concern, enough so that I wouldn't accept any contribution at face value without independetly confirming that the sources said what Paul thought they did. The problem is that his areas of interest are so esoteric that your average administrator or mentor may not know when a distortion or misunderstanding has taken place, making it very difficult to monitor in any meaningful way. No topic ban can solve this kind of problem. Agricolae (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Agricolae; he was certainly not competent, and I would not say he was well-meaning either; his goals were not focused on what others told him was good for Wikipedia. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned that Paul seems to have more or less the same goals as he had before. Last May, in a comment on a web page, he wrote "Paul Bedson May 2nd, 2016 12:05 PM Islam will only reform when it is universally accepted that 2 of the 3 instances of the use of the word Bekkah in the Koran actually do refer to the Bekkah in Lebanon and not Mekkah in Saudi. Once that happens and they archaeologically excavate the original garden of the gods / Eden / Jannah in the Aaiha plain, Bekkah, Lebanon at the first spring of the Jordan / Hasbani. Then you get the Islamic "enlightenment"."[54] One of Paul's main motivations for editing seems to have been to publicise his views on the site of the original Garden of Eden. Eg here[55] where he wrote "This is me figuring out a way to teach everyone about where the Garden of Eden is via the Aaiha Hypothesis whilst evading the corporate constraints of not being able to log in on a PC for fifty hours every week." Now he says he wishes to focus on " Tell Aswad (30km away from Aaiha), where the first emmer wheat was discovered at 8,800BC. This mainstream subject area - the first wheat and settlement development is my specialty and I would suggest is important for the Wikipedia project as it helps document and inform people about where we all came from as a culture and this type of knowledge is of the highest value for both Wikipedia and humanity." I don't see any basic difference here. He thinks he has the truth about "where we all came from as a culture" and that it is extremely important that he inform the world about this. And he seems to think he knows for a fact where Emmer came from and the first settlement development, while so far as I know these are highly disputed subjects.
On another point, should we be pinging all of those who took part in the RfC/U and the ban (which is here[56]. Doug Weller talk 07:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't take part in the original RfC (not being at all knowledgeable in the relevant subject areas), but I followed it with some fascination and I followed links to the various disputes - and I read it all again last night and decided to sleep on it. My conclusion is that Paul Bedson has a breathtaking ability to only see what he wants to see and not see what is as plain as the nose on your face when it doesn't match his views (I'll just say "Wynn" and leave it at that). Paul's problems with OR and interpretation of primary sources abound, and he has an ability to construct fantastic reasoning when sources and/or consensus don't support him. Paul now says he'll leave Fringe topics alone, but I really don't think he has sufficient ability to identify fringe topics or fringe opinions on contentious topics (at least as Wikipedia would define them). Paul appears to have pet subjects in which he passionately believes, and a tendency to only cite those authors he thinks support his views (and, sadly, he has misrepresented sources to claim they support his views). Given his Lebanon-centric approach, his position of religious conviction, and his apparent non-mainsteam opinions on the true origins of human civilisation, he should not be writing about those subjects - they are clearly contentious, and clearly need a very careful and balanced approach. So no, even with a ban on fringe topics, the same problems apply very much to all of Paul's areas of interest - archaeology, ancient history, religious myth. I'm sure he could write a great blog presenting non-mainstream ideas (and mainstream understanding very much needs to be regularly challenged), but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)