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 48 hours
are archived by ClueBot III.

  • Issues appropriate for this page could 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.

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.

Requests for comment[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119#The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119#The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon? (Initiated 108 days ago on 23 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr[edit]

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr (Initiated 58 days ago on 12 December 2015)? Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections (Initiated 59 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article? (Initiated 66 days ago on 4 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Plovdiv#Including historical names of the city[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Plovdiv#Including historical names of the city (Initiated 62 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:CobraNet#RfC on manufacturer list[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:CobraNet#RfC on manufacturer list (Initiated 59 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies (Initiated 53 days ago on 17 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC: Should an "a-prefixing" guideline be added to MOS:CT?[edit]

There have been about a dozen comments in the last 30 days, but a consensus is not clear. It has not been contentious, but since it affects a WP guideline, an uninvolved editor is requested to assess consensus and close it. (Initiated 50 days ago on 20 December 2015) Thanks, —Ojorojo (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else[edit]

It was redated once and it's been ongoing for 54 days now, but discussion has pretty much died down. All of the monitors of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics voted for a third option, "often": 1, 2, 3 and 4. Current article lead hasn't existed for very long so nothing is yet "stable". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Kde crystalsvg eraser.png Undone I apologize for not explaining well enough but the point was to finally assess concensus as either or, not just closing it. I'll undo the closure in await for someone to actually decide either or. If there is no result it shall just be redated and reopened and the discussion and RfC continued because that is the proper procedure if there is no result yet, not closure. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Removed done tag so this will not be automatically archived by the bot. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge#Proposed merge with Ammon Bundy[edit]

Please disposition Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge#Proposed merge with Ammon Bundy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: From the perspective of closure, there's no need for the discussion to be kept on the current talk page. The closer should be able to find it, and may or may not choose to dearchive it at that time. After archiving, it may also be helpful to add a link to the ANRFC entry pointing to the new location. Sunrise (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality (Initiated 56 days ago on 14 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gilles-Éric Séralini#RFC regarding Awards/Honor section[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gilles-Éric Séralini#RFC regarding Awards/Honor section (Initiated 55 days ago on 15 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Martin McGuinness#Monarch/ appointed by[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Martin McGuinness#Monarch/ appointed by (Initiated 55 days ago on 15 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC: Should an "a-prefixing" guideline be added to MOS:CT?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC: Should an "a-prefixing" guideline be added to MOS:CT? (Initiated 50 days ago on 20 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML (Initiated 57 days ago on 13 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  • This should run for another week or two, as it was not properly advertized and got insufficient attention. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Not done - discussion has recently picked up again with a drive for more participants. Sam Walton (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Removed not done template so the bot won't prematurely advertise it. I agree with waiting more time before closing it. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:British Empire#RfC: Should the term "superpower" be mentioned regarding the latter years of the British Empire?[edit]

Although its been up a week [1], the date in the RFC has been altered [2] to give the impression it has only just been started. N0n3up clearly doesn't accept a lack of consensus for his proposal and is opposing closure, I think this needs a neutral admin to review the discussion and sentence the closure (or not) as they deem appropriate. As a neutral 3rd party looking at some of the comments being made eg Do that, and it will be reverted. This act will be considered an aggression and the assertion that only he can close the RFC I can see trouble ahead. Hopefully a steely eyed admin can intervene and pour oil on troubled waters. Pinging @Snowded: to let him know I've done this. WCMemail 17:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Need a neutral review but even the RfC is tedious, the obsession with inserting superpower against consensus has been running for a coupe of months now. I didn't spot the change of date that really is gaming ----Snowded TALK 00:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Wee Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, with all due respect, I would just like to say that this wouldn't had happened if Snowded and Juanriley (two of the stalkers who've constantly slithered towards my edits) wouldn't had been involved regardless of the outcome of the Rfc and discussions. Now personally, I am very accepting with others disagreeing and even reverting my edits. What I am not okay with is Snowded's constant stalking and manipulation of my edits. If you check the British Empire Talk page, you'll see that others didn't respond as much as Snowded did because he was constantly fighting back by constantly posting against my edits that almost looks like a backlash (if you want more examples of his and Juanriley's stalking, leave me a message in my talk page, I promise to take the time to list them all). Yes, I agree that the Rfc ws going for a couple of days, but recently I hadn't had the time to post up-to-date, and besides, it should be deleted in 20 days or so by a bot and not to mention that Wikipedia has no deadlines. (N0n3up (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC))
I would ordinarily have left the RFC to run for 30 days or more before resorting to here. The comments made by N0n3up with the bad faith accusations of "stalking" and manipulation not to mention the comments referenced above convinced me this was becoming toxic and required an admin to look at. I was very tempted to take this to WP:ANI. WCMemail 01:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Wee Apparently you didn't look at the history involved in my previous post. I would normally concentrate on the topic in hand, but I felt that it was necessary to bring this into light because this dilemma had been one problem in the discussion page in BE talk page. I agree I shouldn't have posted this here and should've probably saved it for ANI. But if you think I posted in bad faith, you're wrong. I also covered the loose ends due to my lack of time and etc.. Again, recheck what I've said, I'm not accusing anyone, I'm simply stating what happened. I apologize for the inconvenience this provoked. (N0n3up (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC))
User:Wiki-Ed and User:Snowded have done an admirable job in trying to keep a well written article intact. On this particular issue I agree with them--though I think we have had disagreements in the past. I hesitated to post here (and there) lately because User:N0n3up will say I am stalking him. In fact, I think this is the first article we came to loggerheads on and lately again I have attempted to keep my presence minimal where and when he starts off on a tirade on other articles we both apparently watch. Juan Riley (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Juan Riley First of all, save it for ANI, this is regarding the Rfc. Second, your edits in British Empire, United Kingdom and the American Civil War, France, Suez Crisis, List of pioneers in computer science and Treaty of Versailles say otherwise, All of which you began to edit since I started to edit in them, all beginning in British Empire. It's only a matter of finding your name in the edit history of each article. Again, this is regarding the Rfc, in which I made a mistake mentioning this. (N0n3up (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC))
Nuff said. Juan Riley (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Anyhow, Kudpung thought it best to leave it here, just to get back in track of topic, think we went off rail a second there. (N0n3up (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC))

I recommend that the Rfc be allowed to run its (30-day) course. Then place a 1-year moratorium, upon closure of the Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay here this is the most diplomatic way to handle this situation. Reb1981 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Charli XCX#RFC: MOS:SURNAME and articles related to Charli XCX[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Charli XCX#RFC: MOS:SURNAME and articles related to Charli XCX (Initiated 38 days ago on 1 January 2016)? Thanks, sst✈ (speak now) 06:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024[edit]

This AfD has been open for 18 days with the last !vote being registered more than 3 days ago, following a third relisting. After a thorough conversation with many excellent policy points on all sides, there is a slim majority of 24 !votes for Delete (53% of all opinions registered). LavaBaron (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If I was closing that (which, mercifully, I'm not...), I'd close it as "No consensus" – there are valid points on both sides, and there is not a clear consensus in either direction... --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Should Lindsay Lohan be included as a possible candidate for President of the United States in 2020?[edit]

Request for WP:SNOW close. The RfC has not been open for a full 30 days, however, after several weeks, 6 editors support deletion of Lindsay Lohan as a presidential candidate, 2 are opposed. Of the two who are opposed, one has since said "You all clearly have consensus, so if someone wants to delete Lohan I won't argue about it.". LavaBaron (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge#Use of Flag Icons in Infobox[edit]

Can someone close the RFC here? L.tak (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Oldest people#Proposed merge with List of oldest living people[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oldest people#Proposed merge with List of oldest living people (Initiated 66 days ago on 4 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Charli XCX#RFC: MOS:SURNAME and articles related to Charli XCX[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Charli XCX#RFC: MOS:SURNAME and articles related to Charli XCX (Initiated 38 days ago on 1 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church#RFC: Reliable sources[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church#RFC: Reliable sources (Initiated 38 days ago on 1 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Habib Ali al-Jifri#RfC: Is the critical content neutral and well sourced?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Habib Ali al-Jifri#RfC: Is the critical content neutral and well sourced? (Initiated 37 days ago on 2 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson#RFC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson#RFC (Initiated 33 days ago on 6 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS? (Initiated 33 days ago on 6 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Panagiotis Kone#RfC: Does the source support labeling Kone as ethnic Greek?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Panagiotis Kone#RfC: Does the source support labeling Kone as ethnic Greek? (Initiated 32 days ago on 7 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Socialism#RfC: What should be the topic of this article? 2[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Socialism#RfC: What should be the topic of this article? 2 (Initiated 39 days ago on 31 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)#Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50): RfC on lede passage[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)#Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50): RfC on lede passage (Initiated 41 days ago on 29 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy#Request for comments[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy#Request for comments (Initiated 33 days ago on 6 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Josip Broz Tito#RfC January 2016[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Josip Broz Tito#RfC January 2016 (Initiated 32 days ago on 7 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Slano Blato Landslide#RFC: Should "Salt Mud Slide" be moved to "Slano Blato landslide"?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Slano Blato Landslide#RFC: Should "Salt Mud Slide" be moved to "Slano Blato landslide"? (Initiated 30 days ago on 9 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Media franchise#Alright, Bring It![edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Media franchise#Alright, Bring It! (Initiated 43 days ago on 27 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ethnocracy#RfC: material that does not explicitly refer to ethnocracy[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ethnocracy#RfC: material that does not explicitly refer to ethnocracy (Initiated 38 days ago on 1 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Martin McGuinness#"deputy" vs "Deputy"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Martin McGuinness#"deputy" vs "Deputy" (Initiated 69 days ago on 1 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Martin McGuinness#Monarch/ appointed by[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Martin McGuinness#Monarch/ appointed by (Initiated 0 days ago on 8 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Transhumanist politics#Request for Comment: Is Istvan's bus tour relevant?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Transhumanist politics#Request for Comment: Is Istvan's bus tour relevant? (Initiated 36 days ago on 3 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge#Use of Flag Icons in Infobox[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge#Use of Flag Icons in Infobox (Initiated 36 days ago on 3 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge#Proposed merge with Ammon Bundy[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge#Proposed merge with Ammon Bundy (Initiated 29 days ago on 10 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015#RfC: Lead - full term, etc[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015#RfC: Lead - full term, etc (Initiated 33 days ago on 6 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#RFC - Antisemitic incidents[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#RFC - Antisemitic incidents (Initiated 32 days ago on 7 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Meshblock#Should the title be Meshblock or Mesh Block?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Meshblock#Should the title be Meshblock or Mesh Block? (Initiated 33 days ago on 6 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:ShadowsCommons#Deliberate shadowing[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:ShadowsCommons#Deliberate shadowing (Initiated 36 days ago on 3 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#New usergroup with autopromotion to implement arbitration "30-500" bans as a page protection[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#New usergroup with autopromotion to implement arbitration "30-500" bans as a page protection (Initiated 29 days ago on 10 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault#"The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement."[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#"The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement." (Initiated 24 days ago on 15 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault#RFC regarding AAU subsection.[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RFC regarding AAU subsection. (Initiated 27 days ago on 12 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done. There really is nothing to decide here, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members"[edit]

Could we have an experienced editor or admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members" (Initiated 31 days ago on 8 January 2016)? Considering the backlog here, I thought it prudent to apply a day early for this biggie. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vehbi_Koç#RfC_on_the_Kasapyan_estate (Initiated 29 days ago on 10 January 2016)? Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Categories for discussion[edit]

This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 150 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from 2015 October 15. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content review[edit]

This discussion forum has an extensive backlog where the oldest active entry was started on 10 June 2015 ({{Initiated|10 June 2015}}), and at the time if me posting this request, the page has 163 discussions that have yet to be closed, several started over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please update {{Initiated}} below as the backlog is (slowly) taken care of.--Aervanath (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
(Initiated 240 days ago on 13 June 2015)
About 155 discussions still to be closed.

Since this discussion board is now deprecated, and there will be no new discussions opened there, I would appreciate some help clearing the backlog.--Aervanath (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I just "did" about 3 of them. For the ones where I believe could really use more discussion, I've been relisting them on WP:FFD (but not in huge droves as that would overwhelm the daily subpages over there.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • We're getting close to having all these discussions closed. NFCR is now down to 100 open discussions. Also, in November, NFCR was shut down to new requests, directing new requests to WP:FFD; when all of the discussions are closed from NFCR, the noticeboard will be closed and marked as historical. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 9#Members of denominations by period[edit]

Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 14#16th and 17th century in the Southern Netherlands[edit]

Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 7#Category:Religious law in the United States[edit]

Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 7#Category:Academic institutions currently affiliated with the University of Mysore[edit]

Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 7#Category:19th-century male military personnel & 19th-century businessmen[edit]

Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 7#Category:Taxonomic articles[edit]

Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 8#Category:Meleagrididae[edit]

Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 8#Category:Calvinist and Reformed artists and writers[edit]

Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 9#Rivers and streams of the US[edit]

Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 9#Category:Muslim Chief ministers of Indian states[edit]

Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 10#Category:Oil and gas companies of Australia[edit]

Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 11#Category:Health care companies of the United Kingdom[edit]

Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer request for Bazaan[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer request for Bazaan (Initiated 30 days ago on 9 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I've posted this back on AN from the archives, as there isn't quite a consensus right now. Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done Unblocked with topic ban. Sam Walton (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC review request: Request for Comment: Country of Origin[edit]

This has been open for over a week. There's still some discussion, but at this point I think its productivity is coming to an end. The main complication is that an admin already attempted to resolve the dispute, but didn't actually close the discussion or provide an answer to the initial question. To help avoid any doubt in resolving this issue, I'd like to request that the closer explicitly note what the consensus is about the RfC being appealed. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Martin Hogbin[edit]

Would an administrator please assess the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Martin Hogbin? Thanks, --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is now located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278#Martin Hogbin. This is an ongoing issue. Can it be de-archived and evaluated? --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legacypac's persistent bullying[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legacypac's persistent bullying (Initiated 23 days ago on 16 January 2016)? See for example the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal for Resolution. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Poem of woe[edit]

Here sit I, a much merry sort
On my way to a flight from Heathrow Airport
Declaring my intention unto thee
To engage in a wiki vandalism spree
This IP expendable, one should confess
For it belongs to the National Express
There's no point blocking, as you'll feel my wrath
When soon free airport wifi shall I hath
My advice, sit back enjoy the show
Cos you ain't not seen da last of me bro!

Yours, A traveller of sorts who enjoys good things — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Can impotent wrath be felt, by definition? If a tree is wrathful in the forest and no one is around to feel it, does it make a sound? Dumuzid (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you'd better ask User:TheGracefulSlick about that tbh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC review request: Request for Comment: Country of Origin[edit]

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

Specific question asked:

"Should we change MEDRS, which currently reads:

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


Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions. This proposal is to address only the addition of high-quality sources into the guideline

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


  • Endorse The RFC was specifically about High quality sources and this was spelled out in the RFC question. The question had a very narrow focus. The closer rightfully discounted comments that were about low quality sources as off topic. AlbinoFerret 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    This is nonsense; who defines what a high or low-quality source is? There is no clear-cut process that is accepted by all, and actually the entire reason for the guideline. What if you define it depending on "personal" reasons — then you nullify the entire clause? The RfC concerns sources on Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 07:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    The guideline already gives reasons not to reject "high quality" sources for reasons like funding so that argument fails. But this is not a place to reargue the merits of the RFC. 13:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    No, but it is important to note the actual coverage of the RfC, which is all sources that would go on Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 15:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    Not all sources, only high quality ones. Your statement is one of the reasons I endorse this close. The RFC was a very narrow focused one and the off topic responses were obviously discounted, and your repeating them here doesnt invalidate the close. AlbinoFerret 15:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    I'm kind of inclined to go with "this is nonsense", but because Albino has misquoted the guideline again, and therefore his objection is irrelevant (NB not wrong, just irrelevant). A high-quality type of study is not the same thing as a high-quality source. A systematic review is a very high-quality type of study, but it can be a remarkably low-quality source for any given statement. For example, a systematic analysis of whichever studies I have photocopies of in my filing cabinet would be a high-quality type of study and a low-quality source.
    The fact that the closer made the same mistake, not to mention also introducing ideas never mentioned in the discussion at all, are both reasons to overturn it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Regardless if it is "type" or "source", I used source because thats what they are, sources. We are still talking about high quality, and simply because a high quality type or source is from a specific country is no reason to disqualify it. That premise, that just because something is from a specific country it fails, is troubling regardless of what criteria you are looking at. In any event this is off topic for a review as it is just re-arguing the RFC. AlbinoFerret 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
"Type of study" and "source" really are very importantly different concepts!
  • A meta-analysis is a type of study. They are often done well, but they can be done very, very poorly. All meta-analyses are high-quality "types of studies"; some meta-analyses are impossibly bad "sources".
  • A good textbook is a source. It is not any kind of scientific study at all. That doesn't mean that the textbook is a low-quality source. It just means that this particular type of source doesn't fall on the levels of evidence scales. A good textbook can be the best source for many medicine-related statements.
The disputed sentence is part of an entire section ("Assess evidence quality") on how to tell which type of study is better evidence than another. A type of study is all about scientific levels of evidence. It's not "simply high quality" or the entirety of whether a particular source can support a particular statement; it's very specifically about "high-quality types of studies" (emphasis in the original). A specific source (=a specific publication) can be a very high-quality source despite containing no scientific evidence at all. Similarly, a source could use a very good type of study – something that rates high in levels of evidence – while still being a very bad source indeed. To determine whether a source is a good one, you need to look at more factors than merely the levels of evidence (="type of study"). "Assess evidence quality" is only one of six major factors that MEDRS encourages editors to consider, (mostly) in addition to the five major factors that RS recommends for all subjects (see WP:NOTGOODSOURCE for a brief list). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, that argument failed in the RfC because editors were objecting to certain Cochrane Reviews simply because they had Chinese authors, and since Cochrane Reviews are prestigious reviews of reviews and meta-analyses, that means they are both the "highest quality source" as well as "highest quality study type". For the purposes of the RfC, there wasn't a difference, and editors who objected because of problems with lower quality references (type or source) missed the point and their votes were tossed aside. Objections were raised on the basis of potentially biased low quality Chinese published primary research (RCT's), which wasn't ever the point. Those are low quality sources and study-type . Naturally, the editors raising these objections weren't happy when their off-topic arguments were counted as such. LesVegas (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing You missed my point in again trying to explain type and source again. The point being that regardless if you are looking at type or source, country of origin as a basis for exclusion is troubling. AlbinoFerret 14:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that if you're bringing this here at this point, you should present the entire context, such as the two subsequent RfCs about the same question. Sunrise (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I would rather start at the beginning and discuss one RFC at a time as it may not be necessary to review them all. The next RFC was closed no consensus and as a NAC I agree with that closing, but if someone disagrees with that close they are welcome to start a review for it. Though I dont know why a review for a no consensus close is necessary. There appears to be a current RFC that has recently started that I just became aware of today, but we are far from the close (about 3 weeks) of that RFC for a review, if it is necessary. AlbinoFerret 02:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be clear that whether the other RfCs should be reviewed is not the point. The point is that you selectively omitted context in a way that favors your preferred outcome. With regard to the current RfC, if you're implying that you didn't perform due diligence by reading the talk page before coming here, then I don't think that helps you. And perhaps you forgot, but you did not "just become aware of" the current RfC, because you commented in it. Sunrise (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Link to related discussions:
  1. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Questions about RFC closure - Country of origin
  2. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover?
  3. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC: How to Implement the Country of Origin Closing
Cunard (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Just a note, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? was on a different topic and section of MEDRS. AlbinoFerret 14:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

QG your comment is about the second RFC, and a no consensus closing does not override a previous RFC. AlbinoFerret 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes it does. You did not mention the other RfCs when you began this discussion. Do you stand by that decision. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure I do as posted above this is a discussion on one RFC, all the rest is off topic. AlbinoFerret 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

  • Overturn close. The closer neglected to take into consideration comments made by others.
Revert 1.
Revert 2.
Revert 3.
Revert 4.
Revert 5. The closer was trying to force changes in.
It is suspicious the close was on 18 October 2015 and months later it is brought up here. The other RfCs show a clear consensus to not include the language that is against MEDRS to use low quality bias sources. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the second editor to perfectly explain why the close should be endorsed. The RFC question was not about Low quality sources but high quality ones. Anyone replying with a low quality source comment was off topic. Also thank you for pointing out that the RFC was ignored and the only reason it was not implemented was edit warring, hence the need for this review. AlbinoFerret 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Using low quality bias sources is against MEDRS. Confirmed bias sources are not high quality sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The RFC question specifically was talking about a section in MEDRS dealing with High quality sources and never mentioned low quality sources. Regardless of low quality sources, can you address why the close was wrong when closing on High quality sources without going off topic into low quality ones and rearguing the RFC? AlbinoFerret 17:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
MEDRS should not be used as a platform to include bias sources in articles. A high-quality is not from a country of origin that is known to be bias. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow, that reasoning seems to exclude an entire nation's population for extraneous considerations relating to QuackGuru's subjective notions about nationality that should have no quarter here. (But the grammar problems make it less than perfectly clear.) @Kingpin13:: Do you think it's OK to advocate we reject all studies from a country even though surely some studies from all countries exhibit some bias, and no country is a source for nothing but biased studies? You've blocked users for overt bigotry before, Kingpin13. Where's the line? --Elvey(tc) 00:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Overturn. I have never edited anywhere near this issue. A well intentioned but inexperienced closer got in the middle of an attempt to rewrite policy to win a content dispute, they gave a consensus contrary to a roughly two-thirds majority (which included some of our most respected editors[3]), and the close explanation effectively affirmed the majority concerns. The close had the good intention of saying people shouldn't baselessly reject reliable sources, but the proposed policy change is pointless once it's re-written to explain that closing intent. The community is now engaged in a clusterfuck of additional RFC's trying to respect that awkward close - by rewriting it in a way that almost no one is going to consider a meaningful improvement. This should not have gotten a consensus against the majority, not unless it's an experienced closer who knows how to send an against-majority close on a constructive course. Alsee (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • If this appeal is going ahead, I'll copy my comment from the long discussion at WT:MEDRS about the original close: "I don't think there's a rule about NACs while under sanctions, but I'd consider it a bad idea myself due to the necessary level of community trust. In this case there are actually connections with the RfC - Elvey's topic ban followed some highly acrimonious interactions with User:Jytdog (one of the editors !voting Oppose), and the t-ban was supported by several other editors who also !voted Oppose here. I read the close as likely being an attempted supervote, especially after their subsequent actions - joining the edit warring over the RfC result, telling editors questioning the close to "drop the stick" and other less complimentary things, and ultimately trying to archive this discussion. But either way, the close unfortunately perpetuated the dispute rather than resolving it." To clarify the first part, Elvey is under a topic ban from COI broadly construed and the closure could easily be interpreted as a violation of that as well, because conflicted sources were one of the points under discussion. Sunrise (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment What I find interesting is that Albino Ferret, who agreed with the close, is actually the editor endorsing its review. That shows character. Every editor opposing it, including those here, were well aware they could have Elvey's close reviewed at this administrator's noticeboard. I, other editors and even an administrator reminded everyone opposed to the close about this review process several times. But the editors who disagreed with the close resorted to edit warring to keep the change off instead of having it formally reviewed. LesVegas (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    • This isn't actually surprising at all. The closing statement was so far from the actual consensus that editors have refused to allow its few supporters – namely, you and AlbinoFerret – to implement the alleged consensus. Getting Elvey's closing statement affirmed here is the only possible way to get MEDRS amended to permit you to cite studies Chinese journals that have been identified, in academic studies, as being biased due to government pressure to only publish results that support the political party line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There are a couple of facts I need to correct. First, there have been many supporters beyond Albino Ferret and myself. In the original RfC there were 7 for the change and several more editors have come along since and voiced their support. Even DocJames said the sources in question (Cochrane Reviews with Chinese authors) were undoubtedly of the highest quality. And this isn't about the Chinese published journals you speak about and never has been, although even in the worst case scenario evidence shows that they are still more reliable than much research with industry funding, and we already prohibit rejection of these sources based on funding. That was a point that nobody refuted in the RfC and one that the closer commented on. The final tally was 9 opposed to 7 support (if you read Herbxue's in the misplaced section below), but all but 1 of those 9 votes opposed were votes that failed to stay on topic and didn't stay relevant to the actual question asked in the RfC. As Albino Ferret (who has closed many RfC's) said, an experienced closer would throw these out. The 1 vote opposed that did have a partially relevant point was Richard Keatinge's, and this point was rightfully mentioned in and became part of the close. LesVegas (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Once again, MEDRS does not insist that editors use research paid through industry funding. What it does say is that you can't toss out sources with a higher levels of evidence because of your personal objections (i.e., something not widely supported in academic literature) to the funding source in favor of lower levels of evidence. You may not substitute a cherry-picked primary source for a widely respected meta-analysis merely because you believe that the author is a surgeon and is therefore gets paid to prove that surgery works (=real example, and the one that prompted the addition of that line to the guideline). That canard has indeed been refuted, by me at least twice.
If you're interested in financial conflicts, then you'll want to read the section of MEDRS at WP:MEDINDY.
I agree that you and AlbinoFerret are not the only editors to have supported this change. AFAICT, you two are the only ones who continue to push for its inclusion against the actual consensus there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I'm afraid this really isn't the forum to discuss this. We've already gone round and round about industry funded primary research making its way into higher levels of evidence many times, which was always the point. So I'll have to politely decline discussing this further here so as to not overburden potential reviewers with in-depth side arguments we have already gone back and forth on many times. LesVegas (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn I am glad to see this here. The closer, Elvey, has a block log as long as my arm. The latest restriction (not in the log) was a community imposed TBAN from COI matters, imposed here on August 7 2015, due to disruptive behaviors, mostly directed at me, over COI matters. I am strongly identified with WP:MED around here, and I was dismayed to see Elvey close the subject RfC just a couple months after that TBAN was imposed. He doesn't ususally close RfCs, and in my opinion this was yet more disruptive behavior, clearly going against the established WP:MED editors who were uniformly opposed to the motion, and supporting the alt-med editors who were arguing on its behalf. (The origin of the RfC was the desire of advocates of acupuncture to use sources from China that present acupuncture in a favorable light, when there is a boatload of evidence that these studies are poorly done and controlled; these editors have continued even here to make the inflammatory argument that the exclusion is due to racism or bias, when the problems are well established in the literature as I pointed out in my !vote here) Elvey himself made thatthe "bigotry" argument just now in this dif with edit note: "Nationalist bigotry?"
I'll add here that Elvey ignored the COI TBAN and is on the verge of getting a 3-month block for doing so per This ANI thread, with an additional TBAN for SPI matters added (per Vanjagenije's comment to him here.)
And I'll close by saying that in my view the close did not reflect the policy-based arguments that were given, and again in my view it was just disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC) (redacted for clarity per markup Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC))
  • Comment. The problem lies in part with the way the sentence is written (my bold):
"Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions."
If it said "do not reject a high-quality study" because of country of origin, that would make sense – if it's a high-quality secondary source we should use it no matter what country it stems from. But what is a "high-quality type of study"? A secondary source (e.g. a meta-analysis) is not ipso facto high quality. So that implies that, when choosing a low-quality study (but a supposedly high-quality type), we can't factor in where it comes from, and that makes no sense.
It would be better to say something like: "Do not reject a high-quality source simply because you do not like its inclusion criteria, references, funding, country of origin or conclusions." Discussion can then focus on quality, rather than origin. SarahSV (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Editors are trying to use MEDRS to include low-quality sources in articles from a country of origin that is known to be bias and of low quality and pass it off as a high-quality source. QuackGuru (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Diffs please, showing where my close is being used logically by at least 2 editors to support that. I bet guarantee you can't find any because it doesn't justify that. I don't believe I wrote it in a way that would allow it to be used to do so. --Elvey(tc) 02:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
QuackGuru, yes, but I think the change of wording will help. It now says: "Do not reject a source that is compliant with this guideline because of personal objections to inclusion criteria, references, funding sources or conclusions." If you add "country of origin," it won't cause so much harm now, because it is only talking about high-quality sources, rather than implying that any secondary source (e.g. meta analysis) is high quality, and that therefore any meta analysis is fine by definition. SarahSV (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
SarahSV I think the wording of your actual edit is very well crafted. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn the close. The RFC was based on a false premise - that nationality was being capriciously used to reject sources (the main issue is pro-acupuncture editors who dislike the well-documented fact that Chinese studies on acupuncture effectiveness are unreliable due to systemic bias; the changed wording does not affect this due to the reference to quality). Practice will not change. Chinese-authored and published studies on acupuncture remain suspect, North Korean studies promting "brand new" ideas originating in North Korea remain suspect, and in both cases we have reliable independent sources to show that they are unlikely to meet quality thresholds due to systemic bias. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Please note. There is consensus to overturn the close but it is being forced in against consensus. An admin should consider a topic ban for User:LesVegas. On User:LesVegas' user page it says "I've been a resident for the past decade and have also lived in China for 2 years." User:LesVegas has lived in China and the user wants to include Chinese journals in articles.QuackGuru (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Wait, so you disruptively revert the action of an administrator who reviewed the RfC and I am the one who needs to be topic banned simply because I've lived in China? Hahaha. LesVegas (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Boghog is not an admin and the edit was not the specific text from the close. See WP:CLOSE. Are you providing COI information on your user page regarding China? QuackGuru (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Give me a break QuackGuru, you know all too well Jamesday was the administrator I was talking about. You complained about his edit, the one you reverted, in the talk section on MEDRS. Your pretend ignorance is even worse than it was back when I had to deal with you regularly. LesVegas (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
If you or anyone one else continues to push this nonsense then I think ArbCom is around the corner. QuackGuru (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi admins, just want to note that Jamesday's creative but out-of-process approach below, has not helped settle things but instead has become the subject of edit warring in the guideline and further dispute on the article Talk page. The need remains for an in-process decision whether to uphold or overturn the close that is the subject of this thread, so that we can take it from there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse The question posed in the RfC was regarding high quality sources. These included Cochrane Reviews given in the examples which were being objected to based on the authors being Chinese. Many arguments were given by those in opposition regarding possibly suspect Chinese primary studies (RCT's) that would have never made it onto the encyclopedia in the first place, both low quality and low-quality-type sources, and these objections were rightfully not given weight by the closer since they were not on topic with the question being asked. That question was very specific and had a narrow focus. Yet these objectors edit warred the implementation of the close, instead of coming here for review themselves, so it looks like that's why we're here. LesVegas (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The justification for the close is that country of origin somehow violates WP:V and WP:RS with no clear explanation for how this is a violation. Quite to the contrary, if there are high quality sources that document systematic bias from a specific country in the field, then WP:V and WP:RS demands we consider country of origin in deciding whether a source is reliable. By referring to AlbinoFerret's succinct comment, the closing also endorsed argument that the RfC was specifically restricted to high quality sources. Again, country of origin can be relevant in deciding whether a source is high quality. A more relevant policy that was not cited in the in close and was barely mentioned in the RfC discussion is WP:NPOV because excluding sources based on country of origin may lead to an unbalanced presentation. However if the source is unreliable, then excluding it per WP:V would overrule WP:NPOV. Boghog (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I vote for: "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions." However, if there would be a vote on "funding sources", then this would require additional information, such as if the study in question is accessible for independent evaluation. prokaryotes (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A decision of sorts from a previously uninvolved administrator[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Jamesday. First, thanks for trying to take action and I understand the sense of what you wrote and the effort to solve the problem. However, there are a few problems with this.
  • First, it is out of process. An RfC was held and closed, and the close is being challenged. The only real options here are to uphold it, or overturn it. I reckon you could do a new close, but that would have to comply with WP:CLOSE, which leads to...
  • Secondly, it seems to me that you don't have the right to craft a solution not discussed in the RfC itself or the discussion and impose it. In my view nobody does - not in a close (or re-close) and not as you have done here. Your proposal can be put in an RfC to see if it will fly, of course.
Therefore would you please withdraw your statement, or re-frame it? And I do thank you again for the BOLD effort. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with this as NOTBURO and IAR. Strictly speaking, James can't do this, but if it sticks it will resolve a large part of the main problem. There are changes I'd like to see, but since the text (as I understand it) isn't being presented as a consensus result I think that can be done through the usual process, preferably after a short break to let tensions reduce. Sunrise (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that he actually implemented it in MEDRS, in this dif, as though it is authoritative. I appreciate the BOLDness but it is not a solution that can stick, and the manner in which it was done is going to cause more trouble. In contentious things like this, we need good process. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong - I think the best decision would have been to simply close this as overturn. This action adds unnecessary complications to the issue, but I think that opposing it is likely to cause more confusion than not. I don't expect this to stick permanently, and I don't think it's authoritative or intended as such. The advantage I see is to finally end the discussion about the original close and the associated drama, including making the current RfC obsolete, so we can restart from the current (speculative) revision. Since this discussion isn't closed yet, hopefully it will just be recognized as a consensus to overturn. In the absence of that, I think the best outcome is to leave the text in for a few weeks, and then start editing to bring it in line with consensus - and I find that acceptable, if not optimal. Sunrise (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to all contributors. As the various processes are going nowhere at immense length, a little boldness may well be in order. I do suggest that Jamesday's specific examples are inappropriately speculative - I would hope for RS rather than supposition. As one example, you might like to consider Controlled Clinical Trials. 1998 Apr;19(2):159-66. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R. (China, Japan, Taiwan, Russia are mentioned.) I also suggest that all of the new texts proposed are at best examples of bloat, and that a better way of dealing with the problem is to take what RS say, and write the article properly. For example, a section on trials might appropriately start with the point that RS find them to be based on invalid work, and then outline what they say. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Richard Keatinge's objection seems to be based on an 18 year old publication involving primary studies, not systematic reviews or meta-analyses, likely not published in reputable journals, likely not high-quality, and none of those sources would ever see the light of day onto Wikipedia for about 10-15 other reasons in MEDRS . Country of origin need not even be one of those reasons. China is a completely different country than it was 18 years ago, by the way. Following Jamesday's reasoning that "country of origin" is a valid reason to reject a source only in the narrowest of instances, objectors have shown evidence that we should reject primary studies on acupuncture published in China 18 years ago. And I agree that we should. But frankly, we don't even need to reject sources like that on where they originate; they fail the MEDRS barometer in many other ways. I know there may be other studies out there looking at the possibility of publication bias that are newer, but these also involve primary studies with no evidence any attention was paid to quality. Hence, the RfC was always about "high quality" research. It goes beyong Chinese studies on acupuncture, by the way. Jamesday noted country of origin to have been an issue in his 12 yr editing career; I have also dealt with (the very same) editors rejecting Russian research on GMO's because of its country of origin. Fortunately, some of these editors are now topic banned from the GMO subject, but they are not banned from rejecting sources elsewhere based on country of origin. This needs to change. Rejecting a source should be limited to source quality, journal integrity, if it's primary research, etc, ie if it's low quality based on its merits outlined in MEDRS. Industry funded studies have also shown the same (or worse) issues objectors note with Chinese sources on acupuncture, and we don't reject sources based on "funding source" (noted by Elvey in the close) and yet some editors act like the world will end if they can't reject a source based on where it's published or what country its authors are from. We can treat sources from other countries just like we have been treating industry funded research for years: reject it because it's a primary study, reject it because it's published in a disreputable journal, but not because it's funded by Pfizer or Coca Cola. The world will go on and keep spinning, I promise. LesVegas (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks LesVegas. This does make your position slightly clearer. I'm sorry, but to outlaw the obvious and valid conclusions of highly significant RS such as BMJ. 1999 Jul 17; 319(7203): 160–161. Review of randomised controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine. Jin-Ling Tang, Si-Yan Zhan, and Edzard Ernst is, frankly, not compatible with writing a good article. The acupuncture article needs a lot of rewriting to give a coherent presentation - at present there is no coherent story, it's "balanced" between desperately selected pro and anti assertions and the overall result is a mess. I hope we can spend our time building an encyclopedia, starting with a well-written, comprehensive, NPOV article on acupuncture. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you too, Richard. Did you notice your new link was 1) from 1999 and 2) was also involving RCT's (primary studies)? I appreciate the intention to hope for good quality sources on our articles. I just want to mention again that those specific objections are based on terrible research we'd reject for several other reasons, other than country of origin. And I should mention that the BMJ is routinely rejected as a source on the acupuncture article (but only when it shows positive findings). Not saying it's unreliable, I think the BMJ is highly reliable, just saying others on the page feel otherwise. I do very much agree with you that the acupuncture article is terribly imbalanced. The story and history of it do take a backseat to "pro" and "anti" arguments and conflicting minutiae in a wide variety (but not the widest variety) of evidence. My entire efforts were aimed at widening the variety. Perhaps there are better ways, though. By the way, initially, when I read the decision (or proposal?) by Jamesday, I was glad to finally see some resolution. Now I'm starting to wonder if it doesn't open up a path to even more conflicts and arguments, when we need to all be focusing on "building an encyclopedia" anyway? While I agree that things need to be done by consensus, I guess I'm skeptical if that will ever happen in the case these sources, or if we need to find some better way in which we can all agree on how to improve articles like this. LesVegas (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
There has been far too much time wasted in attempts to ignore the well-supported fact that some academic jurisdictions show systematic and extreme bias on some subjects. (What on earth do you mean by "terrible research?) We should use this fact to improve the article. To make useful progress with your argument you would need to present RS that convincingly state that the relevant academic jurisdictions are now free from bias in these subjects. I will be very surprised if you can present any such RS (but do give it a try, I might well change my opinion). In the meantime, some bold rewriting may be a more constructive use of everyone's time. We might even come up with a consensus on a good article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
By terrible research, I'm talking about the RCT's themselves. By MEDRS standards, they're very old and they're primary studies and probably not from reliable journals either. We wouldn't use them anyway. I'm actually agreeing with you it's better to focus on working towards consensus on improving articles like Acupuncture. LesVegas (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks again. Are we coming to a consensus that RS can be used to identify a large group of studies as very dubious? And, while I'm at it, that the results of those dubious studies are not improved by being included in further reviews? If so, we may make some serious progress. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Well maybe we can agree on the ends, maybe we always have, but I always believed (and still do) that rejecting high level research on the grounds of low level research possibly having publication bias, is wrong. I am more inclined to believe we should reject it on those grounds in the case of industry funding, for which there is a slew of well regarded, respectably published, and current reviews which show unreliability of trials in those cases, and yet we are specifically prohibited from doing so by MEDRS, so I always believed "country of origin" wasn't a valid reason, in and of itself, to reject research on that basis alone. I still don't. But, yeah, I will concede there's probably a lot of crap that got published in China. But I think MEDRS already keeps that off our encyclopedia anyway. I have always said it was never my intention to have low-quality, low-level research on this encyclopedia or on the acupuncture article. Nobody believed that, and because nobody AGF, we're here. At any rate, I think we both probably have the same goals, maybe just different ways of getting there, so perhaps we should discuss how to go about achieving better consensus on the means and methods instead? LesVegas (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Indeed. We may however be getting somewhere. LesVegas, forgive me for pressing a point, but would you agree that aggregated / reviewed / meta-analyzed publications that are based on probably-invalid primary studies share the invalidity of their primary studies? The idea that invalid studies can be aggregated into valid ones strikes me as simple nonsense, not even rising to the level of a fallacy. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Richard, I would be willing to agree entirely to the idea that invalid primary studies would make for bad outcomes in meta-analyses or systematic reviews that did not take their invalidity into account. But that's, as I said, an idea, and the reality we're dealing with is a bit more complicated. Here's why:
    1. We don't actually have any sources saying, definitively, publication bias is the reason Chinese, Russian, Taiwanese, etc studies in a review published in 1998 had statistically significant positive outcomes. 100 percent positive outcomes do sound very suspicious, I agree wholeheartedly. But it's important to remember that there may, indeed, be other reasons. One might very well be the political and cultural environment in the China back then. While that's used as an argument to oppose inclusion, it can work the other way too. The government of China, in an effort to validate acupuncture, might very well have only funded studies on things like back pain, frozen shoulder, migraine headaches, and so on, because they knew acupuncture worked for these conditions. They might not have funded studies to see if acupuncture worked for, say, Alzheimer's or Crohn's Colitis or ventricular tachycardia, because it would have been a waste of their money. So that could be a factor for extremely high positive results. It's actually somewhat likely that was the case because they, comparatively, weren't even doing many studies back then and were still relatively new to modern research methods, i.e., so you don't want to waste your money on negative findings anyway.
    2. But let's say for the sake of argument that all of the studies in the Vickers review are crap. While the study you and Guy refer to was published 18 years ago, the primary studies Vickers uses for his findings goes back all the way to 1966! Trying to invalidate published meta-analyses in 2016 based on primary research conducted 50 years ago is a very problematic argument.
    3. There's no evidence the primary studies from 1966 to 1995 have been aggregated into meta-analyses in 2016. If they did, they should probably not be considered high quality sources for using such old, stale research anyway. Even if they were high-quality-type studies (meta-analyses, reviews), they wouldn't be high quality, and would and should be invalidated for those reasons.
    4. Final point: yes, I'm sure there have been garbage Chinese studies published at various times throughout history. I'm also sure some garbage studies are still published in China, although I'm also sure it's less than it once was. But I'm also sure garbage sources are published in the West. Invalid primary studies conducted by industries that promote their products are already protected in MEDRS. We cannot reject high quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses based on funding sources, even if "invalid" primary research composes these higher quality-type sources. Even if that were the right thing to do, it would be highly impractical to go through every single study and determine if it's tainted or not. So what do we do? Hold bad Western studies in high regard and piss on bad Chinese studies, and pretend there's no hypocrisy? NPOV states we have to be consistent, and there's no better place to do it than in our guidelines.
You might not agree with everything I said, but at least you know why I believe as I do. That said, here's what we can probably agree on: I would prefer to not see low-quality Chinese research that comes to wild conclusions on the acupuncture article, so I think that's our likely starting point in a compromise. But for the reasons I outlined above, I'm not really budging on the "country of origin" issue, and I many other editors feel strongly on that point too. So I think we'll need an out-of-the-box solution to achieve an end we both would like to see. It's probably not the right forum for that, here, but I do have something in mind that you'd probably agree with. I'll ping you about it later. LesVegas (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear. Leaving aside the related, but separate issue of funding sources, I repeat that when RS tell us that an identifiable group of studies is so biased as to be invalid, we should use this, and when this is uncontested (sorry, but your speculations above aren't really helpful) we should use it to frame our discussion of the studies in question. I don't doubt your good faith, but your arguments are clutches at nonexistent straws. I hope that you can maintain enough detachment to help give the article its desperately needed rewrite. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring after uninvolved admin action[edit]

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

Quackguru, I would note you have been topic banned from a couple of topics now, so given your judgement on Wikipedia rules I'm not at all concerned you think so poorly of my editing. I would also note that you have a history of "border lining" and this topic, which is not explicitly "Acupuncture" has involved a great deal of discussion about it, and you have borderlined in those discussions, which could be a violation of your ban. LesVegas (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of motivated reasoning going on with that guideline, and a concerted attempt to change it to gain an advantage in a content dispute, rather than in line with good practice and common sense, which is what guidelines should be for. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps Mag could be unblocked only to participate in this discussion? I'd like to know why he is so persistent in applying cosmetic changes, whether he's trying to climb a leaderboard or is just slightly obsessive about articles being "just so" in terms of whitespace, bypassing harmless redirects, etc. No matter the reason, it's not setting a good example as a member of BAG. And it's a significant annoyance and timesink as people review the edits and have to determine what the reason was (when there is really, none). –xenotalk 21:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I have reminded Magioladitis of WP:COSMETICBOT bot several times over the years, more than anyone else, so I'll join the crowd here. These pointless edits have to stop. I'm fine with the occasional bot malfunction, or the occasional misclick on 'save' when you meant 'skip' with AWB. But there's a larger issue at play with Magio's bot in that the bot logic rarely seems to be tested to prevent trivial changes before being unleashed on the wiki. As a BAG member, Magio should understand that WP:COSMETICBOT is not an optional rule and has to be anticipated and tested for just like one needs to test their bots against replacing [[www]] with [[w[[WW (album)|''WW'']]]] on all pages when you wanted to replace [[WW]] with [[WW (album)|''WW'']] on some pages.
I'm not going to say Magio should be removed from BAG at this point, but it's certainly an option I'm willing to consider if Magio keeps running their bots without making sure they first comply with all aspects of WP:BOTPOL, including WP:COSMETICBOT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I second xeno's suggestion to allow Magioladitis to participate in this discussion on this page. GoingBatty (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not oppose an unblock on condition that he only edit this page and his own talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping, I do recognize the positive contributions that Magioladitis brings to the project, which is why I tried to work with him on a limited topic ban as his unblock condition (see WP:EDR#Final_warnings_.2F_Unblock_conditions). As clearly stated in the unblock, condition violation may lead to additional sanctions including re-blocking. As one of the WP:AWB developers, I would expect he would need to make minimal AWB edits (possibly via LEGITSOCKS) for testing and troubleshooting purposes even if he ends up under a long term editing restriction, possibly under specific conditions? — xaosflux Talk 22:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Note, I have delisted the prior temporary WP:RESTRICTIONS as Magioladitis was reblocked and unblocked under NEW conditions. — xaosflux Talk 15:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
It's a real shame and sad to see energetic editors who like to make mass-fixes get blocked for it. Though the fixes I see here would be so low on my priority list that I couldn't envision them ever rising in my work queue to get even close to approaching the top of the list. Is there any real concern here, though, besides cluttering up watchlists? Can't you just scan or skim the edit summaries in your watchlists and just disregard or ignore "Cleaned up using AutoEd"? If Magio needs something more important and substantial to clean up, then I have several tasks in my overloaded work queue I'd love to outsource to him. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for the ping MSGJ. I'm not sure what to do. As people have said, he makes positive contributions. Since he was unblocked, Maigoladits has probably done ~2,000 semi-manually edits via Yobot's account. Most of this is due to the latest dumpfile via CheckWiki. This is the first dump since ISSN checks were added, which contributed to this message on Yobot's talk page. So, ~2,000 good contributions vs ~20 pointless ones. I don't want to see him blocked because of his overall contributions, but on the other hand, something must be done.
MSGJ, AWB's CheckPage does allow for blacklisted names. I'm not sure if a blacklisted name takes precedent over an admin. Rjwilmsi is the person to ask. Plus, as the main AWB programmer, he could come up with suggestions.
WPCleaner and AutoEd don't have a permission system. But, AutoEd needs to be added to a person's common.js/vector.js file to work. Removing this from the .js file and making it sure it isn't added back should be easy. WPCleaner doesn't make the "trivial" changes or general fixes as the other two programs do. I don't see a problem in not letting Magioladitis keep using that. Bgwhite (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
This is refreshing because it's the first time I've seen you accept that there is a problem. In the past you have steadfastly defended him. I'm hopeful we can work together to find a solution. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
MSGJ Actually, last time I made only one comment and that was to defend one type of edit as non-trivial. The time before I suggested a topic ban on editing talk pages. Talk pages are Magioladitis' kryptonite. Kryptonite and OCD is a dangerous mix. Bgwhite (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I interacted with him on this issue several times when I was an administrator. The problem has been going on for years, both with edits from Magoioladitis' main account and from his bot, Yobot. For example, search for "cosmetic edit" on Magioladitis' talk page [8], or look at the block log for Yobot [9]. The responses that always seem to be given are that the edits were a mistake, or are from bug in the software that is being used, or are necessary because of some other bug in the software that is being used. I would expect to see these same excuses again if he comments on this thread. After years of seeing them, I have yet to see Magioladitis take responsibility for his errors by making the changes necessary prevent them (e.g. fixing the years-longstanding bugs in his software that allow cosmetic edits to be saved, making his edit summaries more descriptive, etc.). I believe that any long-term resolution to the problem will require very tight edit restrictions on both his main account and his bot account. Otherwise, you will be back here again soon enough. Good luck, — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I have raised this issue with him several times in the past. Lots of pointless AWB edits that add no value whatsoever. He stops for a time, then restarts after the dust settles. Thankfully I'm not alone with these concerns. Rulez iz rulez for AWB, but this user seems to be "untouchable" due to their so-called admin status. Once again, it's one rule for AWB running bots and one rule for the rest of us. At one point I put my foot through my laptop and sent him the bill. PS - Do I win a fiver? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Considering the block log, Lugnuts, that user/admin is clearly not untouchable. If they were, we wouldn't be here. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Go on, give him a 53rd chance. He's an admin afterall! Like to see how quickly a non-admin would have been indef'd for similar bahaviour. Or even to have their block lifted so they could participate at ANI. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I have till now held back from calling for his administrator status to be removed, and am still hopeful this won't be necessary. Obviously I expected the issue to come up, and I acknowledge the apparent inconsistency in the treatment he is receiving. We are looking for the best solution for the project and there is absolutely nothing wrong with his admin actions. (Okay he unblocked his own bot once, a long time ago, but I don't remember the exact circumstances.) Personally I'd like to have a try with some editing restrictions before we turn to Arbcom. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove AWB and ban from operating bots. Problem disappears. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I would support a ban on automated edits, meaning both tools such as AWB, AutoEd and through a bot, as the problems occur on both accounts.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep, support AWB and bot removal. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
JohnBlackburne you can also kick me out of Wikipedia. Problem disappears too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Wow. So on one hand we have a person who won't stop making tiny harmless, but not very helpful changes. On the other hand we have people that want to really insist that tiny harmless, but not very helpful changes are not made. It seems to me that either side could let this one go and everything would be fine, or both sides can be stubborn and we probably lose an editor. HighInBC 15:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Or we could insist that Admins follow the same rules as everyone else, and get treated for infractions like everyone else – the fact is, if this didn't involve an Admin, this situation would have been dealt with a long time ago. (And, before anyone brings it up, I'm pretty sure I've seen non-Admins blocked for edits not all that dissimilar to the ones mentioned in this case.) Instead, this is another shining example of where someone has been cut multiple "breaks" simply because of the usergroup they're in... Bringing this back around though, in terms of "solutions", anything less than the loss of AWB privileges in this case would be unsatisfactory – that combined with an understanding that "self-granting" AWB privileges at a later date without community consensus first would result in immediate desysopping. Anything less than this would be unacceptable IMO. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
IJBall they were blocked. I don't see how they are being treated any different for being an admin. Not everything needs to boil down to admin v non-admin. HighInBC 16:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course Magioladitis has – a "regular" editor would already have lost AWB privileges. And I'm of the strong opinion that an Admin that gets blocked multiple times (esp. for the same infraction) should no longer have Admin privileges. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Then you should file a case with ArbCom, since they're the only people who can take the bit away. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I could, if I had unlimited time to burn on Wikipedia activities that will likely only end in aggravation. Fortunately, I have a real job for that instead! --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Instead of taking away his admin privileges (which are not the reason we're here), how about doing the exact opposite and saying "Magioladitis, here's the mop! When your block is over, could you please help us clean up [fill in the blank]? Your work there would be much more valuable to the project than these minor edits." GoingBatty (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    • IJBall I would like to know example of editors who lost AWB right. It's one of the reason I insist that we resolve the situation by strong consensus. I do not like to see people losing their AWB rights. AWB is a browser so in some level equivalent to FireFox or Chrome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Of course the main use of AWB is to perform bot-like editing, either with manual review or in a fully automated way, not to "browse" in a normal sense. The first sentence of WP:AWB describes AWB as an "editor", which is indeed the main purpose of the tool. The AWB rules of use on WP:AWB directly state "Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled. ", and the reason for this thread is repeated abuse of the rules. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Agree with HighInBC The edit's are harmeless, let 'em go. If he was harming Wikipedia with those edits, then I could see imposing the conditions stated here, but he isn't. The main complaint that I saw was that it was clogging up people's watch lists. Big deal, I ran across that a while ago, some one was doing a mass update of templates and it was filling my watchlist, big deal, I skipped those and looked only at articles (I was doing a vandal run at the time ) and ignored their edits. As long as Magioladitis isn't harming the encyclopedia, let it go . KoshVorlon 16:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Clogging up watchlists is blockable if what is clogging them are trivial edits. If the MediaWiki Message Delivery System only added or removed whitespace, it would get blocked/disabled under WP:COSMETICBOT just like Magio was for edits like [10]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, no big deal. Magioladitis could stop doing it, people could stop caring, either way everything is fine. HighInBC 17:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Awesome attitude you have. I guess if you brought an issue here, but no-one cared about it/you, then you'd be fine with it? No, thought not. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I see you have already answered your question to me on my behalf, but you failed to predict my response so I will answer it myself. If said harm was this insignificant then I would not expect people to get too worked up about it. HighInBC 19:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
As the issues with this users edits have been raised time and time again, by multiple different users, I can only conclude you don't know the definition of insignificant. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: Your premise that if people get worked up about something then it must not be insignificant is flawed. People get worked up over insignificant things all the time, humans are kind of famous for it. HighInBC 16:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You were obviously so worked-up about being incorrect it took you a week to reply. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Headbomb that particular one was a very specific bug that was fixed in a few hours after you reported it. That's the problem here: If any of the scripts has a bug it may result in something like this. Is this common? No it's not if we discuss percentages here. Ofcourse for a bot with 4 million edits, 1% is 40,000 pages. Can this be prevented? Well, yes and no. CHECKWIKI scripts are not done by me. My method is based a lot in the fact the list created actually contains the error in question. But, since I fix every single error and I fixed this immediately after the report why just re-reported this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Still this one is a very good example that I want to get more people involved in Wikipedia. I keep reporting new errors to User_talk:Knife-in-the-drawer#New_ISBN_tracking_categories even they have not edited since June. Check the entire talk page. I want mot motivate more and more people to work for Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
See also the fact that I encouraged a lot of people to make copies of my bot tasks. GoingBatty, Bgwhite know this at hand I believe. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Like I said earlier here "I'm fine with the occasional bot malfunction, or the occasional misclick on 'save' when you meant 'skip' with AWB." This happens to everyone. But the larger issue is that the bot logic rarely seems to be tested to prevent trivial changes before being unleashed on the wiki. And should understand that WP:COSMETICBOT is not an optional rule and has to be anticipated and tested for just like one needs to test their bots against replacing [[www]] with [[w[[WW (album)|''WW'']]]] on all pages when you wanted to replace [[WW]] with [[WW (album)|''WW'']] on some pages."
Solution? Don't brute force. Don't ignore skip conditions, especially if the condition is "whitespace only". Do a semi-automated test run if need be. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Headbomb yes I can sort this out. The problem nowadays (speaking about mainspace edits) has been reduced to newly introduced CHECKWIKI errors. The ISSN errors were rather new and my script was a hell of a mess. I already sent it to Bgwhhite via email for review. Redrose64 also did some comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Headbomb and something personal here: OK I got that a few (I think 40 out of 1,5000) edits of the ISSN fixes were "pointless", but I would enjoy a more polite way to hear this. Something like "hey, your bot failed to fix something in this page. What was about?". Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe so, but after this, this, this, this, this, and many others, I'm sure you can understand why I'm opting for the direct approach.
Look, I'm not looking to shit on you. Your bots clearly do more good than harm. But the harm is doing is in many, many cases preventable. Look at it from our perspective. You get blocked/warned for cosmetic changes, get unblocked on good faith [with restrictions], then reblocked for violating restrictions less than a week after the unblock. No one here wants to be back on your page next week/month because the bot once again ran amok. You say you acknowledge the issue, but no steps seem to be taken to prevent the issue from occurring in the first place. I give you full credit for fixing specific problems when flagged, but the root of the issue remains unaddressed. No other bot op is so often warned for cosmetic changes. What are we to do?
Bluntly put, we're at a crossroad here. You can commit to follow WP:COSMETICBOT / not ignore skip conditions / not using a brute force approach / do semi-automated testing of things where you personally review a substantial amount of edits before letting a fully-automated process take over / whatever other voodoo magic is necessary. Expecting < X/1000 trivial edits is not something I'm willing to put forth as a criteria of success, but their frequency has to be drastically reduced.
Or do we have to revoke your AWB access? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Headbomb I of course appreciate your comments and I am excited every time you report something. This is because some people do not even bother to report bugs. Have you ever reported a bug about Visual Editor or Content Translator? I have. And many times. Most of them are still unfixed and there is a group of WMF professionals working on VE and CX. I am a volunteer. I hope you can at least appreciate that I make effort to fix everything as fast as possible. The diffs you provided had examples of Yobot doing "pointless edits". All 4 cases were fixed not only as part of my skip conditions but as part of the software itself. And this is better because at some point I may not be around to edit or use my bot. Someone else will try to use AWB. Bug fixing is better than adding skip conditions to a single bot. Bug fixes have global positive effect. In the first case I noticed I found the software bug and fixed it in less than a day. Sometimes, I am faster. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to bottom line this, it seems like the main issue, at heart, is the complaint by some editors/admins that Magioladitis does not follow the letter or the spirit of their unblock restrictions. Can these restrictions be made more specific to cover those edits these editors have problems with and can Magioladitis assure the participants in this discussion that they can abide by these restrictions, not temporarily but until such restrictions are formally removed? It seems like this would solve the problem, the end of "pointless" edits without Wikipedia losing a very productive editor and unproblematic admin. Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Removal of AWB from his user account and removal of AutoEd from User and bot accounts should be step one. Cannot use these at all from his user account. I'm not sure how to put "restrictions" on bot account activities or how to word it. For example, besides what the bot does, he does semi-manually fix maintenance categories and does requests. Bgwhite (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I wrote a specific proposal above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Too complex for no reason. The only necessary restriction is #3. Don't edit in violation of WP:COSMETICBOT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
That won't solve the whole problem. There is an equal problem with poor edit summaries that make it impossible to tell what the bot was *trying* to do. The more effective single sanction would be to disable all general fixes whenever AWB is run - but that will also not address the entire problem, and will leave us back here soon enough. If Magioladitis was able to work with just "don't violate the existing rules", we wouldn't be here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Carl: I commend you for posting a detailed proposal. For #1, could you think of a more specific description for "No semi-automated tools"? Magioladitis didn't understand this included AutoEd, and I wonder if this would include Twinkle or Hotcat. I would also ask that Magioladitis be allowed to edit the User:Yobot page if he would like to indicate which bot tasks he is choosing to discontinue and which bot tasks he could improve per the suggestions here. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
It is very hard to find an airtight wording. Perhaps it would work to say that Twinkle and tools whose main purpose is to interact with users or handle vandalism are OK, but tools such as AutoEd or Hotcat that are primarily for editing should be avoided. In the end, a lot will depend (regardless of the sanctions that are used) on how much Magioladitis wants to resolve the situation by not pushing boundaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

@Magioladitis: Your request is a great one - I hope it can be added to AWB. Thank you for sending me your settings. Once my current WP:BRFA is complete, I'll play with yours to see if I can get it to work with the proper skip conditions. GoingBatty (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
GoingBatty someone's comment that "GoingBatty can play out the community better than you" rang as a huge bell in my head. :D -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it speaks well of any editor or admin that they are aware of their editing strengths as well as those areas where there is room for improvement and they can be honest about themselves. A technical solution might be the best answer here. Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks good to me. — Earwig talk 00:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Remember non-admins - just admit your faults when dragged though AN/ANI and you'll get away with it be OK. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Note the conditions of the temp unblock was to To participate in the AN discussion ONLY, yet this edit was made after this condition was agreed. @Fram:? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Lugnuts check the edit that was done 30 seconds later in the same page. Plese be more careful in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I need to be more careful?! That's rich. So why did you make the edit in the first place against the sanction of your unblock? I guess you'll weasel out of this one too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Lugnuts I was pinged by Redrose64 in commons and I replied in the wrong window. Is this OK with you or do you think I have to be blocked for this too? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
You know what I think. However, no one will action this. Admins win again! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Lugnuts is clearly out to get anybody who uses AWB. It says at the top of his talk page, "FUCK AWB". He just left a message on my talk page accusing me of doing one trivial edit. No hi or what you doing? Just judge and jury. He then left, Fine, but your edits are now being monitored. Look forward to seeing you at ANI when you fuck up again. I can't remember the last time anybody accused me of a trivial edit... 8-12 months? Guess I'll be hauled into ANI later today. Bgwhite (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I hate to correct you, again, but it's anyone who misuses AWB. There's a difference. And you don't seem to know the difference. As you've been using AWB for a long, long time, you should be more than familiar with the rules of use. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
You only saw the edit, you never, ever asked why. If you would have asked, you would see that it wasn't a misuse. Shot first and don't ask questions later.... Bgwhite (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I saw the edit and then pointed it out to you. Are you now trying to cover up your errors after Fram pointed it out to you too? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Stop with the threats. Why is it that you have falsely accuse people and threaten them every time. Fram understood with what I'm doing. You've accused me of yet another mindless bot edit even thou it did exactly what the edit summary did. You've threatened me with ANI again. You said I broke 3RR with only two edits by me. I've asked 5 times to stop writing on my talk page. Stay away from me. Bgwhite (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
And here you are stalking me! Pot. Kettle. Black. How pathetic. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
So what's the outcome of this user's editing? We all bend over and let him continue until the next time he's brought here? Or the time after that? Or the time after that? Seems this isn't really being addressed now. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. The technical issue on the CHECKWIKI error fixes: There are 100+ errors checked and every month there are alternations to the code generating the list. Since Bgwhite now does a reproceccing of the dump files i.e. cleaner lists I deicded with him and I ll get a message of when my bot should start fixing. Till now by bot was triggered automattically in the large lists resulting a large percentaage of "did nothing" edits. This can be addressed at list at the part of the list.
  2. The technical issue on the deprecated parameters: Rjwilmsi created a custom module that enusres that we will have skip conditions. I asked GoingBatty to help in testing. So on that part we can have 100% of good edits.
  3. The technical issue on the the talk page fixes / tagging. This is tricky because consensus on the placement of the banners changes very often, AWB's code is incomplete, most edtors who requested tagging of a WikiProject have given me bad lists. This can be partially addressed with GoigBatty's help if he uses my scripts and reports bugs and fixes some things.
  4. On my editing: I can promise not to perform any large scale editing from my main account (i.e. automated edits will be done mainly from my bot account) and I can los stay away from AutoEd. In fact, I ve been using AutoEd mainly to get ideas to implement in AWB so it's not a big lose for me. I still believe AuoEd needs update in many places. Frietjes has better AutoEd-like scripts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hats off. See you back here in a month. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Lugnuts why is that? I have not received any serious complains about my editing for years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
In that case, you should pay closer attention to your talkpage. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Magioladitis, could you help myself and others understand the thinking behind the assertion "not received any serious complains"? (ie. is there a word missing somewhere?—The assertion as it stands appears to be inconsistent with the public record – available for all to view – in the history of User talk:Magioladitis).Sladen (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The implication is clear: Mag does not consider complaints about trivial or cosmetic edits to be 'serious', which really highlights the problem being discussed here. –xenotalk 13:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you for that Magioladitis. Looking back over the responses in this discussion above and distilling out the important parts from your responses:
  1. "hundreds of edits per day." – automated edit rate has been too fast/too high for review.
  2. "a lot of mistakes." – the automated edits had some $error-rate.
  3. "All reports are serious" – there was feedback about the edits/errors.
  4. "every time you report" – that feedback was frequent/repeated.
  5. "Should I count?" – feedback was so large, it would require an explicit effort to count.
  6. "it's not the tools." – compliance with WP:BOTREQUIRE/ WP:COSMETICBOT/ WP:AWB#Rules of use/ WP:NOTBROKEN has been proved achievable by other editors, using with the same automated toolset.
Could you confirm whether this is a correct synopsis of the situation? —Sladen (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

"There are many bugs of different nature. If the bot/script/module/AWB/etc. fails to fix a page the result is usually the same: "Cosmetic changes"."
And this underlies the frustration that I (and probably other people) have with Magioladitis. Every time that he does trivial edits and I have reported it, he claims he has fixed it, but in a few days, the same kinds of trivial edits show up again. Every time Magio cheerfully claims that he has resolved all reported problems, but to me it looks like nothing changed. But underlying the specific bugs that he is "fixing", there is a systemic problem should be addressed on a more general level: to skip saving a page if the edit would consist of only trivial changes.
There are also some other recurring problems reflected here, such as denial of responsibility: "Most of the times I am the guy who uses AWB against newly generated lists. I am also the guy who said that I trust WikiProjects to generate their lists for me and I won't double check them assuming good faith." -- intgr [talk] 14:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Rule one of WP:AWB could not be more clear: "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed and make sure you understand the changes." Seems there's a core of AWB users who chose to ignore this or think it doesn't apply to them. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

2009? Wow. I'm sure I did something good 7 years ago too. Do you have something a bit more recent that might carry a bit more weight? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Lugnuts Why you behave like this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you have something more recent? I mean, seven years is a long time ago and standards were, how shall we put it, not as good as now. Look at any FA that crept through back then and compare it to today's standard. So, what can you dig out from say, the last 12 months? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
My talk page fixes are based on Wikiprojects requests. What do you mean? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
In 2010 I asked some of the talk page fixes to be done in toolserver and it was done by Larabot till toolserver was shut done. Check User:Yobot#Logs_2008-2012. I resumed the tasks after Larabot discontinue the Wikiproject Biographyvtagging. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Magioladitis, thank you for the heads up. Looking over the bug reports and replies, it would appear that T.seppelt has been reasonably responsive and has replied to the reporters of the bugs in correspondingly timely fashion. I can see the responses "stopped the program", "adjust[ed] the replacement pattern", "implemented several improvements". There would be room for improvement in the edit summary pointing to the precise bot task authorisation and in the bug report it would be nice to see pointers to revision controls corrections of the patterns. However all-in-all the bot appears to have stayed on-task and not wander off into things that weren't requested, (eg. into whitespace rearranging), was done from a bot account, not a user account, and the operator has not attempted to deny responsibility for the automated edits or shift the blame on to other people. Is there something I've missed about this (nearly) model response by a bot operator? —Sladen (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, many bots have errors from time to time.Typically, these are different errors. The difference with Yobot is that it has had the same errors for years, and they have never been resolved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

As for never "just removing whitespace using AWB", see [11] [12]. This seems to be a relatively common failure mode your AWB code, which has been happening for several years now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
CBM Exactly! Code failure. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk)
Moreover, you gave two bad examples! The latter is by WP:LISTGAP we even have bots for that. The first is typical wikilink fix and bots do that too. So, both are accepted edits! But, OK we agree in the spirit of the report. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem is not code failure - it is operator failure. Looking through your contribs, it took me less than 1 minute to find more examples: [13] [14] [15]. Those are not bot edits - they are edits that you personally reviewed and approved with your own account! Your claim that "I never just removed whitespace using AWB." is simply false. The pattern of your responses, when problems such as this are brought up, is to deny your own actions and/or blame the code. The fact that you continue to violate the AWB rules of use in this way, with no plan to resolve the underlying problems, shows why there is a need for an AWB ban on your main account, along with much tighter rules on your bot account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis breaching the terms of his unblock[edit]

Moving towards a resolution[edit]

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

Recuse; I have strong feelings about useless edits and on the other hand I am also quite fond of Magioladitis as regards his other useful work. –xenotalk 15:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm with Xeno above - I'm involved with Magioladitis frequently as part of the Bot Approval's Group and only came in to this as a broken between the original block and a short-lived unblock w/ restrictions, would appreciate some input of uninvolved admins here. — xaosflux Talk 16:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is much consensus for any particular remedy, but I think we need to get something in place before 15th. I could certainly support #1 in your proposals. The rest would be good practice and/or covered by other policies. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts on Comedian and false accusations[edit]

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

Google search is not a reliable source, and the original wording that the other editors have been restoring is the correct one. Referring to your edit as vandalism is erronious and shouldn't be done, but when it comes to the actual content they are correct and not you. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes I know that it isn't. I meant that the users can themselves see the links returned by the search query. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Yes, now you'll say they're personal blogs but if you could point me to a single source that says with complete affirmation that they're the same, I'll rest my case. -- (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Generally, if a Gsearch you executed provides reliable links, you should insert them into the article yourself, not simply a link to the search. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
A look at some dictionary definitions [26], [27], [28] and [29] all support its use with comedians. None of them limit it to stand up. These are reliable sources -blogs are not. MarnetteD|Talk 15:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Massive CFD backlog[edit]

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

Admins have got far better things to do than getting involved with issues like this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
24hrs later and no-one has tackled the issue - I guess they have got better things to do. I've listed them at the closure page. Hopefully that'll get the ball rolling. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, Lugnuts, I saw the massive list: good work. Drew my attention! Two things--compared to AfD, CfD can be surprisingly complex, for me at least, and closing them is not as simple as closing AfDs. I can't speak for other admins, but for me, this is not something I can do in a few lost minutes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I can help in two weeks from now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Good, good. And for the record, I have closed a few myself in the past. These being obvious keeps where I have not contributed to the discussion in hand. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Need someone to nuke mass contributions from banned user.[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowei Huang 2, a recently blocked sock needs their pointless redirects (the MO of Bowei Huang 2) WP:NUKEd. Will an admin experienced with the nuke function take care of this? Thanks! Here are the page creations of the most recent sock. Thanks again in advance. --Jayron32 13:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Did you hear the bang from all the way over there? Guy (Help!) 13:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
They look better quality then most of the Neelix redirects... anyone want to nuke some of the remaining unchecked ones? Legacypac (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Tag them for speedy as noted elsewhere. Nuking all contribs of an account is easy, deciding which of thousands need nuking, not so much. Guy (Help!) 01:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate RFC[edit]

This just came to my attention at the dispute resolution noticeboard. About a month ago, there was an RFC to remove the galleries of images of ethnic groups. The RFC was

It was closed with a consensus to remove the galleries of images. The close was then challenged, and upheld at

There is now another RFC about removing the galleries of images. It is

Can some admin come along and close it as having been recently decided? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

These are not duplicates. The former RFC was about ethnic groups in specific; the latter RFC is about any group of persons. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
So is the latter RFC intended to expand the former one by widening the rule against image galleries? If so, that should be noted in the RFC; I will reread it to see if it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This RfC is about the broader application of the original RfC, a broadening signaled by Sandstein in many of the voters in the original RfC. I'd close it as supporting that broader application, but lo and behold, I found my own name in there. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • In light of CONLIMITED and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Violating_policies I, personally, have some doubt about the ability of the initial RFC to set guidelines or policy for the encyclopedia (and I say that even though I support the result reached there). I do not take the position that policies and guidelines cannot be made at wikiprojects, but I do take the position that for them to do it that they have to be very careful to publicize the discussion by listing it under "pol" in the RFC tag, by placing a notice and link to the discussion at Village Pump policy, by placing a notice and link to the discussion on the talk pages of any policies being modified by the discussion, and by listing it at Central Discussion. The first of those was done, but I don't think any of the rest were done, though perhaps I missed them (I did not take part in the initial RFC). I've had folks take the position that my position on this is over-bureaucratic but the fact is that, at least in the case of policy or guideline modifications, allowing wiki-project discussions to modify policy or guidelines without clearly notifying the community as a whole and, especially, without notifying the folks who care about the policy or guideline in question enough to watchlist that policy it is bad for the process, as is illustrated here where the second RFC which grew out of an attempt to implement and expand the first discussion at the affected guideline page is struggling to find consensus and is throwing doubt on the original RFC. We're already seeing disputes arising out of the first RFC and disagreements over whether or not it ought to be implemented. I'm hoping that the second RFC will be adopted by consensus (the good Drmies says, above, that he feels that it should be, but the last time I looked I thought it was pretty close) but, frankly, I'm hoping for that more to legitimize the original RFC and avoid the disruption that will otherwise result as I am the fact that I support the result that was reached in the first RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no bar on choosing a WikiProject as the venue for a properly constituted RfC. In fact, the procedure for starting an RfC on a policy issue as outlined at Wikipedia:Requests for comment #Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues begins "1. Edit the talk page of the article or project page that you are interested in. Create a new section at the bottom of the talk page." (my emphasis). Is anyone seriously contending that WP:WikiProject Ethnic groups is not a good venue for discussing more general issues arising at articles such as African Americans?
The procedure continues "2. Choose a category and insert an RfC template at the top of the new talk page section". There can be no doubt that this step was followed: This is the diff.
There is no requirement to do anything more once the question has been posed. Nevertheless, Wikipedia:Requests for comment does offer some further guidance at Wikipedia:Requests for comment #Publicizing an RfC: "there may not be enough editors to get sufficient input. To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations:" and lists Village Pump; Noticeboards; WikiProject talk; editors listed at the Feedback Request Service; talk pages of related articles. It is pertinent that the following advice is also given "Centralized discussion may be used for policy-related RfCs ..."". here is the diff of the notification at CD.
The RfC already was publicised wider than was required by our procedures and attracted a commensurably large response. Your short list of requirements represents good practice, but even if an RfC fell short of your standards, it still would not be invalidated. As it happens, the RfC in question met almost all of your concerns. - given that there are only 71 active watchers at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, I'm not convinced that we lost much input to the RfC by not advertising the RfC there. The purpose of advertising an RfC is to attract a broad range of participants and I see no complaint that the RfC failed to do that. --RexxS (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The Requests for comment page is not a policy or guideline. CONLIMITED is policy, being part of the Consensus policy, and it reads in pertinent part, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay." (Emphasis added.) I acknowledge that the number of participants in the first RFC might make this not apply due to the "limited group" language in the first sentence and the "single individual or several participants" language in the second sentence, but if you look at the policy and guideline proposal process, which is also policy, it repeats what I said above and also says that the problem if it is not followed is that there may be "complaints about insufficient notice" and that is particularly true on controversial changes to policy. If the second RFC does not pass then we who work in dispute resolution are going to have to deal with the ambiguity caused by this and, I wouldn't be surprised if it does not end up before the Arbitration Committee to be resolved. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are no more than reflections of practices and procedures that enjoy community consensus. When they have been proven, they are written down, but the text is not the policy. To say that WP:RfC is not policy or guideline and therefore has less standing than WP:CONLIMITED in determining whether an RfC is valid is to misunderstand the strength of our consensus process. No part of the process followed by the authors of the RfC on image galleries in infoboxes of ethnic articles was defective by the standards outlined at WP:RFC, nor for that matter was it defective by the standards of WP:CONLIMITED. You need to understand that CONLIMITED was developed to avoid the problems of "walled-gardens", where a small group (such as a WikiProject) might create their own policy that contradicted a more general project-wide consensus. There is no value to the project whatsoever of denigrating the consensus established by an RfC that had such a large participation, simply because of the venue. I do understand that working at the DRN makes you feel that you have to scrupulously follow the letter of whatever policy you can find, but that can devolve into process-wonkery, which benefits no-one. I could accept some of your argument if you could quote a precedent for any properly constituted RfC being declared invalid solely because it was conducted on the pages of a WikiProject, but I'm willing to have a small bet that you won't find one. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Promotion of Amortias and Miniapolis to full clerks[edit]

We are pleased to confirm trainees Amortias (talk · contribs) and Miniapolis (talk · contribs) as arbitration clerks, effective immediately. We also express our thanks and gratitude to all the other arbitration clerks for their diligent assistance with the arbitration process. For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Cross-posted for the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Promotion of Amortias and Miniapolis to full clerks

Need admin assist on GA nomination[edit]

Hey all, this isn't my area of expertise, so I could use some other adminly eyes. According to the messages from Legobot on this talk page, it appears that user Uploader & Solver (an editor with ~230 edits under his belt) has nominated Indian film Premam for GA status, then performed the review himself. That sounds highly sketchy. I also think it's sketchy that another user, Sm Sangeeth Sm77, who has a scant ~140 edits under his belt, commented at the GA a few minutes after Uploader made some changes. The two users have a number of weird editing intersections, so I have filed an SPI report about the two, but I would appreciate another admin taking a look at the GA nom/review and deciding what action should be taken on it. Much obliged, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks Cyphoidbomb, I'm on it. I yanked the star already after seeing three or more grammatical errors in the first two paragraphs. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait for the CU block--I'll let you do the SPI if you like, and you can throw in User:Abhi Kampurath, User:Salmanfaris143, and User:Pg krishna kumar as well. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer unblock request from Md iet[edit]

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

I'm one of the admins who blocked User:Md iet in the past. He is mentioned in this AN3 case. Part of his talk page has been restored at User talk:Md iet/Archive 1 to provide background for this review. (The old block and sanction notices are still visible there). He is currently under a ban from the Dawoodi Bohra on all pages of Wikipedia, per WP:ARBIPA, due to a long-term pattern of non-neutral editing. Possibly the topic ban could have led to the socking, which continued from December 2014 thorugh April 2015, judging from the entries in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Md iet/Archive. In his unblock request, Md iet says that he will continue to contribute to the talk pages of Dawoodi Bohra topics but his ban does not allow this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It is clear from EdJohnston's post that this user is not yet aware of what is expected of them if they return. Until they properly understand the nature of their topic ban and agree to it then this request is a non-starter. HighInBC 18:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I've left Md iet a note about the topic ban concerns. I, too, would like him to address that before we consider an unblock. Mike VTalk 20:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support unblock, maintain topic ban (Non-administrator observation) - I suggest supporting this request, with specific advice that their topic ban remains in effect. They were blocked only three months for violating the topic ban, then indefinitely for socking (which no doubt also violated the topic ban). The last report on the SPI casepage was closed without confirmation, so in effect they have not socked since April 2015 - that's ten months of respecting the block, and should be sufficient to lift it. If they resume editing in violation of the topic ban, they'll be re-blocked real quick. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Once it is clear that they understand what is expected then I will likely agree with you. HighInBC 16:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support unblock at least, topic ban should be appealed separately. Capitals00 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now The last we heard from this user they were intending to work in an area they are topic banned from. Until I hear that they understand the topic ban this discussion is a non-starter from me. Once I hear that they understand and accept the topic ban I will probably support, but right now we don't have any communication. HighInBC 15:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Harassment and Threats from User Duikelmaan[edit]

Since popping up in January among a swarm of sock puppets on the Carl Raschke page, Duikelmaan (talk · contribs) has shown a pattern of harassment ([30], [31], etc.), including posting a threat as recently as last night, as can be seen here. Enough is really enough—someone needs to step in and stop this. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I am too slow I guess, was reviewing the contributions and rapidly coming to the same conclusion as Drmies. HighInBC 18:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I appreciate you taking a look at the situation. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
My pleasure, Bloodofox--and I think we get $15 for a NOTHERE block. For those new to the program, NOTHERE is also kind of a rubbish bin for all kinds of completely unacceptable behavior. And those comments--We No Who U R. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I present to you a high-five and a share of my recently gained sock heads for your admin board invocation of the Caveman, Drmies. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Interaction ban help[edit]

I recently closed a ban request as successful, resulting in the imposition of an interaction ban and a topic-ban. Some of the involved editors have left notes for me, asking about the scope of the ban; they're well within the WP:BANEX situation, so I don't have any complains about their actions or words. While I'm familiar with closing discussions, I'm not familiar with how we typically interpret the implications of Ibans and Tbans, so I couldn't give full and adequate responses. Would someone familiar with administrating Ibans and Tbans (the processes themselves; no prior experience with this specific situation is necessary) contact me at my talk page? It's nothing secret; I just don't want to have to wade through the pile of off-topic comments and strife that's likely to happen if we have the discussion here. Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend that the 5 editors-in-question stay away from any discussion that directly or indirectly involves the winningest topic. When one's in doubt, don't hang about. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring / illegitimate removal of templates[edit]

A user, Jodibusch (talk · contribs), removed legitimate templates from Isis jade, an article he/she created.

Here is a list of diffs:

Thank you. (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The user Jodibusch (talk · contribs) left a message on my talk page falsely accusing me of "bullying" her/him. (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

the anonymous User (talk · contribs) messaged me on my talk page falsely accusing me of deliberately removing tags that I was not aware were not supposed to be removed. I am writing my first article of many human trafficking advocates for GEMS and other organizations for fair policy inclusion under the guidance of an experienced wikipedia editor. Operating anonymously under an IP address is not acceptable when targeting a new writer for Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodibusch (talkcontribs) 21:49, 4 February 2016‎

With all due respect, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This includes IP Users that choose not to create an account, and is completely acceptable if the IP user is editing within the guidelines of Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of well-sourced information (such as person's legal/birth name) / edit warring (?)[edit]

I am reporting user (talk · contribs). That user has (more than once) removed the birth name/legal name of Ira Korff/Yitzhak Aharon Korff.


Removed sourced information, such as that Korff's book was published by The Jewish Advocate:

Talk page: Talk:Yitzhak_Aharon_Korff#Please_refrain_from_removing_his_birth.2Flegal_name_.2B_source.28s.29

Thank you. (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm so sorry - I didn't think I removed the other name just reorganized - it still appears. Sorry. And on the book the original book wasn't published by The Jewish Advocate, and I don't see publishers mentioned elsewhere when books are mentioned and besides it's in the Amazon link to the English translation. Again, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Some of the things (talk · contribs) has done: removed a category (Category:Redstone family), deleted sources, falsely inserted "Yitzchok A. Korff" as Ira Korff's name/deleted "Ira Korff" as his legal/birth name, deleted sources I added that back up that "Ira Korff" is the person's name, inserted unsourced information/claims repeatedly. User is deleting important basic information. If you take a look at the edit history of Yitzhak Aharon Korff, you will see that this has been happening over and over and over again over a long period of time (with other users and/or other user names/users who are apparently religious followers of Korff?). Also- no source says that "Yitzchok A. Korff" is Ira Korff's birth/legal name: not one. I took time to find sources. It's not right to delete a person's actual name and background (Redstone family) from Wikipedia and also give apparently disingenuous edit summaries such as here. (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, user re-added the honorific "Rabbi"/"Grand Rabbi" titles that I had deleted. (You can see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Honorific_titles) (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Also edit-warring/removing sourced info at Shari Redstone, the ex-wife of Ira Korff[edit]

User (talk · contribs) is removing sourced info from Shari Redstone's article. She is the wife of Ira Korff.


Thank you. (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Appealing topic ban[edit]

I was topic banned by administrator Drmies for making sock accusations while editing Mudar Zahran which he claims is under the Israeli-Palestinian conflict arbitration. When I made my first accusation, he left me a warning on the talk page to not do it again. While arguing with him, I made a very vague contrast between the edit warriors involved, and he considered it another accusation. So he topic banned me. After explaining, I am not convinced that his call was the right thing to do. I didn't even accuse anyone, I was just comparing. Furthermore, it seems to me that Mudar Zahran is anything but relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a opposition figure in Jordan, being quoted by some Israeli newspapers doesn't make him a part of the conflict.Makeandtoss (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Sock and meat accusations, complete with charges of collusion via Facebook involving German and Canadian IPs and poor old Smartse. Last edit in the talk page conversation is this one. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse topic ban - Makeandtoss was warned to stop making unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry or they would be topic banned, they made another accusation of sockpuppetry, and they were topic banned. Simple. I agree it could not be read differently given the context. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC) (Non-administrator observation)
    I didn't accuse for second time, he literally just notified me, why would I do it again?!. Still doesn't change the fact that the article is irrelevant to IP conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    Comment Someone perhaps like the ones operating a sockpuppetry network or the ones rejecting is what you said and has been interpreted as being an accusation of sock / meat puppetry. You really did walk into it yourself. Blackmane (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I was just using this for discussion purposes not for accusing purposes Makeandtoss (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You were told not to discuss it or mention it at all. Indeed, why would you do it again? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm lol, perhaps I didn't, which is what I am arguing...Makeandtoss (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it was gremlins that logged into your account and made this edit then? Since you're arguing that it wasn't you that made that edit, which was a discussion of sockpuppetry made by your account? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes discussion, not an accusation. I didn't even point out to anyone Makeandtoss (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse topic ban. Makeandtoss made a clear accusation of off-site organized socking which clearly crossed the line into personal attack, continued to try to justify it, and then repeated the attack after being told to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please start elaborating on how this is relevant to the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Thanks Makeandtoss (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No need to elaborate. The article falls under the scope laid out in WP:ARBPIA; see, for instance Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Findings_of_fact. The disruption you caused stemmed from edits related to that article, in that area, governed by those sanctions. It is entirely possible that you are disruptive in other areas as well, in which case you can fall victim to a more general block or ban, but I doubt that you want to pursue that option. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Here you are trying not to assume good faith on my editing. No I am not disruptive in other areas. No it doesn't fall under that scope, the guy gets quoted by Israeli media and suddenly becomes part of a century old conflict?! Makeandtoss (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Can't see how this is relevant to Palestine in any possible way. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Makeandtoss: As I tried to tell you here, the Wikipedia:ARBPIA is to be broadly applied...basically it works like this: if anyone says an article is under ARBPIA...then it is. Simple as that. (And reading Mudar Zahran makes it very clear to me that it is under ARBPIA. You seem to think that only things *directly* related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict comes under ARBPIA: not so!) Secondly; you will find that admins are very willing to block/topic-ban anyone violating WP:ASPERSIONS. Yes, it is frustrating when we get lots of "new" editors who magically knows all the rules and notice boards of Wikipedia.....As I normally put it: they pretend to be new editors...and we pretend to believe them. But you must never, ever call people a sock outside the WP:SPI-page. Frankly, I think you should be glad you got of with a 6 month topic-ban, on only one article; I would sit that out, if I were you. There are plenty of other articles out there! Huldra (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Huldra: Why did the article become suddenly classified as Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Just because I put an accusation? Why wasn't it classified as such much before? You know what, fine. Actually perfect! Can someone now add the IP conflict template to the talk page so that the article will no longer be edited by IPs and SPAs, and is now subject to 1RR. If this was done earlier, we would have avoided soooooooo much trouble. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
BTW lol, here, you also made a sock accusation, it is as vague as mine the second time.. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what more you think there is to say here, Makeandtoss. Several users have linked to the edit in which you were warned that the article you were editing was under ARBPIA sanctions and that you would be banned if you didn't completely stop talking about sockpuppetry. We have also linked to the edit in which you blatantly ignored the warning. If you can't or won't acknowledge that those two things are why you are now topic banned, then you are wasting this board's time. Now, not only have you still not stopped talking about sockpuppetry, but you're requesting edits to the article which specifically violate your topic ban. Lol all you want, but take this seriously: you're on a short path to stronger sanctions if you don't stop this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Makeandtoss, well, I put {{ARBPIA}} on the talk-page. But recall that still, today, the vast majority of articles under ARBPIA is not marked as such on the talk-page. I have lived with the ARBPIA since that first 2008 (virtually all my edits are to articles under ARBPIA), and in 99 out of a 100 cases there is nothing to discuss if anyone say that an article is under ARBPIA: it just is.
  • Also, when I made this remark at AN/I, nobody had warned me about not mentioning socks..... Seriously: warnings from admins should be taken ....seriously. Especially on a page which already had a {{discretionary sanctions|topic=a-i|style=long}} notice on its talk-page. That is a big "WARNING:DANGER"-sign! Huldra (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
*I think I have been improperly sanctioned and I am defending myself. Isn't making sock accusations prohibited but not talking about socks? That is my impression. I think that after I was warned, that I talked about socks but did not accuse anyone, which is why I am here. If you all disagree, then I obviously can do nothing and will just have to accept it. I didn't know defending myself was bad on Wikipedia.. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I read the article in question and it seems very clear to me that it falls under ARBPIA. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: OK I got that. But is this an accusation? "Someone perhaps like the ones operating a sockpuppetry network or the ones rejecting". Makeandtoss (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes it is, Makeandtoss. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It was not intended to be one, but OK. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse topic ban: I don't see an abuse of discretion here on Drmies' part, which is how the topic ban should be reviewed. Even if we might not have enforced DS at that precise moment, in response to that precise comment, I don't think there's cause for reversal. Makeandtoss certainly may wish to apply for the topic ban to be lifted at some point, but it's too soon. Go edit something else, show that the topic ban is unnecessary, then ask for relief. The mark of a good Wikipedian is the ability to adapt to these sorts of setbacks in what might be your personal editing preferences. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: I am under the impression that appeals need can only work if the ban has been placed improperly, rather than what you mentioned ? Makeandtoss (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The logical standard of review for this sort of action is going to be an abuse of discretion standard. The propriety of a discretionary sanction topic ban should be evaluated on the basis of whether the admin abused his or her discretion in placing the topic ban. I'm not seeing any abuse of discretion. Therefore the topic ban was proper. Bringing the topic ban to AN in the hopes of litigating whether the topic ban was proper as a de novo matter would completely defeat the purpose of discretionary sanctions: There is no indication that ArbCom or the community intend DS to be a paper tiger in that sense, rather than an effective, expedient means of stemming disruption in contentions topic areas. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: After being topic banned and been struggling to prove my point, I believe I will never ever use that word in my life. Ever! I will remove it from my dictionary and I will forget I even know what it means. As weird as this may sound, but its my first block ever and I find it really bad to accept it. What I meant in that statement which got me banned, was to say that "am I really that disruptive? (relatively)". Makeandtoss (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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

So, I was just wondering, is there any utility for admins that enables any kind of "batch protection" or something like that, that would make it easier to protect a whole mess of articles (about 100 or so) at once, or I'm I just going to have to do it the old fashioned way? I ask because there's an unresponsive editor who is actively vandalizing the entire set of Interstate Highway Articles. A few representative examples: [32] [33] [34] He edits under a wide range of IP addresses (both IPv4 and IPv6) and throwaway accounts. There's no way to rangeblock or anything like that. We're gonna have to semi protect the entire set. Is there an expedited way to do that, or are we just going to have to go through each one? Thanks in advance for ideas... --Jayron32 01:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Yes, Twinkle has a mass protect function (I was cosnidering using it for this very case, having just blocked a few IPs at AIV). The best way to do it is to create a new page (eg User:HJ Mitchell/Sandbox 3), and add link to every page you want to protect (you can put in a bullet point list if you want it neat and tidy, but you don't need any formatting at all apart from the links). Then select "p-batch", assuming you have Twinkle installed. Or just stick them on my sandbox and I'll do it. I should be around for another half an hour. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
After blocking another sock, I used Twinkle to mass-protect all the articles in that category. Only for a week, but it's easy enough to do it again and for longer if need be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You could also cascade protect a template that is on all of them. That's how they do the main page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Which is, I guess, what HJ Mitchell was suggesting. My way is faster, though, if the template is already on the pages. Face-wink.svg ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not something I've ever tried to use, but I thought cascade protection only worked for full-protection? Courcelles (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Possibly. It's been a while since I used it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. If it worked for anything below full protection, a non-admin would be able to adjust the protection of any page at will by just editing the cascade-protected page ... and they're not supposed to be able to do that. Graham87 11:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Big thanks to everyone here who pitched in and helped out. Next beer's on me... --Jayron32 11:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I am assuming the automatic deletion occurs as Wikidata? Is there no way to delay the automatic deletion so that only pages deleted for more than say a day get deleted? I lack a technical understanding of how this works.
I don't really do cross project work, and I think it is unlikely that every admin is going to know to do this. A solution that does not involve that would be much more effective. HighInBC 16:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The deletion dose occur at Wikidata, and it is attributed to the person deleting the article here (the same thing happens when a page is moved). I have no idea if delaying this would be feasible or not. I think better might be for a restoration to automatically restore the link, but again I don't know how this would be done - and I'm not even sure who to ping to ask. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there a more useful place to put this? Not that it is not useful here, but I mean some sort of really obvious prompt REMEMBER TO RESTORE THE WIKIDATA LINKS when people undelete? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Err, whichever MediaWiki namespace page generates text on special:Undelete is my only thought, but I'd rather not edit something like that without discussion first. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out, Thryduulf, and sorry for the trouble. I had 200+ sockpuppet-created redirects to delete, and the list I fed to the script must have included the target page by mistake. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It's actually possibly a good thing you did this as now we know to be on the look-out for this happening! Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Copy/paste move problems around Circuit City[edit]

Looks like this has been dealt with. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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

I'm really not sure exactly what's happened here, but User:FoxNewsChannelFan has been doing some strange moves and copy/paste things at Circuit City and Circuit City Stores, Inc. On Feb 3, they moved page Circuit City to Circuit City Stores because " is a brand and I want to use the page as a brand", and then went on to create a new version of Circuit City. But in the recent history of the new version, there's a 30kb copy/paste from the original article (now moved to Circuit City Stores, Inc). And in FoxNewsChannelFan's edit history there are various moves, copy/pastes, and redirects between the various titles. I really don't have the brainpower to do anything right now, but something clearly needs to be unraveled - can anyone help? (I'm just about to notify FoxNewsChannelFan and ask them to stop what they're doing until it's sorted out). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we were on the same page. I deleted it and moved Circuit City, Inc. back and restored the inbetween revisions. -- John Reaves 17:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
That's great, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Requesting revdel[edit]

And that is that. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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

This was revdeleted like the IP's other comments as purely disruptive, but this diff still has the signed version. (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- John Reaves 17:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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


Would an administrator kindly block Fffr546567 (talk · contribs), who self identifies as a sock of banned user Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) (one of Wikipedia's most notorious puppeteers), please? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks :-) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Rename page help[edit]

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

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

TB by MastCell without admin consensus and difs[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Strong Support for overturning the decision. The problem was cleared up when another editor admitted fault, apologized and worked with Prokaryotes to resolve the issue that led to the inadvertent 1RR violation. There was no reason to topic ban Prokaryotes. I could explain more, but most of what I have to say about it I already did at the WP:AE I explain more below (in my response to Johnuniq) and at the original WP:AE action. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC) (revised 05:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC))
  • I also support striking a topic ban issued by Mast Cell. This topic ban is a unilateral act, and is draconian under the circumstances, which are complex per David's previous statements, and needs review by uninvolved admins and/or the community. Jusdafax 03:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Prediction This episode will play out in the same way as all the other battles in the GMO Holy Wars, with the same people taking the same sides. Of course it might not work out this way, just as tomorrow morning could see end of all conflict in the Middle East. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The current discussion evolves around a statement in regards to safety. However, it appears that the majority participating over there could settle with an alternative version. I can only count two editors over there who still opt for the 2015 version, still under discussion (basically about the word consensus). Some are fine with various suggestions, brought forward by "both sides", as was I. If this input is against my current active/enforced tb, please redact it....prokaryotes (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Question pair for Prokaryotes — "I pointed out to MastCell that i am unaware of any other wrongdoing, besides my 1RR violation, since 2016" Presumably the year is a typo, so what year did you actually mean? Or if you indeed meant 2016, it's an odd usage (if you made a big mess yesterday, the statement would still be true), so could you explain what you meant? Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Part of MastCell's conclusion involved that i "continued a pattern". I accidentally broke 1RR after last years edits, and before this he gave me a warning last year in response to comments i made after the Arbcom decision verdict. But all the edits i made after the GMO verdict, did not include personal attacks, edit warring etc., so i am really clueless what he is referring to when he speaks of strong pattern, continuation. I actually almost stopped editing article space, sticked to talk page instead. And on the talk pages i edited there were never these accusations i here today. Hence, why i ask for difs to these issues raised, and used to tb me. prokaryotes (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Nyttend: My understanding is that Prokaryotes is saying that after this warning by MastCell on December 14, 2015 (2 days after the ArbCom decision), Prokaryotes refrained from further similar comments that might be construed as ad hominem attacks or WP:BATTLEGROUND (i.e. since 1/1/2016).

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

Yes. And I apologized and explained this yesterday on MastCells talk page, since he brought it up there. And in regards to those edits back then in 2015, and all my other edits, there never been ad hominems, there was never a personal attack, there was never edit warring, and there was no continuation. If someone says otherwise, he should provide evidence. Everybody uninvolved, unsure what is going on, check out this GMO talk page, and this related OR noticeboard discussion, and judge for yourself who is doing what there, and who is cooperative, and who tries to find a constructive agreement, and if the claims put forward here by MastCell (quoted above) are valid.prokaryotes (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment from MastCell: I explained the basis for the sanction in detail, in response to Prokaryotes' questioning, here on my talkpage, and don't have much to add. I am happy to answer questions or discuss the sanction further with uninvolved admins or editors, but I don't have much more to say in response to deeply involved GMO editors (pro- or anti-). If a consensus of uninvolved admins finds that the sanction was inappropriate, then I am of course fine with having it vacated (although I would plead for more admin involvement at WP:AE, as sanity checks are invaluable in that atmosphere). MastCell Talk 05:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem begins imho, when you generalize and divide editors in pro or anti. If you look at my edits, they are almost always based on science, and authorities. I understand that it is not easy to judge the issue at hand, considering the amount of text posted by some, but if you tb someone you really need to provide clear evidence of wrongdoing. prokaryotes (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
One more thing, in the statement MastCell links above he again makes a serious point about personal attacks, see WP:WIAPA what is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. prokaryotes (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please spell out what you are suggesting. Did someone make a personal attack? Who? Against whom? Please quote a couple of words from the comment so we can find and evaluate the issue. I skimmed through User talk:MastCell#Reconsider and did not notice a CIVIL problem. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The point is, nobody made a personal attack, yet MastCell uses this argument to tb me. prokaryotes (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
MastCell, I know I would participate more at AE if, like at arbitration case requests, there was a word limit imposed. Lately, editors have been posting endless walls of text (and counter-arguments that are equally long) that are difficult to decipher if one is unfamiliar with the parties. Any chance we could get ArbCom to institute a 500 word limit? Being concise is a lost art, it seems. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
^Agree. People should also provide diffs for any claims about editor behavior. I am tired of being expected to read all of the talk page discussion and try to reconcile it with the article page versions to try to figure out who did what when. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Liz: There is a limit of 500 words and 20 diffs, though apparently it's not widely heeded. I made it bold. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Opabinia regalis, I never noticed that and, you're right, it's not commonly observed. Time to find that link to the online word counter. Liz Read! Talk! 15:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Is this a topic ban appeal? A quick look at the closed WP:AE report shows that the issue appears to be more than a 1RR problem—reading through the request from Tryptofish suggests "ongoing problems", and the closing remarks includes "larger pattern of disruptive editing" and more. I see no reason the topic ban should be overturned. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: What Tryptofish is not telling you is that s/he and a number of other editors were trying to edit war in changes in the lead from the formerly agreed upon "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus" here and here and here (last edit wisely self-reverted). This was in violation of the WP:STATUSQUO: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." There was no consensus for changing the sentence to say "scientific consensus". Last year there was this very lengthy RfC over this language that found no Wiki-consensus for the sentence containing "broad scientific consensus", and the closer RockMagnetist suggested a revision to the language to gain consensus. Such a revision did take place with this edit which changed "broad scientific consensus" to "scientific agreement". That language was used in a number of articles and was stable for several months until the edit warring started above. That was the WP:STATUSQUO, and three editors tried to change it without gaining consensus first. That behavior was disruptive.
Fortunately, Aircorn admitted his/her error here and worked cooperatively with Prokaryotes to restore the WP:STATUSQUO. The other editors never acknowledged they were trying to edit war in content they knew had substantial opposition. Instead, they called for Prokaryotes to be topic banned for standing up to their edit-warring. Why is Prokaryotes being punished so severely when the other editors who brought the action against him/her started the problem? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Extenuating circumstances are not relevant in a case like this: the topic is under discretionary sanctions and arguments have been raging forever, and several links that I found at WP:AE show that Prokaryotes was not attempting to collaborate but was stone-walling by raising a series of objections that seem to have no common thread other than the objections can be used to block an opponent's arguments, rather than engaging with them. I have not evaluated the entire situation (Arbcom took a long time to do that), but I have seen enough from the information presented at WP:AE to endorse the outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Having reviewed MastCell's explanation for the TB on their talkpage, I'm not seeing anywhere near the required level of self reflection or detailed refutation of the detailed reason for the TB to suggest it was imposed in error. Spartaz Humbug! 14:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Spartaz: Please see my comments immediately above. The call for the topic ban was based on allegations of disruptive editing by those who started the disruptive editing by edit-warring. As for use of ad hominems, his/her accusers are equally guilty of ad hominem attacks and completely unapologetic about it. But again, the action was not about name-calling. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
This meme that two wrongs make a right is one of the reasons why we get into states where topic bans and other sanctions have to be handed out. As a clearly involved person in this dispute I would ask you to extract yourself from badgering everyone who has commented on this TBAN and stop trying to muddle matters and poison the well. I suggest you butt out. Spartaz Humbug! 13:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you to Johnuniq for pinging me, and thank you to MastCell for, in my opinion, doing exactly the right things. I looked over the discussion at MastCell's talk page, and MastCell explains the situation very well. And it's no coincidence that the very next talk thread on MastCell's talk is about how AE has become such a difficult place for administrators to deal with. It's unfortunate that Prokaryotes just does not get it, but that's what blunt instruments such as AE are, unfortunately, needed for. And it's also unfortunate that Prokaryotes has a group of other editors who serve as enablers, and they have shown up here right on schedule. In other words, +1 to Boris' prediction. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. Frankly, this was inevitable, it's always been just a matter of time. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I oppose close until this matter has been properly investigated, which has not yet taken place. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: I believe you are familiar with the problem I described above about edit-warring of the "scientific consensus" language from the discussion here by Petrarchan47. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
David Tornheim, responding to your ping, I'm not familiar with any of this. I know only that an RfC was closed in July 2015 regarding the "scientific consensus" sentence or paragraph in Genetically modified food. The closer suggested finding alternative wording. How that relates to this, I have no idea, sorry. SarahSV (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Here is a short summary of the issue: the GMO ArbCom case was preceded by an extremely labor/time-intensive RfC in which Jytdog asked "Do these 18 sources support There is a scientific consensus that GMO foods are as safe as their natural counterparts?" The community was not convinced that any of the sources presented, alone or as a group, supported such a statement. We all agreed, and until January 2016, no one argued: the wording would have to match RS, it would need to be changed. Embarrassingly, besides our own internal process, a group of scientists called out Wikipedia for airing this false claim (see 3, 16)[35]
A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired
The "scientific consensus" wording requires extra diligent sourcing. Normally editors add content and try to summarize it afterwards. This "scientific consensus" was created by Jytdog and added without ever fleshing out the supportive material in the bodies of up to 15 GMO articles. Skip to today: Aircorn, Tryptofish and KingofAces43 suddenly begin defending the use of this wording, group-edit-warring it back into the GM Crops article. Pro had been trying to align the article with our RfC and with RS, and is now enemy #1 for doing so. Editors are still refusing to add content to the articles, and are insisting on coming up with a "statement" based on their favoured sources. I regret to say, it appears to me that if the POV pushing is indeed on the "pro-GMO" side of this, it is doubtful this will ever be formally acknowledged due to group-think and intimidation for having an opposing view, or being labelled "fringe", etc. petrarchan47คุ 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You "forgot" to mention that this statement you promote was basically a statement by an anti-GMO group in a low-impact journal whose editors have acknowledged a problem with hijacking by anti-GMO authors [36]. Funny, that. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Appears to be a punitive ban. The revert issues were dealt with and diffs were not provided showing personal attacks in the present. AlbinoFerret 14:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree this seems a punitive ban and shows a lack of awareness about the situation, which is far more complex than any drive-by editor or admin can properly rule on, unfortunately. Even though I have been somewhat involved there, the vast amount of text, different noticeboards and litigiousness of some involved heavily in the GMO area make navigating this chain of events nearly impossible. petrarchan47คุ 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Just noting that AlbinaFerret was an involved editor in the AE discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 16:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
True, but my involvement in the topic is rather small and consists of participating in the GMO arbcom case and about 20 or so talk page posts, mostly during a RFC. AlbinoFerret 19:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Tryptofiish is the most active editor (by a wide margin) in the related discussion, he reported me for 1RR, Guy is heavily involved in the topic and always supports Tryptofish. prokaryotes (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • In re what David Tornheim and Prokaryotes have each said about me, I'll simply reiterate that Boris' prediction is correct, and I'll leave any content disputes for another venue. Once again, I endorse MastCell's decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Since you are an involved editor and since you endorse MastCell's decision, maybe you can answer these unanswered questions, presenting some difs confirming MastCell. Surely this must be easy for you. "...pattern of disruptive editing on the part of Prokaryotes is clear and continuing. This pattern includes disruptive stonewalling on talkpages, misuse of sourcing guidelines, edit-warring, personal attacks" prokaryotes (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Then I guess we should add WP:IDHT to the list, because I provided just that at the AE filing that led to your topic ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You did not provide evidence for personal attacks, edit warring, misuse of sourcing guidelines, continuation. What you did was to provide your opinion, and the majority of involved editors disagrees with you. And now you made my point, that you cannot provide difs. prokaryotes (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Your diff shows MastCell saying "Closing an RfC is generally a service performed by an uninvolved admin or editor, and does not constitute "involvement" ... I don't see how that block creates "involvement" in the GMO topic area." How does that show MastCell has a "clear bias" and is WP:INVOLVED? It's a very innocuous and generic statement. Which part of WP:INVOLVED applies? Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yet another go at poisoning the well to get round this tropic ban. Time for a boomerang? Spartaz Humbug! 07:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support re-opening AE or overturning block - I believe the close was out of process as there was clearly no consensus among uninvolved admins. There have been 2 recent Arb cases dealing with this type issue with strong directives against admins acting unilaterally against consensus or absent consensus, i.e. Supervoting. In this case, EdJohnson half-heartedly recommended a "2-day to one week block". Even Mastcell commented that he recommended closing with no action before he implemented an indefinite topic ban - even after prokaryotes self reverted and apologized and explained. This kind of action is directly contrary to the two recent Arb cases about enforcement. (sorry, can't link them right now cuz I'm editing from my phone). Minor4th 16:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment on involvement. I guess I'm just further fulfilling Boris' prediction by posting here being involved, but just a reminder that decisions at this board are based off of uninvolved admins and editors. The only people wanting to overturn Prokaryotes' ban (e.g., David Tornheim, Jusdafax, petrarchan47, AlbinoFerret, and Minor4th) are all involved in the GMO dispute in various fashions. Conversely, Nyttend, Spartaz, Shock Brigade Harester Boris, Johnuniq, and Liz appear unquestionably uninvolved in addition to MastCell.
Some admins here have been commenting on the "peanut gallery" problem whenever cases or action occur at WP:AE, and I do think uninvolved admins here have described that problem occurring even in this thread relatively well with poisoning the well comments, the general travesty attitude, etc. That is evidence of battleground behavior being perpetuated in a case like this where Prokaryotes was given a "final warning" by MastCell long before the AE case that a topic ban was impending if they continued the behavior they outlined. Disputing the ban now is just WP:IDHT in addition to battleground mentality. I don't have a good solution for dealing with that problem except that we need more admin eyes at AE that are aware of some of this history when GMO topics come up. It seems like the community is becoming more aware of it though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this an attack page?[edit]

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

No. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, what should I do? I've tried engaging with them on their user talk page, where they remain stubbornly silent - and then I get this? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I think after a week or two you could try Mfd. The user seems very polite in their complaint, but that's not the purpose of a user page. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Try replying on the user page, who knows they might respond. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop the War Coalition issues again[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Quick note to everyone — User:Philip Cross has been adding material to the article on Agnes Mariam. Perhaps others will make the mistake I did, thinking that Solntsa90 was drawing out attention to people potentially disrupting things related to an off-wiki dispute between people named Agnes Mariam and Philip Cross. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Here is edit in question. I checked the source. This particular edit by Philip Cross is not a BLP violation. If there are any BLP issues involved, this suppose to be reported to WP:BLPNB for discussion long time ago, rather than producing heated debates with wording like Wiki getting sued for libel by Solntsa90 [37]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Range block for CC Music Factory[edit]

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

  • Maybe it's past bedtime. But who's Anyone of importance? Drmies (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Drmies: 166 was community banned. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, that one--the one I'm asking who it is every time I see them, haha. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirects are broken and IP continually removing registration template.[edit]

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

I was looking for this because (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly deleting the IP registration template (and is currently on a 3 month block). Diffs of removal:[38], [39], [40]. "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user ... For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered". I believe his talk page access should be revoked because of the continued violation. (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional info here, this IP has had talk page access removed prior. [41]ḾỊḼʘɴίcảTalkI DX for fun! 16:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Revoked talk page access. Katietalk 17:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you using Firefox? – 'Cos that first thing seems to be some bug involving web browser software and using wikilinks to take you to a section of a Wikipedia page. (FTR, similar things happen to me as well – I click to go to a section, and I don't quite end up at the section I linked to...) I'm pretty sure this bug is well-known, and has been pretty extensively discussed already. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I have never had issues with section links (including right now), except when loading pages with collapsed sections. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Non-working redirects is not a WP:AN matter. More info at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 142#Redirect to section bugged. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I saw this as a matter of "please stop this IP from [[WP:REMOVE|improperly removing this part of his talk page]], and while we're at it, there's a technical problem with that link". The first was suitable here, and it couldn't hurt to bring up the technical matter because admins tend to be above-average knowledgeable on technical matters. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
If Javascript is disabled, then the sectional redirect does not work; it only redirects you to the page not the section. This is a Javascript thing. Rgrds. -- (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
How do you work that out? Redirects are handled server-side: the MediaWiki server manipulates the URL based on what's on the redirect page before passing it on to your browser. The section link is done as a URL fragment, and although those are handled client-side, it's an inherent feature of all browsers (and has been since the earliest days of HTML), and no JavaScript is necessary for that.
Regardless, that topic is outside the scope of WP:AN. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, it appears to be true - in Firefox (on Mac) if I disable javascript then the WP:REMOVED link only goes to the top of the page, but with javascript enabled it goes to the correct section. Try it yourself and see what happens. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
My Javascript is not disabled and I am not using firefox. WP:REMOVED takes me to the top of the page. (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Neelix frog redirects[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

I looked through section 1 and they all seem to be good - all the alternate names are mentioned in the lede, though there are those plural/hyphen/spacing variants. I'd assume that he went off the names mentioned in the lede to make these. (The list also has other redirects - plant scientific names - in section 2, but the others seem to be all frogs.) ansh666 11:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I misunderstood your request and checked every redirect in "Section 12 Stony creek frogs" and "Section 13 Mutuio frogs". Almost all were good in the first section, and the non-"Motuo" ones were good in the second, being alternate names from the intro or reasonable variants thereof; I deleted all the "Motuo" ones because neither the article nor its online sources mentioned that as an alternate name. I've left a note atop each section saying basically "I checked each one individually, and the ones I didn't delete shouldn't be deleted". If we all go through these frog redirects, taking individual sections and examining each title in that section, we can work through the backlog systematically and rather easily, and since G6 is permitted for Neelix titles that aren't plausible, it shouldn't take too long. We can just look for ones that are given as alternate names, either in the article intros or elsewhere, and delete ones that aren't and ones that are odd variants of good titles; we'll make some mistakes, but it should be trivial to get a G6-deleted page undeleted if you show that the title was good. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
After checking another batch of 231 titles, I can report that most of the problem titles are too inspecific: ones such as Yellow and black spotted tree-frog are fine, but a lot were ones such as Jinxiu frog (to the Jinxiu small treefrog) that might be ambiguous. The worst case I found was Zhishihe to Zhishihe's bubble-nest frog, which is named for "Zhishihe", the place where it was discovered. Perhaps some of these are unambiguous titles after all, but that's where we'd need an expert. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Need other admin eyes[edit]

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

I have seen this pattern before and it turned out to be someone who forget the password to their old account, but for some reason wanted to use the same userspace. I have not looked at the specific edits in this case though, it could be something more nefarious. HighInBC 17:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
On, User:Moi Magnum, he identifies himself as User:Draven Corvis so I think HighInBC's guess is probably correct. And since the two accounts are not editing at the same time, I don't believe this qualifies as sockpuppetry, especially because Moi Magnum connects the two accounts on his user page. Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Plant's Strider unblock request[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

backlog at page protection[edit]

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

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