Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 41 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Rfc_on_use_of_"imposing"

(Initiated 105 days ago on 14 August 2024)

Coming up on two months since the last comment. Consensus seems pretty clear, but would like an uninvolved party to look it over. Seasider53 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 60 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 51 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 50 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shorten recall petition period

(Initiated 26 days ago on 1 November 2024) Needs an uninvolved editor or more to close this discussion ASAP, especially to determine whether or not this RfC discussion is premature. George Ho (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 25 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#RfC On the Better of Two Revisions

(Initiated 10 days ago on 17 November 2024) It probably wasn't even alive since the start , given its much admonished poor phrasing and the article's topic having minor importance. It doesn't seem any more waiting would have any more meaningful input , and so the most likely conclusion is that there's no consensus on the dispute.TheCuratingEditor (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	12	12
TfD	0	0	0	8	8
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	10	10
RfD	0	0	0	45	45
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Category:National artists of Thailand

(Initiated 38 days ago on 20 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 19#Confederation of the Rhine

(Initiated 28 days ago on 31 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Oppose Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

(Initiated 25 days ago on 2 November 2024) JJP_Master (she/they) 15:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 316 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Siege of Gerona (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 October 2024

(Initiated 58 days ago on 1 October 2024) RM that has been open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 October 2024

(Initiated 47 days ago on 11 October 2024) RM that has been open for 1.5 months. Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 42 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 28 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: It's now been 7 days...I know this isn't a priority to you but can you at least take a look at it this week, even if it's not today? Thanks for your time, Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh good, I was also going to make this request. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (31 out of 8888 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Hans (clan) 2024-11-28 02:15 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case IDF Spokesperson's Unit 2024-11-27 22:32 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: my bad Ymblanter Draft:Laxminarayan Maharana 2024-11-27 19:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated, socking, spamming DoubleGrazing Aras War 2024-11-27 19:25 indefinite create General sanction enforcement for Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict topic area Tamzin Blake Snell 2024-11-27 18:08 2024-11-30 04:40 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: Autoconfirmed editors continue to add an unconfirmed contract Muboshgu Template:Jsub 2024-11-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2510 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Year category name 2024-11-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:AFL Haw 2024-11-27 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2515 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II 2024 Israel–Hezbollah ceasefire agreement 2024-11-27 13:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Draft:Utkarsh Gupta 2024-11-27 12:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG Utkarsh Gupta 2024-11-27 12:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG Tomer Bar 2024-11-27 02:17 indefinite edit,move WP:PIA DatGuy Sarah Toscano 2024-11-27 01:21 2025-05-27 01:21 move Move warring against RM Red-tailed hawk Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion 2024-11-26 23:30 indefinite edit Restoring protection by HJ Mitchell: Contentious topic restriction Protection Helper Bot User talk:114.129.250.118 2024-11-26 22:06 2024-12-03 22:06 move Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked ScottishFinnishRadish Za'atar 2024-11-26 21:09 2025-11-26 21:09 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Israeli generals' plan 2024-11-26 21:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Shiva 2024-11-26 16:25 2025-11-26 16:25 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian User talk:31.163.172.36 2024-11-26 15:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:115.23.250.36 2024-11-26 13:12 2025-11-26 13:12 create HJ Mitchell Dheerendra Singram 2024-11-26 11:14 2025-02-26 11:14 create Repeatedly recreated, PP (EC) 3mos DoubleGrazing Palestine exception 2024-11-25 23:22 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade 2024 Basta airstrikes 2024-11-25 19:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Deif family killings 2024-11-25 19:43 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Oyo Empire 2024-11-24 22:14 2024-12-24 22:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Fathoms Below ADA vbe EBEN 2024-11-24 22:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Fathoms Below Ọranyan 2024-11-24 21:38 2024-12-15 21:38 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case Israel Katz 2024-11-24 21:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Kerem Shalom aid convoy looting 2024-11-24 20:40 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Battle of Hostomel 2024-11-24 14:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Battle of Brovary 2024-11-24 14:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato

WP:AN/CXT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to move forward with Mathglot's proposal (see #Proposal), which will cause a mass deletion of the pages on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review, with the option to save certain pages from deletion within a two-week window. As part of the proposal, there is also a consensus to amend WP:X2 in the manner S Marshall specifies in this edit.

Opposition to this change revolved around the argument that the articles which would qualify for mass deletion should be improved instead of deleted. Elinruby proposed alternatively that we should focus on recruiting editors fluent in foreign languages, Mathglot initially proposed to mass-draftify the articles instead of deleting, and Sam Walton argued that the articles contained valid content that didn't deserve mass deletion.

A majority of other editors, however, argued that many of the articles involved are poorly sourced BLPs that have the potential to harm their subjects if left unimproved. Given the large number of articles and low number of editors involved, it will likely be months before these articles are improved. Additionally, a user who is not fluent in both of the languages involved in a translation will not be able to adequately evaluate the validity of the machine-translated content; the article may appear unproblematic to such a user, but the content translation tool could have subtly altered the meaning of statements to something false.

In short, the consensus is that in the long run, the encyclopedia would be better off if these articles were mass deleted. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: The process for working out how to cause the mass deletion has been established. To mark an article for retention, please strike it out. To unambiguously identify an article for deletion, include the word "kill" in the same line as the article. The articles will be deleted on or after June 6, 2017. Thank you for your patience. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

---

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

For more context on this issue, please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#X2 revision. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: This link is now located at .../Archive_61#X2 revision. Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, S Marshall, and I don't fault you for your choice. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Isn't there some way to use the sortware to delete all of these in bulk, if only as a one-time thing? Seems like a huge waste of time if it's being done manually by hand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Easily doable as a batch-deletion. I could have it wrapped up in 15 minutes. Unfortunately community consensus did not lean towards approving that option. In fact, most CXT creations which have been reviewed needed cleanup but turned out to be acceptable articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

• No, the broader community doesn't need to discuss that. It's completely needless and the community has had a huge discussion already. All that needs to happen is for WT:CSD to let me make one bold edit to a CSD that was badly-worded from the get-go, and we'll all be back on track. That's it. The only problem we have is that there are so many editors who want to tell me how to do it, and so few editors willing to get off their butts and do it.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Restored from archive, as it's unhelpful for this to remain unresolved.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support systematic nuke/ revision of X2 to enable this mess to be cleared up. It's not fair that @S Marshall: is being prevented from improving the encyclopedia like this. Amisom (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support @S Marshall:'s revision or a nuke from orbit. I wasn't active when this situation was being discussed originally, but having now read over the discourse on the matter, it is clear that our current approach isn't working. No one else is stepping up to help S Marshall do this absurd amount of reviewing, leaving us stuck with thousands of machine-translated BLP violations. It's all well and good to say that AfD isn't cleanup and deletion solves nothing and we should let articles flower patiently into beautiful gardens, but if no one's pulling the weeds and watering the sprouts, the garden isn't a garden, it's a weed-riddled disaster. Give the gardener a weed whacker already. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support the bold edit required to X2; it's true, of course, that AfD is not clean up- but neither should it be a barrier to clean up. In any case, moving a backlog from one place to another is hardly helpful. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Question @Elinruby and Yngvadottir: As users who (from a quick glance) seem to have been active looking through these articles, do you think the quality is on average worse than a typical random encyclopedia article, and if so, bad enough that speedy deletion would be preferable to allowing them to be improved over time as with any other article? I don't mean to imply that this is necessarily the case, but I think it should be the bar for concluding whether mass speedy deletion is the correct answer. Sam Walton (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• (I wish I'd seen this earlier; thanks for the ping. I feel I have totally let down S Marshall; I just couldn't stand it any more.) On the whole ... yes. Support deletion of those remaining that have not been marked as ok/fixed. As I tried to explain in the initial discussion, the basic premise here is incorrect: as it states somewhere at Pages needing translation into English, a machine translation is worse than no article. It will almost always be either almost impossible to read, incorrect (for example, mistranslating names as ordinary nouns, or omitting negatives ...) or both. Some of these translations have been ok; many have been woefully incomplete (just the start of the lede), and they all require extremely careful checking. Yes, what lies in wait may include BLP violations. I sympathize with the article creators, and I am usually an inclusionist; I put hours of work into checking and improving some of these, and I'm not the only one. But please, enough. We'd wind up with decent articles faster if these were deleted, and the majority that are bad do a disservice to their topics. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• You haven't let me down. You've given me a truckload of support with this.—S Marshall T/C 13:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Still oppose mass deletion -- @Sam Walton: What she said: Thank you the ping; this discussion was seeming a bit reiterative and I had mentally checked out. Like @Yngvadottir: I have put considerable effort into some of these articles. In fact, two or three of them are my own translations, which I would not have attempted without the translation tool, btw. Some are from my translations on French law, and I think 1) they cover important and previously missing topics and 2) they are high-quality technical translations. In most cases they speak for themselves. A couple are not perfect, reflecting the state of the French article, yes, and need work. But while these articles -- I am speaking here specifically of my own translations that appear on this list -- may be imperfect they are still reasonable stubs that can be built upon, and they also support more important articles by helping to prevent redlinks in some of the top-level articles on French law and also the French colonial legacy in Rwanda and the Congos etc. See Biens mal acquis for example. That was painful but I am proud of that translation. I have also encountered other people's translations on that list that made me proud of Wikipedia; the one on a cryptology algorithm for example comes to mind, or Essai sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations. I am an inclusionist, I have to admit, and yes yes, great wrongs and all, but I do think it is important that (for example) articles on Congolese history mention that there have been civil wars (beyond "unrest", and no, I am not kidding). The worst BLP problems I am aware of are in the articles on Dilma Rousseff and I don't believe they are on this list or were created with the tool. Some of the worst PNT pages I have seen predate the translation tool, for instance Notre-Dame de la Garde, which took me years to finish, and Annees folles which is as we speak an incredible mess requiring research in addition to copy-editing and translation. Yngvadottir is correct in saying that inappropriately translated proper nouns is a frequent problem. I recall a Hubert de Garde de Vins who became "wine", and yes, this did reduce the sentence to gibberish. It's annoying enough to make me wanna regex. But. Not mass deletion. I suggest case-by-case intervention in the case of egregious problems with particular users. It's not as though more that a very few users even try to translate. Or perhaps we should revise the criteria for translation user privileges. But even there -- one of the people tagged as delete on sight has created a number of skeleton articles about Quebec. These articles should be be fleshed out not deleted; we should have articles about Quebec. Some of the authors are unquestionably notable, the equivalent in my small culture of Simone de Beauvoir or Colette or Andre Gide. It seems to me that an article that says: this author was born, drank coffee, won the Governor-General's award and wrote these books, is better than having nothing at all. The placeholder takes the topic from unknown unknown to known unknown, or little-known in this context, I guess. We do know a little more about the folk dances of Honduras because there is a very bad article, for which I have done what I could. There are many different problems with the articles on this list. Someone has created multiple articles about, apparently every madrassa in central Tunis. Who am I? Some of the articles I have rescued at PNT were about the medieval wines of Provence, which might seem equally trivial to some. Some of the important but very flawed articles I have noted maybe should not be in the article mainspace -- I am thinking of the ones about the Virgin of Guadeloupe, pretty much everything flagged Mexican historical documents, the Spanish procession of the flowers, etc)--but an interested Spanish speaker could build these out. These topics are unquestionably notable. We should have an article about the Virgin of Guadeloupe, really, people, we should. My suggestion would be recruiting. We desperately need a Portuguese speaker and additional help with Spanish. Some of the unreferenced BLPs sitting around appear to be very fine even though they are unreferenced, and may in fact veer into fluff. But they don't approach liability for libel if that's the concern. I avoid them, personally, because I have in the past deciphered Abidjan l33t about a beloved soccer player, only to be told that we don't as a matter of policy consider these leagues notable. Fine then, they should not be on the PNT to-do list. I'd love to see the translation workflow improved but we should be encouraging the people expanding our horizons is what I think. I am sorry for the very long answer but I appear to be a voice wailing in the desert on this topic and I have now said pretty much the above many times now. Nobody seems to care so oh well, it's not like I don't have other work I can do on the history of the Congo and figuring out what Dilma Rousseff had to say about her impeachment. Reliable sources say she was railroaded (NPR for one) and that is not included in the article at all right now. The articles on Congolese history airily write off genocide and slaughter as "some unrest". In a world where these things are true I really don't care whether on not we find a reference for that Eurovision winner. Someone who cares can do that and I think ethnocentrism is a bigger issue on Wikipedia that these translation attempts. Move the ones that don't meet a minimum standard to some draft space or something. Educate the people who are creating this articles instead of shaking your finger at them. The article creation process is daunting enough and I myself have had to explain to new page patrollers that this punk band is in fact seminal whether you have heard of them or not and whether or not they sing in a language that you can understand. But I have been here enough to do that and I assure you, most people will not. Wikipedia wants to know why its editors grow fewer cough cough wikipedia, lookee here. I will shortly wikilink some of the examples I mention above for easier show-and-tell, for the benefit of anyone who has read this far. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal of these attempted articles (especially to avoid BLP problems laying around). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support [1] I'd say "do a disservice to their topics" is a mild way of putting it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket deletion. Having just checked a bunch of the remaining articles I found plenty of perfectly reasonable, non-BLP articles here, and any bad articles I did find were certainly not in greater number than you would find by hitting Random Article, nor were they particularly awful; the worst offenses I found were poor but understandable English. There's a lot of valid content here, especially on non-English topics which we need to do a better job of writing about. FWIW I'll happily put some time into going through this list. Sam Walton (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at the 20 articles I just reviewed here; none had any issues greater than needing a quick copyedit. Sam Walton (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Samwalton9: Thanks. It's been a long, hard slog. I appreciate it if any of these can be saved. However, did you check for accuracy? It's possible for a machine translation to be misleadingly wrong. And the miserable translation tool the WMF provides usually doesn't even attempt filmographies: look at that specific section of Asier Etxeandia. This is not acceptable in a BLP. Somebody who reads the original language (Spanish? Catalan?) needs to go through that article sentence by sentence and film by film. Unfortunately it's not a matter of notability (that's almost always attested to by the original article), it's a matter of whether we have time to save this article. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
      • That names of works likely don't get automatically translated properly is a good point that I hadn't considered, thanks for pointing that out. If that's one of the primary issues then I'd favour a semi-automated removal of "filmography" or similar sections, if possible. It just seems that there's a lot of perfectly good content in here. Sam Walton (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I looked at the first one you listed, it is a mass of non-BLP compliant (non-neutral, no-inline source) material. Letting stuff like that hang around is not just bad for that BLP but as an example for other BLPs to be created and remain non-compliant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Sam Walton, you didn't answer Yngvadottir's question. Can you speak the source languages? Remember that because of the defective way that software feature was implemented, you cannot assume that the translator speaks English and in many cases they obviously couldn't. (In practice the source language matters a lot because the software accuracy varies by the language pair. Indo-European languages are often but not always okay, and Spanish-English translations have particularly high accuracy, approaching 80%. Japanese-English, for example, has much, much lower accuracy.) So the correctness of the translation must be, and can only be, checked by someone with dual fluency in the source language and English.

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

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

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

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

Break

@Alanscottwalker: I found a reference for his influences in less time than it took to add the ref code....Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Elinruby: Did you mean to ping me back here, many days after I commented, to tell me you found a pretty crappy commercial source? When I looked at it awhile ago, the article was filled with non-npov/non-referenced/BLP violating text. It is, thus, no comfort that since I commented, awhile ago, someone has according to their edit 'removed the worst of the puffery', and you added that crappy commercial source - its still not policy compliant (even if it is marginally better, since I flagged it) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I brought you back here to tell you that while it may be have been unsourced, fixing this is extremely trivial. I don't give a hoot about this particular article, but his gallery is not a "crappy commercial source" imho and if you want people to fix then article then you should enunciate your problem with it. Sorry if that doesn't fit your preconceptions Elinruby (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding a non-independent crappy commercial source is not fixing. It is selling. We are not in the business of selling. What you call "trivial" sourcing does nothing to fix just makes it worse - "trivial" should have tipped you off. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@AlanscottWalker: Um no.... I was using the term in its software development meaning. I apologize for picking the wrong dialect to make my point. I thought, since you were critiquing the software tool, you might know something about software even though you don't seem to be familiar with the features of this instance of it, or for that matter with a representative sample of its users. Commericial, hmm. The same could be said of my article about the thousand-year-old Papal vintages, you know. That vineyard is selling wine today. Is that article also commercial crap? Since it is a direct translation from French Wikipedia, are you saying that French Wikipedia is commercial crap? You really don't want to make me argue this point, seriously. Incidentally what is with the arbitrary insertion of a break in the discussion? Consider, for just a moment, that I might actually have a point. Entertain the notion for a minute. Why are you belittling my statement? Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Critiquing software tool? No, I was clearly critiquing an article in English on the English Wikipedia. And I was referring to the crappy commercial source - you pinged me, remember, so that I would know you added it to the article. That was not done in French, it was done in English. As for break, that is your doing, why should I have any idea why you added the crappy source, and then wanted to tell me about it in this break. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Let me use small words. CTX is software. Bad translation can happen with or without software. Lack of sources can happen without software. In software development "trivial" means "easy". Do you see now? Be careful who you patronize next time. 01:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall:I'd consider supporting your proposal, perhaps, once I have read it, but could you provide a link for we mere mortals who don't normally follow these proposals? I also disagree that all of these articles require a bilingual editor; some just need a few references and/or a copy edit. But you know I disagree at this point. And if you do, god help us, nuke all of these articles as opposed to one of the other courses of action I have (again) suggested above, please move mine to my draft space if you find them that objectionable. Some sort of clue as to what your issue is would also be nice. Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• The revision I want to make is this one. The intended effect is so that a human editor, who has reviewed the script-generated content and given it due consideration and exercise of judgment, can recommend the content for deletion and receive assistance rather than bureaucracy from our admin corps.

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

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

Source text	Korean	Punjabi	Farsi
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition	Fourth and seventh years ago, our ancestors left the continent, a new country born in Liberty.	Four score and seven years on this continent, first our father a new nation, brought freedom and dedicated to the proposition	Four score and seven years ago our fathers on this continent, a new nation, the freedom brought, and dedicated to the proposition
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.	And when he saw the multitude, he went up to the mountain, and his disciples came, and opened his mouth, and taught him, saying, Blessed are the souls of the poor: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.	Jesus saw the crowds up on the mountain, and when he sat, his disciples came to him and he opened his mouth, and the poor in spirit was teaching, that theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Yes: interestingly the algorithm interpolated "Jesus" into the text.)	And seeing the multitudes, he went to the mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came to him and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for the kingdom of heaven.
Editors agree not to publish biographical material concerning living people unless it is accurate	The editors agree not to post electrical materials about living people unless they are the correct person.	To publish the biographical material about the editor, it is right to disagree,	Editors agree to publish biographies of living people, unless it is accurate.

I encourage you to try these and other examples with different language pairs. Can you see why you need to speak the original language in order to copyedit accurately?—S Marshall T/C 22:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

But that is not a fair test since it magnifies any word choice errors. There *will* be errors, yes. We clean them up at WP:PNT --- ALL THE TIME. And no, it is not necessary to speak the language always, though it certainly help. I really suggest that maybe you just need a wikibreak from this task. Bad english can mostly be fixed. There are the occasional mysteries, yes. There are colloquialisms, yes. This does not justify wholesale destruction of good content. I was just here to get the link as I mentioned your proposal to one of my PNT colleagues; I need to go but I'll look at your proposal the next time I log in Elinruby (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The liquor was strong but the meat was rotten.

Translation wonks will recognize the (apocryphal) story behind the sentence above, concerning literal mistranslations exacerbated from there-and-back translation. (The story perhaps originated after the NY World's Fair of 1964, which had a computer translation exhibit in the Russian Pavilion.) In any case, I'm just getting up to speed on this topic and will comment in more detail later.

Briefly: yes, you definitely have to speak the language to copyedit accurately. I'm actually in favor of a modification to WP:MACHINETRANSLATION to make it stronger. I fully agree with the worse than nothing statement in the policy now, but I'd go one step further: the only thing worse than a machine translation in an encyclopedia, is a machine translation that has been copyedited by a capable and talented monolingual (even worse: by someone who knows a bit of the language and doesn't know what s/he doesn't know) so that the result is beautiful, grammatical, smooth, stylish, wonderful English prose. As a translator, puh-LEEZ leave the crappy, horrible, machine-gobbledygook so that a translator can spot it easily, and fix it accurately. Copyediting it into proper English makes our job much harder.

If it's too painful to leave it exposed in main space, perhaps moving to Draft space could be an alternative. In fact, rather than a mass-delete, why not a mass-Draft-ify? (Apologies if someone has already said this, I'm still reading the thread.) More later. Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

mass-Draftify would work for me. And yeah I disagree with you too a little, but I knew that. My point is, we all agree that an issue exists so what do we do? I also have some more reading to do before I comment on what S Marshall (talk · contribs) is proposing. I have a story about the policy but I want to make sure it pertains to this discussion. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Elinruby is certainly correct to say this "wasn't a fair test", because going through the algorithm twice doubles the error rate. But a lot of people reading this discussion will speak only English so this is the only way I can show them what the problem is ---- without that context, they may well find this, and the original discussion at WP:AN/CXT, rather impenetrable because they won't understand the gravity of the concerns.

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

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

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

@S Marshall: alright, I grant you that there aren't many bilinguals here. This *is* the problem in my view. I'll also specify that I don't claim expertise outside the Romance languages, and very little for some of those. But allow me please, since I know you speak or at least read French, to propose a better example. There are common translation errors that can occur, depending on which tool exactly was used. The improperly-translated name (nom propre) problem was real but is now mostly fixed. The fact that a writer whose novels were written in French gave them titles in French should come as a shock to nobody. The correct format for a bibliography in such cases *is* title in the actual language of the words in the book, webpage or whatever. Translated title, if the title is not in English, goes in the optional trans-title (or is it trans_title?) field of the cite template. Language switch to be set if at all possible. If it is not, let me know, and I can reduce the number of foreign words that English wikipedia needs to look at. So. In all languages, pretty much, words like fire and sky and take tend to be both native to the original people and likely to carry additional meanings, as in take an oath, take a bus, take a break etc. On the other hand what the software tool does do extremely well is know the correct translation for arcane or specialized terms, often loanwords, like caravel or apse or stronghold. These words are in my recognition vocabulary not my working vocabulary and using the tool in certain instances saves many lookups. When there is a strong degree of ambiguity or divergence in meaning (like the example on my user page) then THEN yes a fluent or very advanced user is needed. There are known divergences that a bilingual would spot that an English speaker would not. Sure. "Je l'aime beaucoup, mon mari" is a good example. But the fact that this is true does not prove that every line of every one of these articles still needs to be checked before they can be permitted to continue to sully Wikipedia, or that each of these lines needs to be checked by you personally. If you feel overwhelmed, take a break. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• I speak English, French, German, Gibberish and Filth.  :) Joking aside -- I'm not concerned about noms propres. I'm concerned when the script perverts or even inverts the meaning of the source text. It's quite hard to give you an example because the examples I've discovered have all been deleted, and there's only the one non-English language we share, but perhaps an administrator will confirm for you the sorry history of Daphné Bürki. It was created as a machine translation of fr:Daphné Bürki and the en.wiki version said she was married to Sylvain Quimène, citing this source. Check it out; the source doesn't say that. In fact she was married to Travis Bürki, at least at one time (can't say whether she's still married to him). We had a biographical article where the subject was married to the wrong bloke. It's not okay to keep these around.

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Almost two weeks of SILENCE sounds like "go for it". Primefac (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm still good with this as proposer, of course, but just to reiterate: we'd still need a two-week moratorium *after acceptance* of the proposal before nuking, to allow interested parties to vaccinate such articles as they chose to. I assumed that was clear, but that "go for it" got me a little scared, so thought I'd better raise it again.

On Tazerdadog's point, what is the procedure for deciding when to go forward with a proposal? Are we there now? Whatever the procedure is, and whenever we deem "acceptance" to happen, can someone close it at that point and box it up like I see on Rfcs, so we can then start the two-week, innoculation period timer ticking without having more opinions straggle in after it's already been decided? Or what's the right way to do this? Mathglot (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Request formal close, per Mathglot. Do I need to post on ANRFC?—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

X2-nuke interim period

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

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

A couple of questions:

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

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

• Let's make two lists, one of articles to delete and the other of articles to retain for the moment. I don't think that it will be necessary to formally request a bot. We have quite a few sysops who could clean them all out with or without scripted assistance.—S Marshall T/C 15:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  I would implement it as a giant sortable wikitable - Something that looks like this:

Name	Language	Vaccinated	Notes
Jimbo Wales	es	Tazerdadog (talk)	Translation checked
Earth	ar	--	Probably Notable
My mother's garage band	fr	--	X2'd, not notable

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

Isn't the current list easier to deal with than creating a new table, or two new ones? Can we just go based on strikeout type, or add some unambiguous token like, nuke=yes in the content of the items in the enumerated list that need to be deleted? I'm just trying to think what would be the least work to set up, and easiest to mark for those interested in vaccinating articles.

If we decide to go with a table, I might be able to use a fancy regex to create a table from the current bullet list. Although I definitely see why a table is easier to view and interpret once it's set up, I'm not (yet) persuaded that there's an advantage to setting one up in the first place. For one thing, it's harder to edit a table than a bullet list, because of the risk of screwing up cells or rows. Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The real advantage of the table is the ability to sort by language. This way, if we have a volunteer who speaks (for example) only English and Spanish, they can just sort the table by language, and all of the Spanish articles will be shown together. It's harder to edit, but in my opinion, the ease of viewing and extracting the information far outweighs this.

I have created a list that removes all struck items at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review/Tazerdadog cleanup list. I'm currently working on getting rid of the redlinks as well. Once that is done, we can move to a vaccination model on the articles that have not been cleaned up in the articles thus far. The vaccination can take virtually any form as long as everyone agrees on what it is - I'd recommend that we vaccinate at the central list/table rather than on the article however. Once the two weeks expire, it's trivial to extract the unvaccinated articles and poke a sysop for deletion. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: This was posted over at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review as well but wanted to mention it here. Timotheus Canens has created a language-sortable table in their sandbox at User:Timotheus Canens/sandbox that I think is similar to what you were thinking. Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And we may have to recreate the table, as I didn't notice it and have been continuing to mark language codes on the main list (and shall continue to do so, unless someone yells "Stop!"). Also, not sure how trivial it is: given a full set of instructions what to do, then, yes, it's trivial, but this is not formatted data (yet) and there are all sorts of questions a sysop might have, such as, what to do with ones marked "moved", or "redirected", and other situations I've come across while going through the list that don't spring to mind. We don't want to burden the sysop with an illy-defined task, so all of those situations should be spelled out before we ask them to take their time to do it, as if there are too many questions, they'll either give up, or they'll do whatever they feel like. Mathglot (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timotheus Canens: Tazerdadog (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And am still doing so on the main page, and so have at least six others since the message just above this one was written. Mathglot (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

X2 countdown and vaccinate indicators

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

People are already using strikeout type as the "vaccinate" flag so no additional method is needed though I see nothing wrong with using both, if someone has already started with the the other method. Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I have been placing substantive commentary on plenty of articles, with the intention of facilitating the work of the group as a whole, in order to aid people in deciding whether that article is worth their time to look at and evaluate. In my case at least, substantive commentary does not indicate a desire to save, and if you intend to use it that way in the general case, then you need to suggest another indication I can use as a "poison pill" indicator to ensure it is nuked despite the substantive commentary. Mathglot (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Strikeout works even better than my idea, as it is easier to write the regex for. I was figuring that substantive commentary at least deserved to be read before we nuked them, although unless a comment was actively positive on the article I would have sorted it as a delete. If you want every article you commented on to be deleted, I can use your signature as the poison pill. Otherwise, use what you want, just make sure it is clear what it is. Ideally, place it at the start of a line, so I don't have to think when writing the regex. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: If you need a tester, feel free to shoot me a pattern; I'm a bit of a regex wonk myself, plus I have a nice test app for it. Can't use my sig as poison pill, cuz often my commentary is unsigned cuz I did them 20 or 50 at a time, with the edit summary carefully explaining what was done, but no sig on the individual line items. Beyond that, quite a few have commentary by multiple people, so even if I did comment (and even sign) others may have, too. The only clear way to do this, afaics, is to have an unequivocal keep (or nuke) indicator (or more than one is okay, if you want to OR them) but anything judg-y like "substantive commentary" seems risky to me. In the latter case, we should just get everyone to review all their edits they forgot to strike, and strike them now, or forever hold their peace. In my own case, no matter how positive my comment, or how long, if there's no strike on the article title, it's a "nuke". It occurs to me we should poll everyone and get positive buy-in from all concerned that they understand the indicator system, to make sure everyone knows "strike" equals "keep" and anything else is nuke (or whatever we decide). It won't do to have 2,000 articles nuked, and then the day after, "Oh, but I thought..." Know what I mean?Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I think the solution is to draftify until everyone agrees that no mistakes have been made, then delete. I'm happy to do the grunt work of the manual checking of longer entries, and I don't think it is particularly risky to do so. However, the vast majority are short, and can and should be handed with a little regex script. We do need to make sure that the expectation of strikeout = delete instead of strikeout = resolved was clear to all parties. As for a deleteword, literally anything will do if it is unique and impossible to misinterpret. I would recommend "kill" as this deleteword, as it is clear what the meaning is, possible to write the regex for, and currently has only a couple of false hits in the page that can be worked around easily. Does this work for you?

The reasoning for checking longer entries is to try to catch entries like this:

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

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

@Tazerdadog: If by "draftify" you mean quarantine, i.e., staging/moving all the to-be-deleted files someplace prior to the hard delete, I totally agree. (Whether that should actually be the current Draft namespace is debatable, but might be the right solution.) As far as regexes, I count 738 <s> tags, 732 </s> tags, 587 keepers, and 2785 nukers as of May 7 ver. 779254187. Mathglot (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Ok, sounds good. By draftify, i meant "Move out of mainspace to a different namespace where the content is accessible for translators, but unlikely to be stumbled upon accidentally by someone who thins they are reading an actual encyclopedia article." it also should be noted that when any of these pages are deleted, it should be a WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. if someone asks for a small number to be restored after they have been deleted so that they can work on them they can just ask any admin to do so. I think that's all that needs to be resolved for now, so I'm going to go ahead and start the two week countdown until someone yells at me to stop. Pinging some participants: @S Marshall:@Elinruby:@Yngvadottir: Tazerdadog (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Per #deadline it's June 6. Your clarifications on "draftify" and the process all sound good, otherwise.
P.S. Note that one article matches /kill/i but none matches /\bkill\b/i. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, I was unaware of that discussion, thank you. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot and Tazerdog: so for purposes of making life easier I will strike what I think should be struck. At one point people were checking my work so I was rather tentative initially. I am following the regex discussion but haven't used it in a while so save me the trouble of looking this up -- did you conclude that "kill" would be useful, or not? Elinruby (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: If the title is strikeout type, it will be kept; if it isn't, it won't. Placing "Kill" on an article has no effect at nuke time, but it does have a beneficial effect now:, i.e., it saves time for others. It lets others know that you have looked at this one and found it wanting, so they should save their breath and not even bother looking at it. For example: You marked #18 Stevia_cultivation_in_Paraguay "really, really bad". That was enough for me not to bother looking at it, so you saved me time, there. If you want to place "kill" on the non-deserving items you pass by, that will help everybody else. I may do the same. But in the end, on Nuke day, the "kill" markings won't have any effect. Make sense? Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: yeah it does, thanks. And indeed I seem to be the most inclusionist in the discussion so if I think it's more work than it's worth I doubt that anyone else in the discussion would disagree. Elinruby (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Re-pinging@Tazerdadog: on Elinruby's behalf for confirmation. Due to the ping typo above, he may not have seen this, and it's really his call, not mine. Mathglot (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

assumption for User space items

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

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

rescuing clobbers by CXT

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

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

pseudocode to generate a list of possible CXT clobbers

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

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

• Why not just ask the deleting administrators to check the translation is the first revision before they push the button?—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be a shitton of work for the deleting admin. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

3.6 metric shit tonnes, to be exact. ;-) And thanks for the ping, Taz. Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

AND WHERE rev.date > @MIN_REV_DATE

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

@Mathglot: Unfortunately, I've never used MySQL before. I was hoping I could muddle through with some luck and googling, but I had no such luck. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: And I could totally do it if I had the file structure but I don't; but my strong hunch is that this is very easy, and needs one additional "WHERE" plus another query (probably the groupwise MIN thing) to grab the min value to exclude in the new WHERE. OTOH, if you have access to Quarry, shoot me your query by email if you want, and I'll fix it up, and you can take that and try again, and with several back-and-forths I bet we can get it. Or if you've got zip, I can try a few establishing queries for you to try, and then we can try to build the real one depending on the results you get from those. (Or, we can just wait for someone else to do it, if they will; it really should only take minutes.) Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog and S Marshall: I don't think this is getting enough attention, and your previous request appears to have stalled at V Pump. This is not good. We need to get this list. Is there someone you can lean on, or request help from, to kick-start this? Alternatively, if someone will give me access to Quarry, a MySQL account permitting SELECT and CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE (or even better, MEMORY table) and a pointer to the file structure descriptions, I can do this myself and create a list to protect these articles. Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

*Bump* Mathglot (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cryptic for db report 19060. We now have the list of clobbers, and can attend to it. Please see WP:CXT/PTR/Clobbers. Mathglot (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

It's not obvious from the discussion and the number of editors participating and the number of proposals made that it's a difficult and controversial topic? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

To me, closing the whole discussion is very difficult because of the controversy of the topic. However, I concentrated more on milieus and proposals. To be honest, I saw two milieus and one concrete proposal receiving support from the majority. I concentrated on the straw polls and arguments. How about this: close separate milieus and proposals separately? They aren't that difficult to separately close due to other milieus and proposals not likely to pass. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing each one separately probably makes more sense from a numbers perspective. However, it should still be one group of editors that does it, since there is the possibility (mentioned on the discussion) that some of the milieus could contradict each other depending on what gets passed. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Milieus 1, 2, and 5 are easy to close as the majority opposes them individually. Milieu 3 and concrete proposal 1 received majority support, so those would be also easy to close. But you're right; one same group of editors should do the individual closures. However, I won't be part of the closing group, so I'll await the uninvolved closers then. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be willing to be involved in a group closure on this. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I cast a !vote in the discussion which I had forgotten about - it would therefore be grossly inappropriate for me to participate in this closure Tazerdadog (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess this means we're putting the band back together ;) Primefac (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We still need one more volunteer for this. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll step up, if you like.—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

And... we're back down to 2. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

I suggest you just go ahead with however many closers you have now. I further suggest that the "milieux" were intended to get a "general view of the community" and were very vaguely worded, so that if all you can say is "there was no apparent consensus", then so be it. As far as concrete proposal 1, which I proposed, the 28-6 result seems to make the close obvious. You might as well just go ahead and close it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Primefac: thoughts? Nobody else is stepping up.—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh, let's just go for it. I think I've still got your email kicking about. I'll send you my thoughts hopefully in the next 24 hours. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll write mine independently over the same period, and we can see if we agree.  :)—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I've re-opened the RFC. Re-opening interest for other editors willing to work on a close. Primefac (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Take your time. ;) Meanwhile, what happened to closing separate, individual milieux and proposals? George Ho (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll go back to what I said 4 comment above. The milieux can be very difficult to close because of the wording. I thought the reverted close was a very good attempt to make sense out of M.3 in that it focused on what the consensus there actually agreed on, but that aroused a storm and nobody seems to be able to agree on what was actually agreed on. Concrete proposal 1, which I proposed, is very much the opposite and I think can be easily closed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll help close it, but I think the section below the actual RFC should be considered as well, since they're actively discussing the RFC and how to proceed. Maybe we should wait just a little while longer to see how that develops. Katie^talk 23:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. No point in cutting off productive discourse. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Fine by me, George Ho. It'll make the overall close a bit cleaner. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Closed milieu 1 and milieu 5. I closed milieu 2 as "no consensus", but I commented that another closer can summarize that better than me. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I changed my mind and briefly summarized milieu 2. --George Ho (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@George Ho:--I am willing to serve as a closer.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Godric, and I welcome that. I also need another or more closers for teamwork closure. --George Ho (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I created the subsection Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#How to best close this discussion? for team closers to discuss preparing the closure. --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mass creation of improperly referenced BLPs by User:SwisterTwister

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

Ouch, you're not exaggerating with "mass creation". Yes, on a dip-sample none of these appear to be adequately referenced for BLPs—I'd agree that at minimum the autopatrolled bit needs to be removed, and consideration needs to be given to a mass deletion unless he's willing to undertake to fix them. ‑ Iridescent 21:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A relatively minor issue compared to the above, but a quick sample found many stub-ish articles without a stub tag. That seems like something that an experienced user should be including by default, especially where volume is involved and they are autopatrolled. It seems like an imbalance between quantity and quality. Also not assigned to any WikiProjects, which reduces the visibility and chances of the right people fleshing them out. Murph9000 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The first one I looked at was John Joannapoulos and the man's name is spelled incorrectly. It's John Joannopoulos according to the sources. Capeo (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've moved the page to correct the error, and left a redirect (as it's a plausible misspelling of the name). Waggie (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

SwisterTwister appears to be creating articles for Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which would meet WP:NACADEMIC#3. They are citing the AAAS fellowship listing, which is admittedly really sparse. According to WP:PRIMARY: ...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care. I think the AAAS fellowship listings would be considered a "...primary source...reputably published". Academics are notoriously difficult to source to popular secondary sources, after all. I think if I saw, say, John Markley come up at AfD, I would argue for keeping on that basis or, failing that, merging to Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NACADEMIC #3 says fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (my emphasis). I'm not in the least convinced that's the case here; looking at the list on their website and sorting it by "year elected", they dished out 377 of the things in 2016 alone. ‑ Iridescent 22:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

In a country as big as the U.S, its perfectly plausible for 377 to still be a selective group. Percentages are more important. For example, the NFL Draft just concluded selected 253 players from the 73,660 that play NCAA football[2] but I don't think anyone would challenge the notion that the NFL is highly selective within the world of American football. In sciences, according to the Congressional Research Service, in 2014 there were 6.2 million working scientists and engineers in the US.[3]. Even assuming half of those are engineers and not eligible, that's still a pretty selective group. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is being looked at, but the list linked appears to only have a total of 329 elected fellows for all years [4]? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I find it weird that not only does no-one say anything earlier but that something is said AFTER I added him back to AfC as there was no consensus to remove him... I feel like theres something more going on not related to ST, I have IRC logs of people, whom for now will be unnamed, not only disrespecting ST but criticizing him. If all parties approve I will release the logs. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

What exactly are you insinuating here? If you're trying to claim that Huon and I are part of some IRC conspiracy, you're seriously barking up the wrong tree; if you're complaining that someone's criticising ST, so what? If he's done something that warrants criticism, he should be criticised, as is the case for every other editor. ‑ Iridescent 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I thought the TOS for IRC said logging sessions wasn't kosher? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• There is no TOS for IRC. Some networks have them but in regards to logging it is public logging that is not kosher. Almost everyone that frequents IRC has private logs that they take to refer back to. Publishing those without explicit consent from all parties involved is grounds for a ban from all related channels though. --Majora (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm only saying that, when I added ST to afc reviewers after Primefac removed him, was this brought up, all in the same exact few days, I mean I'm a little crazy, but I'm surely not the only one that could see these events being connected... in other words... I think DR is in order rather than AN. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zppix: No, you've threatened blackmailing Wikipedians based on what they said in IRC. Perhaps you might be leaving Wikipedia, too? Chris Troutman (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Chris troutman, if they didnt want the possiblity of me using those logs against them, then they should of done that in private, not to mention your threating me now. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"I have IRC logs of people, whom for now will be unnamed, [...] If all parties approve I will release the logs." - it will be difficult for the parties to approve if they don't know they're a party. Anyway, I tried to discuss the issue on SwisterTwister's talk page; they removed the thread. That was about 200 improperly referenced BLPs ago. This doesn't need dispute resolution, this needs SwisterTwister to stop creating inappropriately sourced articles. Huon (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say that you were in a better position before you decided to say; if they didnt want the possibility of me using the logs against them. So you're admitting to considering blackmail here? Article on blackmail; Essentially, it is coercion involving threats to reveal substantially true or false information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates, or threats of physical harm or criminal prosecution and WP:BLACKMAIL; Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Chris, they originally said they would reveal the chat logs if all parties approve. That would indicate, to me at least, that blackmail is not on the cards here. I'm now entirely lost on whether Zppix actually intends to coerce the other parties, "expose" them without consent or request their consent to reveal logs. I'd like a definitive statement on intent here. Do you intend to release these logs regardless of whether you receive consent? or only if you have the consent of the other party(ies)? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Zppix: WP:TINC might be worth a read for you. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This is about on-wiki behavior, we can all see what the articles look like, so the vague insinuations of IRC conspiracies strike me as entirely missing the point. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• I am in support of removal of the autopatrolled right. There are simply too many potentially problematic stubs for me to be comfortable with him mass-creating without someone checking his work (in addition to the issues mentioned above, a random spot-check showed about 75% of them are orphans). I'm not sure we need to go to S.v.G. levels of article nuking, but I wouldn't be opposed if someone were to put it up for debate. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm surprised to see SwisterTwister do this, because he's a stickler for good sourcing at AfC. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • And had issues in the past at AfD with leaving generic "delete" comments...does seem to be a 180 in philosophy but I'm sure there's a reason for it. ansh666 01:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Primefac removed SwisterTwister as an AfC participant on 15:02, 4 May, [5] because of concerns about copyvios not being spotted, and ST began creating the stubs at 21:28, 4 May. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Would it be beneficial to take a route similar to the handling of SvG's articles? Meaning, all the ST articles with BLP violations are placed in a draft space for the time being to allow editors an opportunity to clean them up or delete them after a pre-determined deadline. I must add I am surprised this issue originates from an editor like ST.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• I haven't followed past SwisterTwister-related issues, but I'm surprised to see this from an experienced editor. On the one hand, most if not all of these people would pass WP:PROF, and it's not unusual for academic articles to rely on limited and non-independent sources for basic biographical and career information. We're not going to suspect that the University of Pittsburgh is lying when they say that Rocky Tuan is on their faculty. The main problem with these articles isn't so much that they fall short of some WP:ALLCAPS, it's that they're useless. These days, a good rule of thumb on whether or not to create a new article is "will this article be a better resource for readers than what's already at the top of the google search results?" None of these articles actually serve that purpose; they just regurgitate a small amount of already-easily-available information. That doesn't serve any purpose other than playing high-score games, and in fact it might make it less likely that these people will get proper articles written about them in the future. While one-line articles listing people's faculty positions are unlikely to contain overt BLP violations - at least, I haven't found any on spot-checking - some of these are so devoid of content that their emptiness itself feels like a BLP issue. Given that this type of mass stub creation has recurred a few times with different editors, it may be that we need more effective guidance on creating a new BLP. (I might be willing to just make it simple and say that a BLP should never be a stub.) For the time being, I'd be in favor of draftifying or deleting any that haven't been substantially edited by others. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• This is utterly absurd. Every individual Fellow of the AAAS , the ACS or the APS is notable, as is every member of the National Academy of Sciences , as is every person holding a distinguished professorship at a major research university. The relevant guideline is not WP:GNG, but WP:PROF. I note a comment above doubting this for the AAAS, burt I cannot recall a single case where this has been successfully challenged at AfD. (The only example mentioned above is someone who is not just in the AAAS, but holds a distinguished professorship at Wisconsin.) Furthermore the society membership can best be understood as a shorthand to simplify discussion, because I cannot imagine a case where the would not have met the really key part of the WP:PROF guideline, being a major influence in their field, as shown by book reviews or citations. Unlike the sometimes confusing status of the other special notability guidelines, WP:PROF is explicitly an alternative--it is enough to meet it without having to pay any attention at all to the GNG.

All that is necessary is to prove they are indeed Fellows, etc. Ideally this should be from the organization's announcements of lists. But the person's official CV is also acceptable, as is an official university page. Out of the 5 or 10 thousand academic bios I've looked at here, I recall just one where the official CV was challenged, and was in fact making a claim, (to a doctorate) that could not be demonstrated. (I spent a day of checking all possible sources for it under any likely error in name or year or university before coming to that conclusion, because it was so extraordinary). Other sources are a little more dubious, because newspapers and publishers and conference organizers sometimes get things a little bit wrong. (I've just commented at a bio talk p. about one such a bio that was a little oversimplified to the point of making an incorrect implication).

I've looks at a few of these articles. I have not found one yet that would not have 100% success rate at AfD. The cited description of above that is called promotionalism, is in fact the exact quotation from the award from a professional society--most such academic field descriptions that might sound like puffery are. Yes, it should have been sourced more explicitly, but the source was in the reference list. (I normally remove a few adjectives from such statements, since they do tend to be a little flowery.)

I am going to check the entire list tomorrow. If there is any I think actually inadequate, I'll deal with it. For everything else, I will defend any prof article that I think meets WP:PROF as strongly as I can, just the same as I always do .

It sometimes has been regarded as inappropriate here to mass produce stubs of this sort without a fuller description & better sourcing. Personally, I do not myself think it wrong. I even would urge doing this here and in similar cases--people have done it, for example, for Olympic athletes, or winners of major prizes, or those holding positions in legislatures. All of those were good things to do, and so is this. In fact, I have planned to do just this myself, probably starting with the National Academy of Science list all the way back to the beginning and going on from there. Not really having the time, I've instead just urged other people to do this. Now, seeing this challenge here makes it very much more likely that I will take the time out from dealing with paid editors and do just that. It is not prohibited to create stubs--the argument for them is that other people can then build on them, and are more likely to do so when they find an article has already been started. We have sometimes reverted such additions--but only in cases where it could be shown that the method or sourcing was actually wrong , such as geographic stubs taken incorrectly from a census in a language the contributor could not read. Otherwise, attempts to make a speedy criterion for stubs have been overwhelmingly rejected several times.

I do agree that doing these in this large a number can be imprudent, especially for editors who realize that some other editors are not all that happy with some of their other work. I very strongly urge Swistertwister to immediately start filling them in. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

PROF is not the only issue. The pages I looked at were WP:PRIMARY violations because they relied entirely on primary sources. Policies apart, the question is whether these pages are useful for readers. The micro-stubs aren't. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I must be missing something. Neither WP:PRIMARY nor WP:BLPPRIMARY says that. Certain primary sources, e.g., trial transcripts, are indeed against policy but a distinguished society's own list of fellows or a university's designation of a distinguished professorship are nowhere prohibited that I can see. These policies say, "use caution," and verifying such facts against authoritative sources seems very cautious. Do we really think the AAAS or (for example) University of Wisconsin can't verify these facts? I also fail to find any policy that says BLP with only primary sources is not permitted. WP:BLP says that the non-negotiables are NPOV, verifiability, and NOR. These seem to have those qualities and notability under previously-agreed standards. Is "no primary-source stubs" enshrined in policy somewhere hidden? Am I being obtuse about this? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn, WP:PRIMARY, which is policy: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

I only looked at a few of the micro-stubs, but they were based only on primary sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, @SlimVirgin:, WP:PRIMARY also says:...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia.... Again, is there anything to suggest that these universities and the AAAS not reputable publishers? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources can be excellent sources, but articles should be based on secondary sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn, you're not really missing anything other than that "primary" sources are likely to be more common in academic biographies and less so in most other biographical topic areas. It doesn't make sense to object that these articles about AAAS fellows source that claim to the list of AAAS fellows published by the AAAS. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis:, thank you. I think that was my point. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The point of the policy is to avoid articles like this, where we have no way of judging how notable the person is. That's why we need secondary sources. Another consideration is that not everyone wants a BLP. Creating borderline-notable BLPs on people who may never have sought attention from secondary sources is problematic. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

DGG, I thought that at first too. What's going on here, people are dragging someone to the stocks for not using stub tags? But defending them on the grounds that the topics are notable overlooks the sheer uselessness of the articles, which displace more substantive resources in search results and are so sparse that they do a disservice to their subjects. I have no doubt these were created as a good-faith de-redlinking effort - as were the masses of stubs about athletes before this, and the masses of stubs about villages before that, and the masses of stubs about beetles, and the masses of stubs about algae, etc. I think it's been pretty well established by this point that indiscriminate stub creation from a list of redlinks without adding any substance to the articles is not a good way of growing the encyclopedia. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think they are useful. At least, they are useful to people l who are much more likely to expand an article than to write one. Reasons why people do this differ: For me, I check thousands of articles, and I try to fix or add something about anything that I look at. They are useful to students and beginners, who may not know how to start an article and not want to figure out, but they know enough to add information, especially with the visual editor. They are very useful at Editathons. At least in NYC we generally advise people to start by expanding an existing article. in order to gain confidence. The number of editors who add material is much greater than those who write new ones,, and we need both . They are even useful to readers, who may see a vague reference to some academic in a press release , because they'll at least see the basics. WP grows. Almost all articles were stubs in the beginning. Any stub article on an academic is expandable. If we can find a cv we can add the full biographical data and positions and significant honors. Even if we can't we can add their most cited articles, and their books. We can go further add reviews of their books. We can say what the most important articles actually did. We can check for notable students. As I said, I am myself going to follow my own advice, and do a hundred or so brief stubs. Challenge my user rights if you care to. DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And this reflects the fact that, despite their importance and contributions to knowledge, academics and scientists just do not get anywhere close to detailed coverage compared to sports, and hence, while arguably being honored by these societies is one of the highest honors in academics, does not presume notability can be met (that is, it seems very doubtful that NACADEMICS#3 is really appropriate here). We've had to stop editors in past mass creating one-line BLPs on athletes, this is no different here. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If WP:PROF makes every AAAS fellow notable then it needs some overhauling in my view. I just went through a bunch of these stubs and couldn't find a single one that could be more than the single sentence they currently are due to there being no other sources out there other than these people's papers. In essence that equates to thousands of articles that will never be more than, "So and so is a professor at this school who researches this, this and that and became an AAAS fellow in (fill in the year)." What's the point of that?Capeo (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• It is with deep regret that I also must support removal of autopatrolled rights from SwisterTwister. Mass creation of poorly sourced articles is most certainly detrimental to the encyclopedia, especially when not adding those articles to the appropriate WikiProjects, or adding to stub categories. Indeed, SwisterTwister's continued lack of tangible response to criticism on his talk page is extremely disconcerting. I also attempted to work with ST regarding one of these articles that he removed the CSD tag from one of them, they simply refused to respond other than leaving an edit summary that there was no violation of guidelines. Frankly, I'm surprised that they would consider all this acceptable, while still declining articles at AfC with no better reason that "Not satisfying the applied notability standards.". Also, while this thread isn't about SwisterTwister's behavior at AfC, Zppix complains about the removal of ST from AfC and of some great IRC cabal conspiracy while citing logs he claims to have as evidence. ST was removed from AfC for allowing numerous copyvios to pass through un-checked by an administrator and continuing to do so after being alerted to the problem. There is a discussion on the topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants#Removal_of_SwisterTwister if anyone wishes to review it. I've tried to help SwisterTwister in the past, and even defended them more than once here at ANI desperately trying to get them to just slow down a bit, but to no avail. There is no great conspiracy. ST's lack of due diligence is affecting people across the project in many ways and now it's finally coming to a head - it was bound to happen eventually. I'm very sad to see it happen, and I tried to prevent it, even spending hours on IRC trying to work with them on improvement but with obviously few results. Waggie (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• If ST is going to mass create stubs, he should at least tag them appropriately. I've just spent 3 and a half hours going through them adding stub and {{WikiProject Biography}} tags, and there are still umpteen more to do! Adam9007 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• I support removal of the right. I don't see autopatrolled as a right we give to people who have "done nothing wrong" while creating articles. I see it as a right we give to people whose articles are good enough that patrolling would not improve them further. In this case, these articles could be improved through normal patrolling with the addition of stub and WikiProject tags, so autopatrolled should probably be removed to let the patrollers help out. In other words, I don't think the question of whether SwisterTwister's articles violate policy is the only question relevant to whether he should have autopatrolled. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, please remove the right, and inform them that adding meaningless sentences like "His most cited papers are 324, 322 and 244."[6] or "His most cited papers are 650 and 463 and was especially most cited in 2016."[7] only make the articles worse, not better. I see above that there have been copyvio concerns: looking at Christopher D'Elia, I see "nutrient dynamics in aquatic systems, estuarine ecology, coral reef ecology, algal/invertebrate symbiosisp, science history and policy, math and science education, marine pollution, global climate change and analytical chemistry" where the source[8] has "Nutrient dynamics in aquatic systems; estuarine ecology; coral reef ecology; algal/invertebrate symbiosisp; science history and policy; math and science education; marine pollution; global climate change; analytical chemistry." including the same "symbiosisp" typo. Fram (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The speed of creation: n-n-n-nineteen all at 06:12 and another nineteen at 06:13?!? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Fram, what's missing there is just a link to those heavily-cited articles. Citation figures like that are meaningful though they can need interpretation, and if they are that high go very far to proving notability . I always add them to any article I write about a contemporary scientist. I've advised people to add them wen they ask me how to write about an academic in the sciences, and I have some standing information to that effect on my talk p. that I ought to convert to an essay. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No, DGG, what's missing there is readable English. "[...]and was especially most cited in 2016." won't be saved by just adding a link, such "sentences" need a complete rewrite, and someone who adds these meaningless lines to his stubs in response to the ANI discussion here (instead of contributing here or making high-value improvements) gives every indication of being an editor who needs a close watch. Fram (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Which explains why even in such short articles they get the facts wrong, like at Barbara Fried (who is not the "Marc and Eva Stern Professor of Law and Business at Columbia Law School"). Fram (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wasnt SwisterTwister restricted recently in some way regarding deletions? Or was it another of the threads that went nowhere - the archives are full of so many SwisterTwister threads and our search is so crap its difficult to pin down one event. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fram and Only in death: It's worrying, definitely. Actually that's putting it mildly in the context of this conversation. ST has previously been discussed here (deletion activities), here (AfD again), here(reviewing), and here (alleged aspersions). Nil consensium. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed ST's autopatrolled rights per the above discussion. Autopatrolled is a right which should be given to those users whose articles require no further immediate checks by other users, including - but not limited to - copyright violations and tagging. Since ST's articles have had to be tagged with WikiProjects and stub tags, cleared of some copyright violations, and multiple users have raised concern about their quality, it is clear that further oversight of ST's articles by new page patrollers would be beneficial to the project. Sam Walton (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• The claim that the AAAS elected fellow page is primary as to the professor is just not accurate. The AAAS is not the professor, and it provides "independent" "evaluation" of the professor, all of which makes it WP:SECONDARY as to the professor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• The AAAS is a primary source on who is an AAAS member. If the AAAS was being used as a reference for the content of the *work* of one of its members, it would most likely be secondary, however as it has an inherant conflict of interest in the promotion of AAAS members it would fail to qualify as an indicator of notability. Secondary sources are not required to be independant of the subject, sources to demonstrate notability are. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No. The professor's work is independently evaluated by the AAAS to make them an elected fellow. And the elected fellow is elected by other scientists based on the independent criteria. That makes them secondary as to the professor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Still no. AAAS are a primary source on who is an AAAS member. As all organisations are on their own members/fellows. This is the context in which ST has been creating stubs 'Is a member of AAAS - source AAAS'. Their evaluation of his work would be secondary, but that is not what is actually under discussion. It would still also not be independant for the purposes of notability because they are reviewing his work in the specific context of him becoming a member/fellow of their society. Primary or secondary do not come into it. To demonstrate that mere membership/elected fellow of the AAAS is inherantly notable, you have to demonstrate that they as an organisation pass NPROF 3. NAS elects less than 100 a year, the Royal Society 50ish. In 2016 AAAS added closer to 400. If we are using the examples in NPROF, thats a very big difference in numbers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That's called goal-post moving since you now claim primary/secondary does not matter, and I am addressing primary/secondary. Mere membership is not the evidence I said my OP is about, the evidence is elected fellow. As for whether the process of AAAS elected fellow is NPROF3 worthy enough, that's best dealt with at AfD (or in an RfC), since DGG has already argued it is. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no goalpost moving. The evidence of elected fellow is their membership of the AAAS, sourced to the AAAS. That is a primary source. Used correctly for how a primary source should be used. If you cant understand that basic fact about primary/secondary then there is no point continuing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Elected Fellow is not mere membership in the AAAS. Elected Fellow is an independent process of evaluation of the professor's work by other scientists. The plain words of wp:secondary for AAAS fellow are met -- while it's true that secondary does not have to be "independent", and what matters for secondary is that it is evaluation of the subject by the author, here the author is the AAAS making an "evaluation", and the subject is a professor, and here it's an independent judgement, too. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That's synthesis, though, because the links provided in these articles don't contain any of that evaluation, they merely say that someone is a member. For a proper secondary source I'd expect some review of their work and/or the reason why they were elected a member. I'm not saying they're not notable, incidentally, simply that currently there aren't any useful secondary sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not. No one on Wikipedia is making up anything about the professor being elected. And a claim of not knowing what of the word, elected, means is no basis for a claim of original research. The why and the how of elected at the AAAS is explicitly wp:verifiable in black and white. They have told you why and how they elected him [[9]]. No one on Wikipedia is inventing or making anything up -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we can verify the process by which they are elected, but AAAS does not publish much of the justification of why academic A was selected over Academic B, just that Academic A was selected as a Fellow. That gives us no secondary information to work with. Contrast that to what the Nobel Prize committee does, usually providing a great deal of rationale of why the selected awardees were picked and the importance of their research/contributions to humanity (eg what is linked too off this page [10]). If the AAAS provided something even close to these lines, that might be something, but they do not give any reasoning, just that their selected Fellows were from the output of their process. They clearly did some critical analysis but their lack of publication of this analysis means we can't use them as a secondary source. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Your comment just admitted while trying to not admit it there is information there ("not publish much" you argue). Whatever you claim is peculiarly enough for you is irrelevant. They have said why, with adjectives and everything which in ordinary plain English mark him out above others by the judgment of scientists, not himself, but by the judgement of other scientists in several rounds reviewing primary sources they tell you about - secondary in every way. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at [11] and subsequently linked pages and I see no secondary information about these people. Secondary information involves transformation of primary and other sources (evaluation, critical analysis, synthesis, etc.), and a catchall statement of how fellow are elected by the AAAS fails this test. If they told us a summary of those rounds of elections unique to each person, then yes, there is something, but AAAS membership is a primary source and does not contribute to notability, given the limited information they provide about each. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I linked above, [12] and your talking about mere membership just means you are ignoring what has been stated multiple times, we are not talking about mere membership. That you claim to not be able see the superlatives and the adjectives of evaluation just means your not reading the source. That you claim to not be able to see the list of primary documents upon which the evaluation is made just means you are not reading the source. As to the professor, that is secondary in every way. 14:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I read that, it explains very well how they are selected. That's great. But because they do not publish any of the specifics for how a random Fellow is brought to nomination and elected is the problem. From the encyclopedic side, it gives us zero information we can use to expand the article beyond "they are an AAAS Fellow", and as this discussion has shown, being an AAAS fellow is certainly not a guarantee that secondary sources for that person can be found. Again, contrast that to what the Nobel committee posts about all their winners, a high-level but reasonably deep explanation of why the recipients' contribution was important to human development. For something like AAAS Fellowships, I wouldn't expect that much coverage, but I would expect at least a paragraph for each Fellow that explains why their work is important. Secondary sources are based on transformation of information, not relationship (that's captured by the independent-vs-dependent axis) and that is completely lacking here. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, to be brutally honest, having been a member of similar professional societies, the "AAAS Fellow" feels more like a rite of passage and/or a tenure after you've spent 4 years in the organization; there is nothing in the way that every 4+ year serving member of AAAS could become a Fellow (which of course would clearly make it a non-unique achievement and thus far unsuitable for notability). In contrast, the IEEE Fellow sets a specific limit [13] "The total number selected in any one year does not exceed one-tenth of one percent of the total voting Institute membership.". (And to add, at least the IEEE has a sentence or two for each Fellow as to why they were named such [14]). The way the AAAS is set up is the nature of how these professional societies work. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Understood that some want to make the fellowship not PROF, but you do that in an RfC, and don't use the intellectually dishonest game of saying it is not secondary as to the professor, because such a claim is absurd. The adjectives of evaluation "distinguished" "meritorious", etc. etc. by the scientists are there, and the primary sources for their evaluation, the professor's articles, recommendations, etc, etc. are listed. Secondary all the way round. (What I would want to do with bio stubs is make lists, if anything, but I am not going to make up silly claims that that website and organization is as if it is a personal blog, and it does not say what it says). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, based on past problems of the years from other editors in mass article creation, we should have had consensus confirmation that AAAS Fellowship merited inclusion by PROF #3 before the mass creation was run. It would be completely appropriate to do a mass creation on IEEE Fellows - it is specifically called out in PROF #3, but AAAS doesn't appear to have been evaluated by consensus, putting the onus on ST to have checked that before creation. Clearly, now, there is probably a need for an RFC to clarified PROF #3, but this should have been done before the point of mass creation and now we have to deal with cleanup.

Separately, a catchall description of the Fellowship using vague words like "distinguished" and "meritorious", which are being applying to 300+ people per year, doesn't sound at all like a secondary source. I stress the need for a unique reason why these people were selected as AAAS Fellows, and from the general process for AAAS fellowship, at some stage, that reasoning had had to be made internally to the AAAS, but it is not published to the outside world. We cannot verify the exact reasons, and even though we could like access the CV and article lists does not allow us to make the original research-leap of logic of why the AAAS selected them. So no, we don't have any secondary information about the Fellows strictly off being named an AAAS Fellow. It's not an attempt to be dishonest, it is practically speaking that the reasons that would attribute to being a secondary source of information are not published and can't be verified. We can speak to the fellowship being given in context of a much broader biograph, it's not a bad primary source, but it has no weight to be a sufficient secondary source due to lack of publication of reasoning. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

More absurdity, we are not here to see if the work of sources is reproducible, like you wish to do with the AAAS. We are not leaping anywhere -- they have expressly told you why and how they elected him. Your job as an editor here is not to make your own original research to see if you can reproduce the AAAS judgement and argue they got it wrong or right and should not have done what they did in finding him distinguished, meritorious, etc. etc. It is their clear secondary judgement. That your logic is indefensible and dishonest on the point of secondary sourcing is patent -- if they would have written more you argue, your argument would consider it secondary, but because they did not write more, your argument wishes to pretend it's primary - none of that has anything to do with primary or secondary, it is secondary as judgement by others, not because of how voluable they are. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it is secondary, but the lack of rational makes it a very useless secondary statement for purposes of meeting the GNG and building an encyclopedic article. They have told us how they elect Fellows, and by obvious logic, how random Fellow A was elected, but they have not told us why random Fellow A was elected. Yes, the "how" gives us qualities they look for, but these are very broad, vague terms, and effectively leads to a empty, fluffy statement from an encyclopedic view: "Prof. John Q Smith was elected an AAAS Fellow for his distinguished and meritorious work." Maybe it is secondary, but it certainly does not satisfy the "significant coverage" that secondary sources are supposed to provide for meeting the GNG (and further, it is technically neither independent, since the Fellow must have already been a member of AAAS). Note that this is not casting doubt at the judgment of AAAS, but that because they don't give us any more to work with, just being noted as an elected Fellow of AAAS is not qualified enough to meet the GNG. (The question of NPROF #3 remains, but as noted, at that point we can use primary sources. But from what others have shown, there doesn't seem to be a good correlation between being an AAAS Fellow and having a deal of other secondary sources written about that person, making whether NPROF #3 really applies here in question). --MASEM (t) 16:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I plan on releasing the logs if needed AFTER I personally get consent from the parties involved, I never had an intent to blackmail anyone, I only intend for the correct thing to be done, however if anything should be done is that, ST would have to go to those creations and tag them properly, I really don't see the point of removing a right when they could just fix it themselves... not to mention, WP:SOFIXIT exists. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 12:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC) I moved this from the new subsection below because it belongs up here. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Zppix, WP:SOFIXIT was not intended for mass-creation of stubs of dubious encyclopedic value. Are we supposed to follow SwisterTwister around the project and clean up after him instead of insisting he actually improve or doing constructive editing ourselves? As someone else pointed out, nineteen a minute! That's a full time job just going around and performing the basic due diligence that is expected of an experienced editor. Truly, removing auto-patrolled is really the bare minimum we need to do here, as he is clearly not getting the message that haste is not appropriate. Almost all of these AN and ANI threads regarding him all boil down to him being overly hasty and completely disregarding others when they ask him to slow down and collaborate effectively. People are airing serious and long-term grievances here, and for you to tell them "fix it yourselves" is quite a slap in the face to them. As I've mentioned above, I like ST, and have defended in quite strongly in the past and even tried desperately to help him improve, but feel like it's resulted in nothing tangible. I'm just not sure what else to do for him at this point. Waggie (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

With reference to O Fortuna's comment above, SwisterTwister has repeatedly been discussed at admin noticeboards for their editing over the years. The area changes - AFC, AfD, NPP, now article creations - but the pattern is the same: editing far too quickly and with too little care. Each time they just escaped a consensus to restrict their editing, though Primefac removed them from being an AFC reviewer this month. I don't know if this is a problem of competence or temperament, but SwisterTwister does not seem to be well-suited to being a constructive Wikipedian. I can think of restrictions that may help: 1. SwisterTwister will not create articles without reliable secondary sources; 2. SwisterTwister will not make more than one edit a minute; 3. SwisterTwister will follow WP:BEFORE in all areas related to deletion. Fences&Windows 13:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I've disagreed with Swister several times, but I strongly believe he's a constructive Wikipedian. Given that in the past he's been far too rigid (my opinion) in his notability interpretations and sourcing requirements, is it possible he's attempting to gain some empathy for the editors whose articles he is patrolling? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• I looked at a couple, and they are copied word for word from the one web site. Shouldn't there be quotes or a cc license included? --2601:648:8503:4467:31C4:7809:BB3F:FBC0 (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  If that's the case, then those pages need to be nominated for G12 speedy deletion. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• It seems there's a lot of discussion here about AAAS and whether it is primary or secondary, and whether it's a reliable source in either category. That would actually seem to be a discussion for RSN, not here. I propose moving that aspect of this discussion to there, as the problem would affect other articles as well, and we should make sure that the same standards apply to all articles, not just the mass-creations by ST. It is important that the same rules apply to everyone. Waggie (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• I recognize a lot of these discussions were had last week, but I thought I'd throw in some stuff too. I asked SwisterTwister about these articles independently when I came across them through maintenance work, and I had gotten a response. His response stated that "there are plans to enlarge these... Starting at least a basic page was simply an initial step.". In my personal opinion, I worry about him getting in over his head with this, abandoning this project, and leaving all of these unfinished, barely-notable articles for the rest of Wikipedia to deal with. (Wikipedia, of course, is all about expansion and eventual progress, but with over 1000 articles in less than a month, that's a bit absurd to be able to keep up with reasonably.) JaykeBird (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary split regarding general mass/quick creation

• Circling back to Opibina's point is there a guideline that can be created on mass/quick stub bio creation? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, though it should probably just read "don't do it". Primefac (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  OK. I note for example there is this stub-article Edwin Ross Williams, which was not part of this editor's mass creation, but according to the history was created because he is an APS fellow, so it seems we do need to target by guideline mass/quick creation, if we both allow Edwin Ross Williams and the like but want to not have mass/quick creation. Unless Opibina or others think they can get get a non-stub rule. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  While there are undoubtedly similar articles to the ones we're discussing, I think the issue with mass-creation is that it's harder to patrol. 19 articles per minute being created? That's just nuts. It implies that there is zero thought actually being given to the pages being created. This is what brings it back into SvG territory - that many creations can't easily be checked for accuracy, and as mentioned above there are a few ST creations that have factual errors. The autopatrolled made things worse, but even then the speed and volume would still make patrolling rather difficult. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Wikipedia as a whole would better off if we got a firm handle on mass stub creation. I've seen this many times by many editors over the years. In reality, stubs that are one or two sentences provide no substantive information to the reader. Mass stub creation like this serves no purpose but to create more work for oversight like this. Wish someone would come up with a definitive policy to ban mass stub creation. — Maile (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Perhaps a sentence at WP:STUB creating stubs section would do for a beginning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  I'd like to see something about this added to the BLP policy. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  Even I wouldn't propose an outright ban on mass stub creation, though it would probably be reasonable to say that one should get consensus (or at least absence of serious objections) before starting the work, and ideally provide samples of articles created using your intended process and data sources before scaling up. I think Sarah has the right idea in suggesting that any new guidance should focus on BLP stubs. I can imagine cases where they're created from a well-curated and thorough data source and therefore are OK, but in most real examples there have been too many problems that leave carelessly written and error-laden articles in mainspace where they will be unlikely to attract further editing in a timely manner. While it could use some fleshing out, I think this is actually already implicit in the text of the BLP policy: The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• WP:MASSCREATION? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is the problem. Every member of National Academy of Sciences is indeed a notable person per WP requirements. However, the membership in American Association for the Advancement of Science is something very different. It includes 120,000 members, and almost any productive scientist can become a member. I think creating thousands pages about people who where not even mentioned in any secondary RS was a really bad idea. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Membership in AAAS is very different from being a Fellow of the AAAS (which, confusingly, is again different from AAAS Fellowships) I see no arguments above that AAAS members are notable, only that AAAS Fellows are. Here is a description of the process for becoming a Fellow, and the honor is selective and peer-reviewed, exactly what our notability standards ask for. They are a significantly limited selection of AAAS members, for starters. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I see. But I checked a few these pages, and they only included information about person X being a scientist in the field Y. That was sourced only to their University or Society pages. These are actually self-published materials. I do not think anyone should create BLP pages sourced only to self-published materials and publications by the person on the subject of his/her scientific research (i.e. primary sources). My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal regarding page deletions

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

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

Support

1. As proposer. While I don't particularly like the idea of nuking articles, when people's names are spelled wrong and their job title isn't even accurate, we have BLP issues to think about. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
2. I concur, these should be moved to Draftspace for more careful review, as there's simply too many issues with them to leave them in mainspace. Waggie (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Edit: I support, but would like each to have the usual 6 months in draftspace providing there isn't blpvio or copyvio issues. Waggie (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Obviously, since I proposed this earlier, I support this method. Unfortunately, there is too many concerns to be addressed but on the bright side the encyclopedia will not be too affected if most of these articles are just one or sentences long.
   Also, why hasn't ST come here to respond to this discussion? Does he not care about the outcome?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
4. That's a good idea. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
5. Indeed. I've looked at a more since I found the name spelled wrong and there seems to be some issues of extremely close paraphrasing in some instances. I also found issues where the person's areas of research were described incorrectly or incompletely. Many list specific areas of research that are so exact that they are meaningless without the broader context of the field the person researches in. This context is usually provided in the sources already there. Capeo (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
6. Support 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
7. I agree. Leaving aside issues of notability or verifiability, in the 200 or so I've looked at I've found too many errors of the kind I fix in copy editing and cleanup work. While ST fixed the ones I mentioned on his talk page, more remain. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
8. Support. This allows for them to be checked and possibly salvaged, which is what the draft space is for. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
9. Support. I noticed one of these via a new maths pages lists and considered prodding it myself, as lacking both proper sources and any indication why they were notable. But on such a scale dealing with them manually would be impractical, creating work for everyone. Better to mass nuke them, keeping only the ones that other editors are able to find proper sources that establish notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
10. Support for lack of better solution. I do want to note my concern about the sixty day requirement considering the backlog in AfC, though.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
11. Support; it does not (in my opinion) help the encyclopedia to create stub articles in this fashion. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
12. Support:--Good proposal!Winged Blades ^Godric 05:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
13. Support. And the irony that it is our most notorious deletionist mass-creating all these stubs is not wasted on me, nor I suppose on anyone else who has ANI on their watch list. Softlavender (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
14. Support. Came here following the trail from ST's talk page after I happened on a couple of these and went to drop him a note. This mass creation of sometimes erroneous, generally under-referenced stubs is an imposition on others to clean up the mess. Which in itself isn't that bad (after all cleaning up is what one does on WP much of the time). But making a mess, shrugging and walking off without comment shouldn't get the seal of approval, otherwise the next batch may be thrice that size and lead to real problems. Proposal is a good compromise of salvaging what's good but making the point.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
15. Support. But how long can people tolerate ST wasting their time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
16. Support, less about the notability issue and more about possible copyvios and unreferenced BLPs that have been identified. This seems like a proper way to quarantine questionable material until other editors can vet it further. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
17. Support, and trout DGG for assuming bad faith on anyone who sees a problem here that warrants further action. Fram (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
18. Move these pages to draft space or userfy. Most of them do not satisfy even minimal requirements in terms of notability (this must be proven by sources currently used on each page) and content (no significant info about the persons). My very best wishes (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
19. Support – 120 days of review ought to be enough to salvage the truly notable ones. Others can be placed in a list, as suggested on Swister's talk page, to no answer. — JFG ^talk 07:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
20. Support moving these articles to draft space or userfying them. These are very sloppy, make-work sub-stubs which amount to line-item list entries broken up into hundreds of individual pages. Giving them 120 days quarantine is adequate time for ST to improve them if they want to, and (crucially) to save other eidts the endless job of cleaning up after ST. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
21. Support. I came across one of these articles while doing maintenance work, and was surprised to find that article being one of over hundreds, all of a similar length. I personally have no issue with stubs articles, even if they're in a state like these (despite some of them not meeting BLP standards), but I have three issues: 1) If these people really are notable enough to be deserving of an article, there should be something more to their articles beyond a sentence or two. With a few exceptions, the sampling of articles I read only gave vague statements about the field they were in and at which university they work under. There should be something more to this, I think. 2) There's just so gosh darn many of them! It'd be more fine if there even like 30 of these articles or something, but once we start getting into the hundreds, that's a bit much. Having this many articles created this fast quickly leads to a swampful of work for whatever projects these articles fall under and whatever editors are interested in these subjects, as all these stubs need to be updated and expanded upon. 3) I was actually able to get a response from SwisterTwister about these articles, and his response was "Yeah, I plan to expand them". That's fine and all, but with this many articles, I feel doubtful that he'll carry this through until the end. I worry he'll quickly get in over his head with this, abandon this project, and leave these articles for the rest of Wikipedia to deal with. So with all of that in mind, I support the proposal above. If it weren't for the sheer quantity of articles, I'd be fine with this, but 1700? That's... a lot. JaykeBird (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

JaykeBird Please see my recent contributions which have included these articles. I don't see how deleting them regardless will help if improvements are still being made. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Support. The issue is not that most of these people won't pass WP:N, the issue is that these are very low quality articles on living persons. After being repaired, they can be placed back into mainspace. But keeping bad BLPs around should not be an option. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC).

They currently are as noted above. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I oppose blanket discrimination against a class of BLP articles that have sources and are likely notable, as detailed by DGG and myself above. The porn tabstar/professor problem has been academically noted and is not new. An attempt to address this issue isn't a problem unless we make it one. SwisterTwister may have gone about their creations quickly but nuking them for that reason is a poor excuse for actual examination and deliberation. Many of the reasons for disliking these articles given above, e.g., they're based on primary sources, they're just stubs, they're created too fast for careful creation, etc. are not actual policy-based reasons for deletion. No one has yet convincingly argued that these professors and other academics are not notable under WP:PROF nor (with one possible copyright issue) have they been identified as otherwise against inclusion criteria. This case is easily distinguished from the SvG one on the grounds that there were no likely basis for notability for the vast majority of those. We haven't yet heard good rebuttal to the idea that these are of people that have verifiable qualifications for notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

   What little I paid attention to the SvG case, claims of notability were made (a lot of olympians), but sources were in fact used incorrectly, or mis-read. In this case I think they should be moved to draft space not because there is no claim of notability, but because multiple issues have been brought to light, not the least of which is copyright concerns, which certainly is a policy-based reason for deletion. I would oppose outright deleting them, which would truly be "Nuking", this option gives the community time to review them. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

   Just because multiple notability guidelines are too permissive doesn't mean we should create thousands of non-notable articles. The problem with all these walled garden project guidelines is that nobody pushes back against them. That's how we end up with thousands of non-notable porn star articles and athlete articles. To me the answer is to cull not keep making more chaff. Even looking at WP:PROF I don't think being a fellow of the AAAS would cut it. They give out way too many fellowships. They also give out awards yearly that they themselves say are for notable accomplishments. That I could see being worthy of an article and I'm trying to find some of these stubs that may be these people to try to expand. I understand other editors don't agree with my interpretation of notability as far as these article subjects are concerned, and that's fine, because we're not talking about deleting them. Everyone is free to clean them up, and they need some serious cleaning up. These are BLPs and myself and others have already found a slew of basic errors. That has to be taken seriously. Capeo (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)ttps://www.aaas.org/general-process

   @78.26: and @Capeo:, I understand the quality concerns. I wonder, on the other hand, what is "too many" fellowships? As mentioned above, 377 a year out of a working population of millions seems hardly non-selective. That's a side issue, however. If we want to modify WP:NPROF, then this isn't the right venue (an RfC on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) would give everyone a chance for input). More importantly, however, is that this discussion seems tending towards the SvG outcome, which is a short-circuit of the established deletion processes. If we had AfD's on one of these and the deletion rationale was: "There's too many cleanup issues." then WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP would be linked in an eyeblink. I would counter-propose that we send the copyright vio's that 78.26 mentions straight to CSD#G12. If there's a reason to perform a mass AfD, then let it go through the normal process unless it can be demonstrated that there are reasons to avoid those processes. Poor quality hasn't been a reason historically to avoid established processes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

   @Eggishorn: I agree. I don't want to see everything deleted via G12, because I doubt all the articles have that issue. Moving them to draft, and letting editors such as yourself look at them seems to be the most prudent course of action. There appears to be enough issues that leaving them in mainspace also does not seem prudent. Primefac's proposal seems to be the most moderate approach. It is because I don't want to see all of these articles outright deleted that I support this. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   @78.26:I think my real issue is the 60 day limit in Primefac's proposal, after which these are to be removed. If there really is no deadline, why limit it? Especially when we seem to agree that there is at least a reasonable possibility of notability? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Look at these stubs. I haven't looked at all of them obviously but the ones I have have shown nothing but decently published academics that have done nothing of note. Not a single of the ones I've looked at has advanced their field in any notable way outside of any typical working field. No theories that have made any traction nor any practical applications that have lead to any actual technical or procedural advances. To me, I see no point in filling an encyclopedia with CVs. That said, I know most here don't agree with me as far as notability in general, so I'll just reiterate the sloppiness of these mass created stubs that include enough errors, already found, that BLP has to be the overriding factor. Not to mention, how many of these people would actually want a stub on WP that pops in searches above their CVs? That's already happening. Do a google search on these names. Do you think these people want that? Add in the errors and I can't see how one would have a problem with throwing these articles into draft and seeing if anything can be made of them. If most articles get nuked in 60 days it's not like the list of AAAS fellows on their website suddenly disappeared. Capeo (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   None of these arguments address any basis for deletion in our documented deletion policy. They all amount to some combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an re-definition of notability for academics. Again, if we want to have a discussion on standards for academic notability, this isn't the place for it. WP:BLP is not a reason for deletion, as BLP requires adherence to NPOV, V, and NOR, none of which are violated by stubs. Is ANI to become an undocumented but de facto fourth deletion process for the project? If so, then we are doing readers and article creators a huge disservice by making it possible to delete large bodies of work based on whoever happens to show up in this corner of the project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Again, we are not talking about these stubs being deleted at this moment. Not that any particular policy matters here. IAR-based common sense does when dealing with, yet another, mass, speedy creation mess. Particularly when it's mass creation of BLPs. This proposal is not unlike other solutions the community has come up with to deal with similar circumstances. I've looked at a ton more of these and many are not good. Many have areas of research that are unintelligible because it seems ST just cut and paste terms without understanding their scientific meaning. I guarantee you most of the article subjects would rather have nothing on WP instead of a single run-on sentence that doesn't represent their research. Capeo (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Deletion is exactly what this process points towards, though. The 60120 day limit in the proposal all but guarantees mass deletion. Furthermore, at the risk of repeating myself yet again, "not good" is not a reason for deletion. Just to test the proposition that these are unredeemable, I picked one SlimVirgin identified as useless above, Stephen Pearton. SwisterTwister created this, which gave me enough information to add his Distinguished Professorship, fields of study, two books he co-authored (one with the inventor of semiconductor lasers, a hugely important scientific/engineering advance), two very important academic awards, and four distinguished Fellowships in selective academic societies[15]. This article is about a subject that ticks so many boxes of WP:PROF it isn't even funny. Arguably, all of #'s1-6. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Updated post because I hadn't seen Primefac amended proposal. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   I didn't identify this as "useless". Here is what I wrote. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   You'll notice I didn't put it in quotes which was specifically so as not to put words into your keyboard. That said, you also said: ...the question is whether these pages are useful for readers. The micro-stubs aren't and soon after identified Stephen Pearton as one of the articles that policies are in place to prevent from being created. My point is the article you pointed out was as one that should not be part of the project was actually about a person who is notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Eggishorn, looking at Stephen Pearton actually shows the issues with these stubs, even after you expanded it. You're using two primary sources to say what Pearson's primary areas of study are rather than a secondary bio or, if you insist on using a primary source, it should be at least Pearson's own words about his focus. You basically decided yourself that those sources mean those must be his main areas of research. In this case this is easily fixed because he has secondary bios on the pages of some the institutions that granted him membership or awards, which should be the sources rather than simply the lists anyway. They go into better depth as to what he is known for in his field. This article, amongst I'm sure a ton of these mass creations, could actually be brought past being just a stub. The point is, they all need to be gone through to see if this is the case. Even if they have to remain stubs they have to be checked for the basic errors that have already popped up. Putting this many BLPs out there that could well contain errors isn't something we should be doing. I have time this weekend and hope to expand those stubs that can be expanded whatever the outcome of this discussion. I'm just in favor of prudence when it comes to living people. As of this moment google already suggests his WP article in the search bar first and the article is already the 4th link after the search. For most of these people their WP stub is first after the search, more than any of their accomplishments. WP is hugely favored in searches and, especially with living people, serious thought needs to be given to tossing out a one sentence, possibly inaccurate, stub about them. Capeo (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

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

   Primary sources can only be used for notability if we are talking about showing how a subject-specific notability guideline is met (the general notability guideline requires secondary sources). But there is a question that is begged is if AAAS Fellowship is something that qualifies under WP:NPROF #3. If AAAS had been previously established via consensus as an organization that fit that SNG, then mass creation would have been fine, though I'm sure we'd be arguing over how these could be expanded. But AAAS never seemed to be discussed as an appropriate organization that would fit NPROF #3, so we presently have a huge number of mass created articles that fail the subject-specific guideline and lack secondary sources, and others have found most cannot be expanded ("cleaned up") to qualify for an encyclopedic article, so we need to consider deletion or at least isolation off mainspace to figure which ones can be salvaged. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

   We're both starting to sound like broken records ;) I didn't bring up the problem of primary sources establishing notability. I said you used primary sources, two books co-authored by the subject, to make them claim of what research they are know for, instead of secondary sources like their bios at some of the institutions that granted him recognition. Those bios actually give the history of his notable research and it doesn't gel precisely with what you wrote. That's neither here nor there at the moment though. As I said I don't care about the deletion policy in this instance. There is no policy for every situation, especially the mass, speedy creation of hundreds upon hundreds of BLPs. It's times like this when the community must IAR and come up with a creative compromise. I think putting them in draft and having interested parties go through them is the best compromise. Capeo (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

   Just an example of the type of secondary source bio I was talking about for Pearton [16] in regards to an award you mention in the article. Definitely a notable award by the way. Given out once per year from a prestigious institution that outlines its selection criteria. That's the type of stuff we'd hope to find for some of these stubs. Capeo (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, I took the day limit into consideration and bumped it to 120 days, but if that's still an issue it could be negotiated. Primefac (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks, I amended my above statement to reflect that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   I think we have enough interested parties here at this point, on both sides of the discussion, that these would not be left alone in draftspace. I support (as noted above) that the articles be given the full 6 months. Outright deletion isn't being discussed here, just trying to give these articles a chance to improve without ending up in Google search results where they would potentially be very problematic for us if there are blpvios or copyvios that we haven't caught yet (other folks already caught a few). The fact that an experienced editor committed copyvio in even just a few of these should really be a clarion call here that each of these really does need to be reviewed in a more careful and "quarantined" manner. Experienced editors should know that copy/pasting content is absolutely unacceptable here, yet it was clearly done. I just don't understand why the copyvios found so far aren't a good enough reason (never mind all the other arguments), to "quarantine" these mass-creations until we can get a handle on what might be copyvio or not. Waggie (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   I went back through the conversation above, and I see only one article where a copyvio has been asserted, Christopher D'Elia, which Primefac has already removed. I am aware that ST's autopatrolled bit has been removed because of copyvio issues prior to this creation of academics' articles. That doesn't mean that there's any rash of copyvios in this set of articles, or even "just a few." As of now, we have zero (thanks to Primefac). If we find more, then maybe it needs a separate process. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

2. Procedural oppose -- would such a proposal mean that we could also move other stub-class BLPs into Draft? In my experience, numerous sports bio articles would fall under this category. See for example: Priit Tomson, among many. In addition, 60 days seems arbitrary. Abandoned AfCs are generally given 6 months before they can be speedy deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose 95% of these articles are about notable individuals. Almost all of them adequately document the essential elements of notability. Most of them are incomplete. Some have errors.I estimate the proportion of unacceptable articles is lower than one percent. Voting for this is a vote to abandon the policy that stubs are permitted--or at least to abandon it if the editor is unpopular. I see above some very questionable statement, for example, that most are copyvios. I do not see that demonstrated either. I don't see it demonstrated that 10% are, or 1% (In fact, most of the articles are composed of non-copyrightable facts that have a limited number of ways of expression) or that there is an unacceptably high proportion of errors. I see that based on 1 or 2 examples. Not on evidence that 10% or so have major errors. Or 1%. If all the people working to try to discredit the editor have been able to find only these, there can't be many.
   I see a mention of one article where the person was confused with someone else. I do not see that even 10% of them are. In fact, I don't see that even 1% of them are.
   I see a statement that AAAS Fellows are not notable. Even if we disregard the established convention that they are, I thing 90% at least can be shown notable by the other parts of WP:PROF. I see not a single example of even an attempt to find any examples or evidence to the contrary.
   I see the absurd statement that an organization is not a RS for the list of its members.
   I see a far-reaching statement that we should revise the WP:STUB policy, by which I suppose mean eliminate it. It was overwhelmingly supported in the past. It would require very wide consensus to change it, not just here. If we did forbid stubs, it would indeed have an effect00it would greatly decrease the growth of the encyclopedia and the new contributors. I gather some see that as a good thing.
   I see a remarkably over-reaching statement we should change WP:BIO, I suppose to require independent sources for everything ,not just reliable sources. And I see some of the comments here by "independent" mean totally disconnected. That's overkill based on this one case, and would of course require very wide consensus.
   I suspect that some of the people mean by this they would eliminate WP:PROF. By the same principle, we could eliminate state legislatures, and geographic places. We'd also omit al the early Olympic athletes, and I know some here do have said elsewhere that they fact want to do that also. We would certainly greatly reduce our already pitiably small coverage of the less-developed nations, and even the most developed nations that do not use the Latin alphabet. alternatively, it might mean only professors. There are in fact a few people who have expressed from time to time the view that they were not notable unless they were in effect famous--that is , to effectually eliminate a whole field on the basis of IDONTTHINKTHEYREIMPORTANT.
   I am going to make a prediction here--if this passes, I and others shall personally be able to fix or verify 95% or more of the articles. (I hope others will do some of it, but rather than abandon two of our basic working principles that hundreds of editors have used, WP:STUB and WP:PROF I would even do it myself. ) In practice, a 5% error rate is as good as one can hope for in an encyclopedia like ours'. The best editors can sometimes reach 2%,but not most people.
   I've been asked why I care: I came here to improve our coverage of science and scientific bios-- I found that the sciences that I knew were pretty well handled, but not scientific bio. I think some of the negative attitudes that I found here about them was do to bias--that people just didn't think that ordinary science was as important as ordinary films, or ordinary politics. I've always been an inclusionist for most topics--(except local topics), which means that I think small variations in WP:N are not actually more important than the gross violations we have throughout WP in some of the other factors of NOT. I care about stubs because I write that way myself, in successive improvements. Many other people do also. Many of our best articles were written that way.
   I also care because I want to get away from the very foolish and destructive idea that we should base general rules on individual cases, and from the even more destructive idea that we should act on the basis of isolated examples. We have elements of the herd mentality here--there's a tendency to panic over things we could perfectly well handle carefully. That's a very poor basis for cooperative work.
   An even worse basis for cooperative work is instability. To me, it has always seemed obvious that the key part of the inclusion policy is that it should be predictable. People should know what they can expect to find here. People should know what they can expect to be able write about. People like to have some idea whether what they do is going to be accepted to the group they're joining. One or two of my first articles were rejected. I stayed anyway, because I cam here with a longer term plan I'm the exception. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose Has anyone actually found any real concern with the content of the articles? Are there massive BLP issues? Copyvios? Other areas to worry about? As there are 1,700 articles in scope, take a random 1% of them to AfD to see what happens. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Yes, people have been pointing out copyvio issues, primary source issues (BLP's need secondary sources to verify the contents), etc. Waggie (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Which ones specifically? Please list a few here and we can take a look at them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks for your reply Lugnuts. Already posted below in the discuss sub-section at the bottom. Waggie (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

5. Oppose In addition to the good points made by DGG and others above, it seems clear that these are skeletal stubs which don't say much and so it wouldn't be a significant problem to leave them where they are. If you make them red links, then they are likely to get recreated and this would cause chaos and confusion if there's another draft elsewhere. If people think there's a problem then just stick a clean-up tag on them. Note also the case of stubs like Farukh Abitov. That's still a two sentence-stub which was nominated for deletion by John Pack Lambert. He was sanctioned for going up against WP:NFOOTY. Is it one law for football players and another law for professors? Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose - I actually came upon one of ST's stubs while doing NPP, which was striking to me since I knew he was an established editor (still not sure how it happened, since it was either last week or the week before – prior to this discussion being enjoined). Then I discovered this discussion going on. Seems to me most of the support !votes are based more on a dislike for ST than on actual policy. Are they stubs? Yes. Is there a policy against making stubs? No. Are they poorly sourced? Yes. Is that against policy? No. Are they incomplete (missing stub tags, talk pages, etc.) Yes. Is that against policy? No. The one issue that is a problem is the copyvio issue. I am not sure how prevalent that is. I've reviewed (and added stub tags) to well over 100 of ST's stubs, and that hasn't been an issue. In all those stubs there was only one which I found with questionable notability as well. As per WP:DELETE, if these articles' subjects are deemed to be notable, which according to current guidelines they are, then as per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." And I see no advantage to moving them to draft space. Would all of them be moved to draft space, even the hundreds which have already been looked over by other editors? Talk about making more work for folks. I think the more coherent arguments in this discussion are by Eggishorn and DGG. Especially DGG's final point: People need to feel secure in that the same rules apply to everyone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose, for good reasons expressed by editors Eggishorn and DGG. The pages are identified now as stubs, or they could/should be tagged that way. The editor's article creations are no longer auto-patrolled (by removal of auto-patrol right during this discussion). If there is some way to toggle the status of the articles created already, so that they show as unpatrolled, bringing them to new page patrollers' attention, that could be done. But simply put, stub articles on notable topics are allowed, and I don't want to see Wikipedia changed that way. Also I tend to think all these topics are notable, that the recognition of fellow status is in effect secondary, reflecting judgment of a group, and is difficult to achieve. What would be primary and unusable would be individual nomination documents that assert a given professor should be accepted to fellow status. --doncram 15:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   doncram, my concern is that some of these aren't notable stubs, and there's no way to know the percentage without actually checking them all. It seems appropriate (and again, I reference the SvG case) to move them to draft as a stopgap measure - it allows us to check the pages, approve the actually notable ones, and delete the non-PROF pages. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   You can create a worklist of articles to be checked (perhaps at a subpage of WikiProject Biography), and check them, without removing them to Draft space. --doncram 15:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Yes there is a way to know the percentage without checking them all: use random sampling upon the articles in a full list created by copying the results of Xtools on the editor's contributions. A sample size of about 30 will suffice to assert a 90 percent confidence interval on what the percentage is. I'll help with the statistical reasoning, including about what sample size is reasonable to measure the rate of non-notability within some specific range like +/- 5 percent, if you start such an effort. --doncram 15:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

8. Oppose I agree with DGG, the proposal is an irrational waste of time given that the stubs are almost all notable (I looked through about 20 and couldn't find on that was not notable). --I am One of Many (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Out of curiosity, I am One of Many, did you check them for copyright violations? Primefac (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   No, but since when are copyright violations a criterion for notability? --I am One of Many (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   A criterion for notability? They're not. A criterion for deleting a page? Always. Copyright violations must be deleted. I genuinely can't believe I have to spell that out. Primefac (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting we should leave copyvios in mainspace because the subject is notable? People aren't stating categorically that the subjects aren't notable, in fact most people are saying that they are, but that the articles probably need serious attention. We need time to identify whether each article has copyvios in it, as it's clear that it's more than just one or two that have copyvios issues. Copyvios isn't about inclusion criteria, arguments over WP:PROF, or people not liking ST, it's about possible legal ramifications for the WMF that we need to act on with efficiency and due diligence. Waggie (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   You fix copyright violations when you find them. It is a safe bet that there are currently thousand of undetected copyright violation in articles. Should we move all articles in to draft space to be on the safe side? --I am One of Many (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

   Hi I am One of Many, thanks for your reply! Most new articles are subject to NPP or AfC review, which should (ostensibly) be copyvio checked. What's happening here is that most of these creations have been marked auto-patrolled and thus circumvent any prompt review and checking for copyvio. Some articles that have been in mainspace for awhile do get copyyvio that creeps in, and we try to catch that as we can. The big difference here is that an experienced and auto-patrolled editor shouldn't be the one introducing any of that copyvio. I've provided some samples of problematic content from these articles (in a copyvio sense) at the bottom of the Discuss sub-section below. Waggie (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

9. Oppose unless someone can point me to where someone checked a significant sample of these articles for copyright problems and found an unacceptably high percentage. The noability issue seems to have been addressed - the articles are presumed notable per WP:PROF. Maybe that SNG is too loose, resulting in useless articles, but if that is the case the SNG needs to be amended, instead of backdooring it here. Similarly the sourcing concerns also seem weak to me. Secondary sources are certainly preferred, but primary sources are still permitted with narrow exceptions. The big concern is copyright, and if anyone can show me a pattern of copyright issues, I'll quickly change my tune. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

   Your wish is my command, Tazerdadog. Provided below at the bottom of the Discuss section. Regarding the notability issue, I'm not sure it has been addressed. I agree, though, that this is not the correct venue for discussing whether or not AAAS or a professor's own school website is a reliable source for meeting WP:NPROF. Waggie (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

   Comment Many copyright problems are very easily fixed. If a few word is cited from a persons or his institution's web site, which is what is usually the case for bio copyvios of the sort being discussed here, they just need the reference added. If a plain list of non-copyrightable material is added from such a site, tho it is not copyvio, the attribution needs to be added. If a sentence or two of unessential material is a copyvio, it can be removed. (I will say that a list of academic fields from a persons or university web page is essential to understanding, and should be sourced, not removed) This is very different from the sort of copyvio spam where essentially all of a long articles is lifted directly from the web site. If the person is extremely notable, it is possible to quickly rewrite, but usually, it isn't worth it i've come across academic bios like that, and I delete them except on the very rare occasion nowadays I have time to rewrite them. Usually such a copyvio is promotional as well, and both reasons should be given--if only to discourage the person from going to the fruitless effort to license what will be deleted anyway. I very much doubt if there are any copyvio here of that sort, but if there are, I shall either delete or rewrite them. We cannot tolerate copyvio, but the preferred way to deal with it is to fix them or stubbify or find a noncopyvio version, but that does not seem to apply here).

   As for notability let's see what happens at AfD. I cannot exactly predict, for AfD is subject to pile-ons of various sorts. and even for straightforward cases, results are erratic. I am going to make again a more exact statement of what I said before. I think it likely that essentially every AfD brought on the basis that AAAS fellows do not meet WP:PROf or that WP:PROF is not a valid guideline, will fail, and both principles will be upheld. But even if it is decided that AAAS Fellow is not sufficient to meet the guideline, I am certain that I can show that at least 90% of them meet the WP:PROF guideline on other grounds--most of them here have distinguished chairs, and almost all the rest will have stellar citation records to show they are considered authorities in their field. I am going to say this even before I individually examine them, because I am familiar with the in-practice decisions generally used by AAAS. If I am wrong about AAAS, I shall say so. If 90% jhold up, will the people challenging them say as much?

   The sort of bullying that is being seen here is not very unusual at AN/ANI. What is unusual is the variety of issues used as an excuse, and , most of all, the disproportionality of the condemnation by small sample; usually there's more of a pretense at representative evidence. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

   Hi DGG, did you see my response to you earlier with the diffs of collaboration issues? Could you look at that response and respond in return, please? I hope you don't see it as a "pretense at representative evidence." I'm not bullying SwisterTwister, I've been trying to help him, but have been clearly rebuffed. I was his friend for almost a year on IRC, but he finally stopped talking to me when I kept trying to coach him on collaborating more effectively. I have never been mean to him, spoken poorly of him, or intended anything but to help him - I've even defended him from bullying (more than he knows). Have you considered that the variety of issues is unusual because there's simply a lot of issues going on with him in many areas of the project? People are frustrated and it's been building up for a good long while, so the level of frustration is breaking through, which I believe contributes to the seeming disproportion you refer to. Yes, some people are mean to him, which is highly inappropriate and needs to be handled with a very firm hand, but there ARE issues here that need to be addressed. I really want him to do well here at Wikipedia, and I want him to learn and grow here, because he has a lot to offer the project, and we have a lot to offer him. Waggie (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

   The pretense at representative evidence is your listings of purported copyvios. 1. that someone else added a copyvio is not blame of tST, who did not add it. 2. A list of publications has no copyright--it has an extremely limited possible way of presentation. 3. It is impossible to say without copying or close paraphrase the material that says X held a position or received an honour. One is inevitably going to have to write one of 3 or 4 variations. Your examples are at best your own misunderstandings. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

   I do need to clarify that though I think some here are indeed bullying , some or undoubtedly not realizing the nature of the bullying, and are joining the hue and cry out of genuine concern. And there are genuine concerns: he generally works too fast and consequently not as carefully as he should. I've said that in the previous discussions, and it is true here also. I apologize if I gave a different impression. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

   DGG, I added the list as an absolutely fair representation of what I found, for people to make up their own minds. Would you rather I had not disclosed my results fairly? I sampled a variety of articles, and I selected ones that had a copyvio score above 25%. If I was making a pretense, I would not have posted these, or I would have searched extensively for the most egregious violations I could find and only posted those. Note also, that I was extremely careful to clearly point out that someone else had added the Bertram Bruce copyvio, did you miss that? I pointed it out because it was hijacked within days to add the copyvio and promo content, for people to make of it what they wished. Also I wouldn't call this just saying "X holds Y position", nor this, they are clearly copy/pasted detailed descriptions of various fields of study with some slight modifications, but the order of the fields of study aren't even changed. I am of the opinion that ST is not exercising care in creating these stubs, simply copy/pasting "X does Y" with some quick modifications, and sourcing it to the subject's own school or awarding institution. This is not improving the encyclopedia, it's simply posting a huge number of stubs based on primary sources. Regarding impressions, you definitely gave a different impression, as you've been repeatedly defending him in various forums even when it's clear he's been problematic, such as at AfC with the copyvios he was accepting there, and also by not responding to my earlier comments regarding his lack of collaboration with other editors. I am genuinely concerned that he focuses far more on quantity, rather than quality, pretty much to the point of disruption until he wears out his welcome in a particular venue, then just moves elsewhere on the project. Editors clearly have tried to engage him in discussion and are simply blown off. That is a clear problem. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I like SwisterTwister and wish him well, he really just needs to slow down and actually collaborate. Waggie (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

10. Oppose This oppose is based on my personal principles. I cannot, in good conscience, accept a 60-day countdown to nuke option. This is especially true when the proposal calls for automatic deletion of pages if people don't take action. I can forsee ahead that those who want to see such pages gone to simply stand around and not do anything. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

    As a minor point of interest, OhanaUnited, I upped the timeframe to 120 days about 16 hours before you posted. I know that probably doesn't change your overall opinion but I felt it should be mentioned. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

11. Oppose per above. Most of these are notable and problematic articles can be fixed. This is a Wiki after all, and it's meant to be improved on. -FASTILY 06:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

    Comment Of course there is one law for football, if you nominate people for deletion who meet the criteria, you will be sanctioned. There is another law for subjects that do not apply heavily to hard core males. So I guess heavy deletion nominations of articles on female porn starts might earn a sanction, especially if the aritcles deleted included photos. Nominating sports figures earns a special level of hate. Actually, this whole discussion shows another problem with Wikipedia. There is not enough defense against hounding. Bascially SwisterTwister is actually trying to do the common work of crafting a set of guidelines for the encyclopedia and leaving it to others to flesh out the project. Now, maybe this should be done with much clearer under collaborators in mind. I may be among the few who feel biographical articles should tell us at least a little about a person's life and not just be a list of citations. However I hold that even with these articles we can say more of them as people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

    • Look at something like this. Maybe he is notable expert, I do not know. However, this is not at all clear from the "referencing", which is something essentially self-published. Moreover, the page does not tell anything of significance about the person. As written, this is advertisement, pure and simple, regardless to motivations. This whole discussion is actually about responsibility in creating new pages. Everyone who creates new page must be responsible to satisfy at least some very minimal requirements for a stub. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

    Just to clarify: you can't tell from that stub whether some-one holding a named professorship at Harvard Business School is a notable expert in their field? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

12. Oppose I have reviewed several of these articles (before the listing here) and there were OK. It may be annoying to have an article with so little information, and I have recently requested another writer doing the same thing to put in worthwhile information. TS may be rushing too fast through whatever tasks performed (AFC, stub creation, AFD listing) and not apparently changing behaviour on request. But in this case, a small fraction of problems does not warrant any more than a patrol by someone else, no more than other random article creations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
13. Oppose The majority of the concerns which led to SvG's articles being mass deleted were the additions of incorrect measurements of height and weight to BLPs. The majority of SwisterTwister's BLPs simply list awards and what the scientist has done. The whole situation is radically different from the SvG scuffle. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
14. Oppose Having looked at the actual articles, so many of these people not only have done lots of research but hold named chairs from research universities and have done other important work in their fields, that draftifying this is a backward approach. All we need is a few people with the time and temperment to write good bios of scientists to step forward. I have worked to flesh a few bios out, but do not claim a deep enough understanding of science to feel like trying more. However I might if I got some time. 120 days is just too little of a time, that is only 4 months, and a good fleshing out will take a while.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

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

OhanaUnited I think that is the case. Like with the SvG scenario, any article that is not reviewed will be nuked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think there's reasonable concern that 60 days may be too soon. I would support a modification of the timeframe to simply match the G13 criteria. Waggie (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think six months is a little extreme, but I just picked 60 as a relatively round number (and two months seemed like a reasonable timeframe to go through 1700 two-sentence stubs). If the general preference is to make it longer, I have no objections. Now that I write this out, I realize that 60 may have been too short... Primefac (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

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

You are not alone Tarage. I quipped about that in my support to the proposal above.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that as well. He removed posts from his talk page from BrownHairedGirl and Huon with the edit summary "I have nothing else to say here, questions have been answered," having addressed only the notability concerns by citing PROF. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And that is part of the larger problem here, he doesn't see a problem or doesn't want to deal with it, and that's simply not collaborative editing which is part of th Wikipedia Five Pillars ("Editors should treat each other with respect and civility"). It concerns me quite deeply. Waggie (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about a lack of response here (although it seems odd behaviour that an established user would not at least give a brief statement to present the rationale behind their actions, rather than leaving it to be inferred). If someone chooses not to respond to a noticeboard discussion, that is their prerogative, even if it's possibly not the most prudent choice.

What I find more concerning is that the issue about not including stub tags was politely raised on 11 May, then removed without response. Removing without response on the talk page is ok at a low level, although it seems odd to not just reply to a polite request with some sort of thanks / acknowledgement. Removing it without response either in talk or in subsequent actions, does not seem ok. As noted in a new followup message, even a generic {{stub}} tag would be significantly better than no stub tag, although I find it a little difficult to justify an experienced editor not just using a more specific appropriate tag each time. These articles would all fall within either a single specific stub cat, or a small group of stub cats, wouldn't they? So, it shouldn't need a huge amount of additional effort to just use a reasonably correct tag?

In my earlier note about stub tags, I expressed surprise that they were not included, characterising it as a relatively minor issue. That changes to concern when I discover that the issue had been politely raised and apparently ignored.

Murph9000 (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

When I bought the lack of stub tags up with ST a week ago, he removed it in a way that it didn't ping me. Unfortunately, I'm unsurprised that ST has yet to respond. I'm sure he is well aware of the discussion, but is being avoidant of it. It's pretty characteristic of him to do so both on-wiki and on IRC.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, he would be unwise to respond to an attack like this, one which is clearly based on some degree of dislike. I judge this by the series of attacks on his work that have been brought here and ANI for different things over the last fe months. (I suppose one or another is the root cause, but it's hard to tell.) When attacked by a group, sensible people try to get away. Some would-be heroes would rather go down fighting. We have here a perfect example of why I advise people to keep far away from ANB/ANI. From arb com also; the reason I became an arb is to attempt to at least limit the harm they do. Just as I'm trying to do here. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to stop excusing ST's disruptive behaviour. The issue with their 'stub' creation has been explained to them on their talk page, and they ignored it. The issue with their new article reviewing has been explained to them, and they ignored it. The issue with them failing to check new content for copyright issues has been explained to them, and they ignored it. I don't think people are asking for much when they ask SwisterTwister to do things in the normal way that they're normally done on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is a collaborative project, we do need people to discuss issues when they're raised and to actually collaborate, SwisterTwister primarily finds themselves at AN/ANI not because of what they are doing, but because they ignore concerns and refuse to collaborate with other users. Nick (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. And I also feel that ST is heading for an ArbCom case to evaluate all of these continued disruptions if he persists in repeated disruptive non-collaborative behaviors. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You feel that Huon is attacking SwisterTwister by registering his concerns here after being simply brushed off on ST's talk page? Folks tried to communicate with him and their concerns were effectively ignored, and so it ended up here. I, myself, have tried to work with ST before on his talk page and been brushed off. I realize there have been unjust and specious complaints about ST in the past, and I regard them with disdain, this isn't one of them. Here's a few smattering of examples both recent and past of SwisterTwister not collaborating to resolve an issue: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23],[24],[25], and here, only a couple months after an AfD keep consensus. It's his prerogative to not respond here, but he is expected to collaborate constructively with other editors. I like SwisterTwister and think he can do a lot of good here if he slows down, performs due diligence, and works to collaborate more effectively (and part of that is accepting constructive criticism). I respect that you're trying to defend people from attacks, but there is genuine concern about a pattern of behavior here. If he won't collaborate on his talk page, and won't address them here, where WILL he address them? If there is a venue in which he'll communicate, discuss, and accept constructive criticism, I would truly enjoy working with him further. Waggie (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if any of these could be effectively "trans-wikied" to Wikidata. "Alice Expert is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science", sourced to the authoritative AAAS list of fellows, would presumably fall into their scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

certainly it belongs in Wikidata, as do all other subjects of WP articles. The place to challenge his notability is AfD, not by bringing actions at ANB against the ed. who wrote the article. ANB, of course, does not deal with questions of notability , for no admin has a greater voice in that than any other editor. Before blaming people for disruptively writing inadequate articles on non0notable people, it is appropriate to see if the articles hold up at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Lists of publications copied in part or whole: Amedeo Odoni

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

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

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

I don't think your samples support your conclusion. The article you called an example of clear copyvio, is one you admit SwisterTwister didn't create with the violation. It has no probative value to demonstrating whether ST's creations are being put into the project without proper care. The "close paraphrasing" examples include many phrases highlighted by Earwig's tool that have limited or no other ways to re-express. For example, "American Association for the Advancement of Science" is a phrase long enough to be tripped by the tool, but is the name of the organization. From the Mark Berliner article it picks out "...early research focused on Bayesian statistics, decision theory, and robust Bayesian analysis." and I can't think of too many ways to restate that information without gross grammatical torturing. I appreciate the obvious effort you put into this sampling, but the limited number of at best borderline examples is not indicative of a copyright violation problem that requires special handling. I would venture to say that a similar sample of articles that have been approved through AfC, especially on scientific or academic subjects, would find similar levels of paraphrasing. If these weren't the articles created by ST, I doubt this would be considered problematic. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Waggie: I really don't want to move the goalposts here, but I think that almost all of these are either not a copyright violation (Name of an organization or professorship), borderline ( short complicated technical phrase which is difficult to reword), or do not reflect on ST because the copyvio was added by a different editor. The copied list of publications really is a problem, but if that is the only problem, we can just excise such lists from ST's articles using manually assisted regex, and move on with our lives. Thank you for assembling the data - it makes it much easier to have a discussion about what to do about the articles. I don't think a 5-7% borderline copyvio rate and a 1-3% serious copyvio rate warrants a quarantine and nuke approach, but the converse position is totally defensible. Are there any indicators in ST's work beyond a list of publications that may indicate a copyvio is likely? Tazerdadog (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Tazerdadog and Eggishorn, please see my reply above to DGG. There are two such examples that are more than just a name of an organization/professorship, but clear copy/pastes of someone's fields of study (in detail) that are barely changed at all. As I mentioned in my reply to DGG, I intended the results of my analysis to be fair and objective, so I did not skew or cherry-pick my results to give a "pretense of evidence" as DGG calls it. Thank you for discussing this with me. Waggie (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You say 2 examples of clear copyvio, but in your list of them above you give only 1 as clear copyvio--and then say the copyvio was added by someone else. That makes zero. You have made an accusation that your own evidence disproves. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello DGG, thanks again for your reply. If you had followed the diff to my reply above that I provided, you would see which examples I'm referring to, neither of which is the Bertram Bruce article. In fact, you were actually pinged in that diff and instead you replied to the post that you weren't pinged in, which I find interesting. No, I did not characterize these examples as "clear copyvio" in my initial posting of the samples, I was attempting to offer the samples without too much characterization. With respect, you keep treating me like I'm trying to bully ST. I'm really not. Waggie (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• SwisterTwister is conspicuously absent from this entire thread. I'm not sure what to make of that. It's clear that he has not created any further articles since it began and, since he has archived this page, it's pretty certain he's seen it. ST, I think a comment here regarding your intentions, any plans for the future, and your opinions regarding this thread would be helpful. I think the ideal scenario would be for you to commit to going back through these articles to check for (and fix) copyright issues, make sure they're notable, and address the other issues brought up in this thread. And, importantly, to commit to discussing any future mass creations. I think if that if you committed to that, then there are some users who would probably want to check up on these articles (or even help), but I think this thread would head towards a relatively quick closure. IMO, anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• I note the time is now 120 days. They will all be reviewed by then, though there will probably be a number of AfDs that will need longer discussion. Enough people seem to be interested . DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Of course I knew the articles were not complete, but I would have gone back and fixed them. People should have let me do it, rather than find every possible reason to pick on the few mistakes in a few of the articles. I recognize now that it would have been better if I had gone slower, and written them in more detail initially. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• I have not been able to read beyond the start of this discussion. However my basic reaction is that it would be best for editors to at least do a search to see if they can find more sources on the people involved than to complain that all these articles were created. I know such takes work, but with the admission that some may well be notable, it would behove us to do the work to seek for the references, which often do exist for people, they are just hard to find.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Some people seem to have the view that creating lots of articles on under-covered in our encyclopedia professions (academics, especially scienctists), or under-represented biographical populations (women, especially those who are writers, academics, lawyers and politicians and maybe a few other such professions), ethnic-minority group members in Europe and especially the US, Canada and Australia, people from the world outside of those areas, members of religious minority groups, and a few others, will somehow make for a more inclusive better encyclopedia. I can in general see this sentiment, I have deliberately created articles on people who fit one or more of these criteria Emmanuel Abu Kissi and Joseph W. Sitati are the two that come to mind the fastest, and Edward Dube if I created that article. I still agree with this sentiment in general, however I am not sure that an article like the one of John Enemark that says virtually nothing substantive about him really advances the encyclopedia. Will we really be better off if we go from more articles on porn actors than scientist to more articles on scienctists, but a high percentage of the later are two sentance articles that say nothing of meaning?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • A fact we need to face: up until about a few decades ago, and even today, the human mindset did a crap job of covering females, minorities, non-Western/non-Asian citizens, and professions that were important to advancement but didn't have the glamor of celebrity or the draw of money. We can't change that, and that means we are going to have imbalance of articles favoring white and male people up to and including the 21st century. We cannot create information that does not exist (as being asked here), nor should we weaken our sourcing, verification, and notability policies/guidelines just to enable poor or nearly-absent sourced to be used to "correct" that imbalance that we did not create. As an academic myself, it sucks that the bulk of sources overlook the people that actually do the science, but that's how the world works, and we are not here to right great wrongs. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually we can change the level of coverage received be certain people before any given year. The caveat is that it cannot be changed by original reseach in Wikipedia. However no Wikipedia notability guidelines requires a person to have been covered in contemporary reliable sources. Thus Elijah Abel merits an article based on 21st-century coverage of this 19th-century man, to give one example that came to my head quickly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Absolutely true, but my point is that if you turn to sources of the 19th century (to use an example), they are going to be very woefully overrepresenting men and dismissive of females, minorities, etc.. That happened, society is trying to fix it, but we cant retroactively change what was or what wasn't written then. If anything, contemporary sources are going to a more likely shot to cover the underrepresented classes then. That still doesn't mean we should weaking our sourcing requirements to be more inclusive as if try to fix that historical systematic bias. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This would probably make more sense above, but I think there is goal post moving. Early on someone complained these articles are based on "primary sources". However then it was correctly pointed out that the published membership of a society is a secondary source. Weather it is fully independent is another issue, but it is not a primary source. While there is some wiggle room, a primary source is generally one that is not published, if a source is published in some form it is secondary. Weather it is either independent or reliable is another matter, but it is not primary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Being listed as a member or a fellow of a society is a primary source. A secondary source requires novel transformation of primary and other information, and we would be expecting things like analysis, critique, synthesis, and other aspects (effectively, why each person stood out to be elected a member), and that is completely absent here. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

this is one of the cases where that source is the best source. How can it possibly be mistaken or ambiguous? It speaks for itself. The subject's own source is reliable for this also, but a report by a journalist can not be certain to get the nature or name of the distinction right. It's exactly the same as our using a legislative register to show someone occupied an office. (If one wants to be technical, the true primary source is the certificate of the award given to the person, and the listing just an authoritative report on it, or for a political office, the report of the body certifying the election ) Trying to reject article content because of this is getting sourcing exactly upside-down. The true problem is that for some awards and memberships we have no easily accessible membership register. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Reverting closure without discussion

Moved from WP:ANI § Reverting closure without discussion

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

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

Thanks @Capitals00:. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Yes, I saw that. That's kind of like WP:Battleground behaviour that he's showing. I've notified him of this discussion but he seems to ignore it. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Asilah has displayed battleground behaviour throughout this RfC. He edit-warred continually to add his disputed content back into the first sentence while the RfC was ongoing, even when it was crystal clear that consensus in the RfC was against that content (the choice in the end was between two neutral alternatives to Asilah's version). Then he changed tack and edit-warred to add a "failed verification" tag to the second sentence on the spurious grounds that three citations in the second sentence failed to verify the first sentence. He even admitted that this was what he was doing. Note also the tendentious edit summaries like this and this. Asilah made it clear that he didn't like how the RfC was going, and that if he didn't get the result he wanted, "of course he would take it further". He followed this up by posting "Invalid RfC", though he did strike this when he thought he was going to get the result he wanted. Reverting the close without a policy-based reason is just his latest attempt to disrupt the process.

Asilah has a history. He was indef blocked after this discussion at ANI at the end of last year (you can find the sequel to that – the offer of mentorship and the failure of same – between here and the end of the page, and in this section and this); and although his behaviour has been not quite as egregious since then, he continues to show a battleground mentality on multiple pages. In my opinion he needs to be sent a message. Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

We're running short of messages we can send that don't involve blocks and bans. He's been ticked off by admins before and just ignored it or insisted that he was in the right. We offered him mentorship and he agreed terms - but then reneged on them as soon as they involved actually changing his behaviour in any way.

I have not interacted with Asilah recently because he's mostly stayed away from my areas of interest. The problem back then was that Asilah appeared to believe that anyone who did not unconditionally support his position on any matter was acting in bad faith. He'd claim to AGF but then in the same message insist that you were trying to torment him by asking for evidence to back his position. When I read things like this, along with the other behaviour described here, it is clear to me that this may have moderated but not fundamentally changed. Kahastok talk 17:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I really don't know about his long term behaviour but I did check that he had been blocked earlier. I just think he needs some good mentoring and a lesson about how to discuss at talk pages. For instance, I had notified him of this discussion but he didn't respond here (yet). Instead, he chose to continue discussion about (attacking?) other editors at the article talk page. He is showing childish behaviour which needs to stop (unless he's actually a child). In any case, I again left a note at that article talk page where he was discussing. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this really worth an ANI, Yashovardhan? I reverted once or twice then moved to talk page. I disagree with your closure but I have long working hours and I'm not willing to waste more time on this. Asilah1981 (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Something I have noticed, which is tantamount to gaming the system, every time this escalates to a point where it reaches here or ANI, then they back right off. It appears like the need for admin action has disappeared and so nothing happens. Then its back to the same battlefield behavior again. WCM_email 07:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

So devious of me....Asilah1981 (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

After reading the concerns raised by others here, I'll say it needs to be discussed. It's high time you stop this behaviour. I suggest he requires good mentoring. This was the reason I first raised it at ANI but it was redirected here. An admin action is required now. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no point. He had a good mentor, who asked him to agree some conditions. He did so. He then ignored them. He didn't try and fail to make the standard. He made no attempt whatsoever to follow the conditions. The mentoring ended because the mentor decided that it could not succeed without Asilah's cooperation.

Unless there is a reason to assume that the same won't happen again, mentoring is a non-starter. Kahastok talk 21:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

[27] His latest comment on a talk page, this is words of encouragement to an editor trying to make sense of an awful article. I agree with the comments about mentoring, it would appear that mentoring was agreed to when a permanent block was being considered for disruptive editing. As soon as the focus was removed, they quickly reverted to the same behaviour elsewhere. WCM_email 23:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Is a ban or block being suggested here? I think a temp block will have no gain as he has a history of being block. If he is particularly disruptive in one field, a Topic ban may be a better alternative to an indef block. If so, we have to identify the particular field in which he is disruptive. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I would endorse a topic ban from topics related to the Iberian peninsula, broadly construed, until he demonstrates some vague understanding of WP:AGF. Calling people psychopaths is not on. Kahastok talk 17:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Topic Ban proposal for Asilah1981

As suggested by Kahastok just above, I propose an indef topic ban for Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for pages related to the Iberian Peninsula (interpreted broadly) (or until he stops his disruptive behaviour). To recap: The user has a history of disruptive editing and previous blocks have led to no good. The user has failed to assume good faith even when he has been told to do so on multiple occassions. Previous mentoring for the user has bought no good either. I propose that the ban may be lifted only when the community agrees that the user has stopped his disruptive behaviour. Pinging @Wee Curry Monster, Scolaire, and Kahastok: who have participated in this discussion here. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• I support the ban as proposer. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I thought for a while before making this suggestion above because it's a tough action and I want to be fair to Asilah. But this has been going on, to my knowledge, for close to a year. How long should we have to tolerate an editor disrupting every attempt to improve a set of articles with such a resolute and unbending insistence that anyone who doesn't agree with him is acting in bad faith? I wouldn't bring this up but it is entirely typical of Asilah's behaviour for close on twelve months.

He's been indeffed once already. Mentoring has been tried and failed almost immediately. Something has to give, and I think this ban is proportionate. Kahastok talk 18:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Re-requesting closure on RfC discussion about WP:NSPORTS

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

Ban appeal for Paul Bedson

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

Hello,

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

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

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paul_Bedson#Summary

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

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

(See talk page for full list)

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

Comments

• What about the sock puppetry? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In his original, longer request, he stated, "I have read and re-read and fully understand all the reasons for my ban including use of sock puppets which I will not repeat, questionable sources and divergent anomalies sprouting from what was my primary focus at the time of my banishment - the promotion of investigation into the Aaiha plain near Rachaya el-Wadi as the potential starting point of the Neolithic Revolution." His statement was trimmed at my request. --Yamla (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Note that this user originally posted a longer statement. By my request, he trimmed it down. In the event that you think he did not sufficiently cover a particular area, I urge you to read his page as of this edit in case he specifically trimmed out something relevant. You can compare his original request with the request copied into WP:ANI via this diff. The user should not be penalised because I requested he trim his statement. --Yamla (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus and Yamla: Sorry, my fault - I repeated that suggestion by email as well. I'll put the link to the original version in the summary at the top of this thread for clarity. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Ok, I never dealt with Paul Bedson while he was active, however, last year I spend about 6 months cleaning up (..or at least trying to clean up...) the Lebanese villages, and there I met his work. A lot. (And it was a lot to clean up, I think I found some 10-12 villages, where the same village had two different articles about it. Ah, the joy of the multiple ways of transcribing Arabic names into English!)
• The problem with some of Bensons work there, was that it didn't seem as if anything had happened there for the last couple of thousand of years. Take Tayibe (Lebanon), he basically described it as a Heavy Neolithic archaeological site, (..look through the article history...) alas, it is also a village, very much alive. Or Temnin el-Foka, which he described as a nymphaeum (again, look through the article history), alas, it is the name of a village/town, which happen to have a nymphaeum. Virtually every place in the Middle East have a zillion years of history. The problem was that Benson only saw the archeology part, also that he did not distinguish between the archeology and the modern village. Take Tayibe (Lebanon), from the location that Benson gave, I could see that this was the modern village....but I have still no idea as the where (north, south, east, west) the archeological material were found.
• I think that if Benson were to be let back into the project, then his work has to be monitored, and given some restraints, Huldra (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• I have rechecked the problems that led to the ban. Among them was an inability to understand the difference between fringe and mainstream, and and not recognizing the difference between up to date and obsolete sources. In the proposed topic area, both of these are major sources of error and misunderstanding. And the current appeal shows a lack of understanding of the difference between published and unpublished sources in archeology, and a reliance upon personal knowledge. Access to such sources and knowledge can be very helpful to a research archeologist, but neither are appropriate for Wikipedia, an encyclopedia that relies upon published accessible sources, and relies on the general consensus of the field rather than individual interpretation. These are all the more important when dealing with a field of knowledge and continuing controversy. There is undoubtedly excellent work Benson can do in this area, but not for Wikipedia. Everything he does would have to be rechecked in detail by an expert--I am not one, but unless we have some who are willing to revise his contributions for WP rather than write their own, I cannot accept that he would make further contributions in this area. I would only support an appeal than included a topic ban for ancient and medieval history, archeology, and genealogy. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Just spent some time going down "memory lane" reading the diffs and pages associated with the RfC/U on Paul. I'm not seeing that he is addressing anything about the major problems he had with understanding what Wikipedia is for, what we do and don't do, how to use sources, or how to determine what is a good source for Wikipedia and what is not. It's not clear to me what exactly these sources that Paul proposes to use are - are they archival collections or actual published works? I would certainly oppose Paul's return to the Anglo-Saxon area where he showed himself woefully unknowledgeable. A major factor in his ban was the AS area where he misused sources, made up novel definitions, either did not read or willfully misread other people's arguments, and generally ate a large amount of time of some very productive editors. None of which is not addressed at all in his statement. I'm normally not easy to get to the point of wanting to ban someone, but Paul's behavior actually got me to deal with the red tape to file an RfC/U.... that's saying his behavior was well beyond what anyone should have to put up with. I'm afraid that, as written, this appeal, if successful, will just mean some poor editors in the Lebanese archaeological area will be stuck spending all their time cleaning up after Paul and trying to make him see reason. Sorry, not convinced its a benefit to wikipedia to have him back. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• I was the other user, along with Ealdgyth, who assembled the RfC/U that got Paul banned. I'll keep this short and just say I agree with Ealdgyth's response above. I find it hard to believe Paul would be a net benefit to the project, and I think the ban should stand. Paul, find something else constructive to do with your time; Wikipedia is not the only place you can put your energy into. Too much work has been put into cleaning up after Paul for it to be worth the risk of allowing him back. I dislike being this blunt about it, but I don't believe Paul is capable of being a sufficient asset to Wikipedia to compensate for his lack of understanding of how this place works, even if (and it's a big if) he is completely sincere in his statement above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ealdgyth and Mike Christie, just a request for clarification, since I don't remember hearing of Paul Bedson before. It sounds to me like you're saying that Paul's well-meaning but not competent, basically a WP:RANDY. Is that a good summary of your comments, or do I misunderstand? Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Nyttend, Ealdgyth and Mike Christie can speak for themselves, but I would say that Paul Bedson was not always well-meaning either, but having promised to reform those aspects of behavior, competence remains a significant concern, enough so that I wouldn't accept any contribution at face value without independently confirming that the sources said what Paul thought they did. The problem is that his areas of interest are so esoteric that your average administrator or mentor may not know when a distortion or misunderstanding has taken place, making it very difficult to monitor in any meaningful way. No topic ban can solve this kind of problem. Agricolae (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. When I say he was not always well-meaning, I refer, for example, to his admission that he made an edit 'in order to embarass another editor'. That being said, I WP:AGF that Paul intends not to repeat this type of pointy behavior. It is his ability to accurately weigh and express the sources that is the concern over his return. Agricolae (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Agricolae; he was certainly not competent, and I would not say he was well-meaning either; his goals were not focused on what others told him was good for Wikipedia. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF tells me that I have to assume Paul was well-meaning, but I can't say that I can actually believe it. I cannot easily believe that anyone could actually believe some of the stuff he tried to argue. If that makes me a bad person, well, I'll survive. If by "well-meaning", you mean that he wanted to use Wikipedia to push fringe theories, then yeah, I can believe he was well-meaning. I don't expect every person to understand the complexities of manuscript studies (hell, *I* don't) or the weirder corners of medieval scholarship, but I do expect basic competence in reading and listening to other editors. Paul pretty conclusively showed he wasn't going to actually listen to others, so I find myself looking at this appeal and not seeing anything that says he's taken on board the fact that he must engage with other editors properly. I fear that even if he was unbanned with a topic ban from archaeology, Anglo-Saxon topics, and Lebanese topics, he'd just find some other obscure area to misunderstand greatly. The only way he might be useful is if he had a mentor/teacher who had the ability to block him any time he transgressed or misread or did any of the behaviors that got him banned. But who has the time for that? He's better off not being tempted, honestly. Let him work with these archaelogists and learn from them, rather than eating volunteer time on Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that Paul seems to have more or less the same goals as he had before. Last May, in a comment on a web page, he wrote "Paul Bedson May 2nd, 2016 12:05 PM Islam will only reform when it is universally accepted that 2 of the 3 instances of the use of the word Bekkah in the Koran actually do refer to the Bekkah in Lebanon and not Mekkah in Saudi. Once that happens and they archaeologically excavate the original garden of the gods / Eden / Jannah in the Aaiha plain, Bekkah, Lebanon at the first spring of the Jordan / Hasbani. Then you get the Islamic "enlightenment"."[28] One of Paul's main motivations for editing seems to have been to publicise his views on the site of the original Garden of Eden. Eg here[29] where he wrote "This is me figuring out a way to teach everyone about where the Garden of Eden is via the Aaiha Hypothesis whilst evading the corporate constraints of not being able to log in on a PC for fifty hours every week." Now he says he wishes to focus on " Tell Aswad (30km away from Aaiha), where the first emmer wheat was discovered at 8,800BC. This mainstream subject area - the first wheat and settlement development is my specialty and I would suggest is important for the Wikipedia project as it helps document and inform people about where we all came from as a culture and this type of knowledge is of the highest value for both Wikipedia and humanity." I don't see any basic difference here. He thinks he has the truth about "where we all came from as a culture" and that it is extremely important that he inform the world about this. And he seems to think he knows for a fact where Emmer came from and the first settlement development, while so far as I know these are highly disputed subjects.

On another point, should we be pinging all of those who took part in the RfC/U and the ban (which is here[30]. Doug Weller talk 07:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't take part in the original RfC (not being at all knowledgeable in the relevant subject areas), but I followed it with some fascination and I followed links to the various disputes - and I read it all again last night and decided to sleep on it. My conclusion is that Paul Bedson has a breathtaking ability to only see what he wants to see and not see what is as plain as the nose on your face when it doesn't match his views (I'll just say "Wynn" and leave it at that). Paul's problems with OR and interpretation of primary sources abound, and he has an ability to construct fantastic reasoning when sources and/or consensus don't support him. Paul now says he'll leave Fringe topics alone, but I really don't think he has sufficient ability to identify fringe topics or fringe opinions on contentious topics (at least as Wikipedia would define them). Paul appears to have pet subjects in which he passionately believes, and a tendency to only cite those authors he thinks support his views (and, sadly, he has misrepresented sources to claim they support his views). Given his Lebanon-centric approach, his position of religious conviction, and his apparent non-mainsteam opinions on the true origins of human civilisation, he should not be writing about those subjects - they are clearly contentious, and clearly need a very careful and balanced approach. So no, even with a ban on fringe topics, the same problems apply very much to all of Paul's areas of interest - archaeology, ancient history, religious myth. I'm sure he could write a great blog presenting non-mainstream ideas (and mainstream understanding very much needs to be regularly challenged), but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  Having read Paul's latest comments, I'm more convinced that he intends to keep advocating for fringe ideas based on primary sources. A few points:

  1. "I also will not be disturbing any other "Lebanese Archaeology editors" as there are none". Paul should not be working in areas where we do not have other knowledgeable editors to check his contributions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. "...in response to Huldra's question why we should find every ancient site notable is because they are". What, they just are notable, because he says so?
  3. "Even today I have seen more papers coming out arguing more for Mediterranean over African origins [31], [32] (should be covered with a rational synopsis such as [33] rather than that provided by [34])...and little by little, some of my views become a bit less fringe" is certainly problematic. Firstly, the papers are primary sources from the same group of people: David Begun, Madelaine Böhme, Nikolai Spassov et al, and the summaries are just stating their claims. If Paul wants to write about this, he should be providing us with peer reviews of these claims - are there any? (Update: This overview from New Scientist suggests that everyone else thinks the theory is bunk). And, of course, there's "some of my views become a bit less fringe", which does seem to reinforce that he would be writing from his own viewpoint and not from neutrality - there should no mention of "my views" whatsoever from someone appealing to be allowed to contribute to Wikipedia.
  4. "I run a Facebook group called Save Beqaa Heritage with almost 200 members now who are interested in the topic [35]". That's obviously an advocacy group, and even if honorable, it's further illustration of Paul's views which he can not separate from Wikipedia's neutral stance. To quote from one of his posts at that Facebook account, " I read a legend suggesting the pyramid marked the grave of a prince who died in battle there. I think I saw pictures of the column but don't think I wrote about it. Will see if I can expand Wikipedia coverage with anything you dig up next year", which again suggests he wants to use Wikipedia to publish original research.

  Paul clearly has a very firm fringe viewpoint, and just does not get that an encyclopedia is not supposed to be at the forefront of academic research and is not a place for pushing new ideas. Paul's proposal would just see him switching from one fringe area (Anglo-Saxon genealogy) to another ("Out of Lebanon" human origins), with the same POV-driven approach based on primary sources which he supports. I'm sorry, but this all reinforces my opposition to lifting the ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• I participated at the December 2012 RfC/U. The appeal is well written and it is helpful to acknowledge that a FRINGE topic ban would be warranted. However, there are unsolvable problems regarding interpretation of sources and enthusiasm for particular views. There have been cases where, for example, someone whose edits led to disruption in history topics transferred to gaming articles (no history). A similar total topic break may be worth considering, although the case I am remembering ended in the editor concerned being banned because their history editing problems transferred with them to gaming. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: If you want a better example, I'd suggest Vintagekits, who made a successful change from Irish politics (a subject to which the term "controversial history" doesn't do justice) to sports. The situation here isn't really comparable, though, as what we appear to have is someone who wants to move from POV-pushing fringe views in one area, to POV-pushing even more fringe views in another. ‑ Iridescent 21:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• I was unfamiliar with the history behind Paul Bedson's blocking but after reading the RFC/U and what he has written here I can't see that much, if anything, has changed. It seems they will simply move their fringe pushing from one area of the encyclopedia to another. The final nail in the coffin for me was Paul Bedson's claim that yet another Begun paper arguing for a Mediterranean origin somehow made his views less fringe. Putting aside the primary source issue, Begun's views are fringier than fringe, have been for 20 years now, and this new paper does nothing to change that. Begun and his group are, on the scantest of evidence, asserting that a fossil, that every other researcher in the field agrees is an ape, is actually a hominin. If Paul Bedson can't see just how fringe these claims are I can't see how their editing would be any different than before their block.Capeo (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• I never dealt with Paul before but after reading his comments here that were supposed to convince the community he has changed I see little to no difference in his advocacy for fringe theories. Topic bans and mentoring are too much to ask of the community and we may not have an abundance of editors knowledgeable in the fields that Paul intends to edit and willing to survey his edits. I recommend that editors interested in these areas are on alert for sock puppets if consensus agrees with upholding the ban.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Paul says " This "Levantine Corridor" hypothesis as my friend Edmund like to call it" and that he wants to expand on it. We have an article on it: Levantine corridor. "Edmund" would be Edmund March[36] of fringe The Golden Age Project[37]. Paul wrote articles on Christian O'Brien and Edmund Marriage and a failed DYK on Marriage Template:Did you know nominations/Edmund Marriage which led directly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Marriage. He says " Expanding articles about villages that might help future explorers find more Jerichos," and finding more Jerichos or more Gobekli Tepe's would be nice, but that's not our role and I still see nothing that would make me feel comfortable with him editing in any of the areas that interest him. Doug Weller talk 05:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  Those are very close to my thoughts after reading Paul's latest comments, and I'm still convinced that Paul does not understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. If Paul wants to help future archaeologists, assist with future research or help direct new ideas, there are plenty of other outlets for his enthusiasm and talents - but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Responses from Paul

Copied from this version, for reference:

I thought I would add in light of recent comments on the noticeboard that I agree in part with DGG that the topic ban could be extended to cover all of Medieval history and genealogy. Even European history but Ancient history is part of what I would like to cover in similar fashion to Huldra on Lebanese village pages. I have no intention of working in such areas again or bothering editors working in them. I would also like to apologize to Ealdgyth and Mike Christie personally for the work I caused them so many years ago and hope my attitude and tone of collaboration on issues such as negotiation of topic bans will demonstrate that I have learned how this place works better. I also will not be disturbing any other "Lebanese Archaeology editors" as there are none. I tried getting into Cambridge and UCL to further studies in this area and they want nothing to do with the subject. Doug is the closest you'll have and my thanks to Huldra for improving the Lebanese villages with modern information. This would also be my intention to improve such areas with similar information from similar reliable sources. The Lorraine Copeland inventory I mentioned is old but I will treat it that way, it is reliable and the latest information that I doubt you will find it in any library anywhere near you. I recognize this was a fault of mine as I rushed through covering the most important areas for my specific "thesis". My intention now is to broaden that coverage with wider exploration of paleolithic, general neolithic and bronze age sites as well as the Heavy Neolithic I specifically focused on too much. I feel I can do a good job in this area and impress @Doug Weller: (who I like, respect and certainly also owe numerous apologies) that my focus is no longer single mindedly on my own interests but that of Wikipedia primarily. I am happy for him to reimpose a community ban at will if this one were to be repealed and I put one foot out of line.
— User:Paul Bedson 14:31, 23 May 2017

Comment, Ugh, your comment about "broaden that coverage with wider exploration of paleolithic, general neolithic and bronze age sites" gets me seriously worried. Why on earth is each and every site notable? Take an example, there is a book I use a lot, La Palestine byzantine, Peuplement et Populations, which basically lists all the places where Byzantine remains have been found in Israel/Palestine. Now, when I village is mentioned there, I of course mention it in that village article. What I do NOT do, is to go around creating articles about each and every site where Byzantine remains have been found. There are hundreds upon hundreds, if not thousands such sites! I have tried to clean up articles like At Tiri, where the village history apparently ended in the Heavy Neolithic before I looked at it. Now, what I do not look forward to, is seeing a lot of new articles where the history ends at, say the Bronze age. (Don't get me wrong: there are of course some important "tells" where history basically ends, say at the Bronze age. But they are few. And those articles are basically already made.) Also, the sentence "I tried getting into Cambridge and UCL to further studies in this area and they want nothing to do with the subject".....eh, if they "want nothing to do with the subject", why should it be suitable for Wikipedia?

So if, ....and from what everyone else above have said, it is obviously a huge IF, Paul Benson is allowed back: then as a minimum: he should not be allowed to start any new articles. Huldra (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

From this post:

Thanks again and in response to Huldra's question why we should find every ancient site notable is because they are and every one can help people understand their origins, whether from that area or not. We have English Heritage in the UK to document all our sites. Lebanese and Syrians don't, even if Israel is pretty well covered. Protecting and recording Lebanese and Syrian heritage is still important and I hope you will agree if you think it over, considering the recent efforts of certain groups to destroy it. The Association for the Protection of Lebanese Heritage has a crowdmap they tried running and I tried copying a fraction of the information I wrote here over but it took too long and hasn't the potential. There are many Lebanese and Syrians who have thanked me for my work and I am sure would thank Huldra for yours too. I run a Facebook group called Save Beqaa Heritage with almost 200 members now who are interested in the topic [38] and no doubt would appreciate the coverage. I do agree with your criticisms about focus however and would want to introduce well sourced, modern material where I can and make comprehensive new articles, not just archaeology stubs an area I hope to go traveling and collecting relevant sources. Even today I have seen more papers coming out arguing more for Mediterranean over African origins [39], [40] (should be covered with a rational synopsis such as [41] rather than that provided by [42])...and little by little, some of my views become a bit less fringe.
— User:Paul Bedson 01:05, 24 May 2017

Comment, Firstly, of course I agree that the recent destruction of heritage in the Middle East is horrendous (e.g.. I took most of the pictures of the recently destroyed Hammam Yalbugha), however, starting an article about each and every place where there have been found antiquities, is not the way to combat that!! Take the above article, At Tiri: that article is presently a combination of your article called Taire...and the old At Tiri, with some Ottoman history added (by me). But that you could start an article about Taire, with details such as "is located [...] to the west of the village. The exact location of the site is unknown and the assemblage found was small and of indeterminable date " is beyond me. (My bolding.) In fact, I have been tempted to suggest AfD for several of your articles in the Template:Heavy Neolithic sites and the Template:Archaeological sites in Lebanon. The only reason I haven't done so, is because I am not an expert on archeology in Lebanon. I agree with you that there are no other "Lebanese Archaeology editors" here, but I also 100% agree with Boing! said Zebedee above: that is not a fact in your favour, quite the opposite. Frankly, I would be tearing my hair out in frustration, if you were allowed to start more new articles about archeological sites in Lebanon.

Having said all this, I don't see any great danger to let Bedson be allowed to add archeological finds to already existing articles? (But I might be missing something?) Huldra (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Huldra I think the most apparent danger is something that Iridescent perfectly described above: an editor who wants to move from POV-pushing fringe views in one area, to POV-pushing even more fringe views in another. Bedson's comments advocate for more fringe theories. I honestly do not see a net positive to the encyclopedia by allowing Bedson to edit again since his comments are not reflective of someone who has learned from past mistakes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

From here:

I would like to respond to Boing said Zebedee, Iridescent and Huldra's latest comments. I do not intend to push fringe views in any area. The example I noted was to show I wouldn't use a source like the Daily Telegraph that overtly pushes fringe theories for such coverage. I agree entirely your New Scientist article should take the lead if covered and with all the views and some of the skepticism it contains. It's still a notable find as it has significant coverage. That isn't what I should focus on if the ban is appealed. I am tending to agree with Huldra that my efforts if allowed to edit again should be to tidy up some of the articles I wrote with a biased focus on the "Heavy Neolithic" information - to broaden that and turn the articles into decent pieces. I would be pleased to accept an unban limited only to doing that as a trial. I would add that i don't advocate an "out-of-lebanon" thesis anymore. The "Save Beqaa Heritage" group does not advocate this and I did not intend to use original research in any way if allowed to edit again. My group is an offshoot of the much larger "Save Beirut Heritage" group, which has over 14,000 members (to show the size of interested parties) [43], and covers news, archaeology and heritage management content. I am not arguing and will not be pushing ANY fringe views like "out-of-lebanon" or such nonsense. What I do know after reading the inventory of Lebanese prehistoric sites and reading and writing about dozens of other ones in the area is that there was a concentration of Neolithic activity up and down the Jordan valley at the start of farming. This "Levantine Corridor" hypothesis as my friend Edmund likes to call it is slightly more advanced than the "Fertile Crescent" hypothesis that is still prevalent and unrefined in the mainstream and is somewhat orignal research expansion from it. I don't intend to "push" that, just document what is there. It is factual coverage and not views that I want to push. If you know the stratigraphic seqences of enough of these sites, you'll see the concentration down the Jordan and Beqaa valleys. This isn't really fringe since Kathleen Kenyon's discoveries at Jericho in the 50s. Expanding articles about villages that might help future explorers find more Jerichos, I hope will be interpreted as a good and true intention.
— User:Paul Bedson 18:39, 26 May 2017

From here:

One last response to Doug. I am really sorry that I can't make you feel comfortable even being limited to editing such a narrow area as Lebanese villages previously worked on badly, for improvement purposes. Please let me know if there is anything I can do or say to make you feel more so. I wanted to add that yes, Edmund is a friend as is Barbara Joy O'Brien, who is still going strong at 95 years of age now! I don't agree with all of Christian O'Brien or Edmund Marriage's views either. Edmund constantly refers to a "restart" of agriculture which is blatantly contrary to my constant referring to the Aswad emmer grains as the first hard evidence of the start of domesticated agriculture. This can be hard work, we constantly argue over this and other issues and unfortunately, his do not seem to change. Mine do and I hope I have demonstrated they do and have done. I am very open minded and bow to new and better wisdom and learn from it as I have learned from you Doug and very grateful for your hard work. Despite our differences in opinion, me and Edmund are still friends and I do agree with some of his views as does Wikipedia in the last two sentences of the very short and (embarrassingly) weak article on the Levantine Corridor. It would be the views that both you and me agree on that would like to come back and improve coverage on pages like that potentially and Lebanese villages. We agree it would be nice to find more Gobekli Tepes or Jerichos. We also agree that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia could be for documenting where to find them better, this is within scope. Wikipedia is for providing information and if there is a way I can do that in any limited form around this area with good sources (such as Peltenberg & Wasse : Neolithic Revolution: New perspectives on SouthWest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries on Cyprus, Oxbow, 2004, from my library), aiming to impress you, at risk of immediate re-banning, I would be keen to accept your advice and judgement. Even if given the Levantine Corridor article to improve and make an example of what I could do to help and try to be your friend & colleague again, I would be extremely grateful for the chance. Thanks.
— User:Paul Bedson 10:33, 27 May 2017‎

Updated, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Boundarylayer and his crusade on Talk:Alan_Robock

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

---

Boundarylayer appears to be on a crusade to unmask an I.P editor as the article's subject. Problem is, he's violating WP:Outing to do it. Even more problematic, he's refusing to see that it is a problem and has now posted three messages of screed on the Talk page of Alan Robock that essentially out the editor His subject heading on the talk page is a good example of screed, indeed two sections of screed, dripping with contempt for other editors. I realize at least one sysop disagrees with me on this, however, per COI:

When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes.

explicit tells us not to out COI editors. It shows the proceedure to take when we suspect a COI and Boundarylayer is not following it. At this point, it's becoming a problem.
My request: I'm requesting that the talk page , as it stands now, be rev'del'd, and that Boundarylayer be strongly cautioned to follow COI policy rather than out editors in the future. And yes, I will admit my conduct (hatting his message with an unfriendly message, to say the least) was less than optimal!  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  13:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A crusade to out someone...really? Is that what you're still claiming this is about? Look, it is plain to see to everyone that when I posted my COI concerns to that persons talk-page, they were in the form of a single 1-liner, way back in January and then, what did I do after that? I simply left it at that and moved on. I had given a heads-up to other editors about my COI concerns and I really wasn't bothered after that. That is, not until I got an email notification that my 1-liner was removed by you and now you're here trying to convince people that me not being bother for 4 months, from January-to-May...is a "crusade" to "OUT" him? You serious?

So look, obviously I don't really care about Robock. On the other hand, I do however care a hell of a lot about the shady manner in which (1) my COI concerns were deleted by you, and (2) how a clear fan of Robock's has tried to get me topic banned and (3) Other editors have tried to obfuscate, deceive and divert attention away from the fact that we now have multiple IP users, who are very likely be Robock, editing the Alan Robock article. This most recent mischaracterization of me having a "crusade" to "out" Robock, is just yet another example of these diversionary actions, to take attention away from the editorial issue at hand.

Moreover. In respect to your ad-nauseum "OUTING" charge. Unless I'm mistaken but in the earlier admin noticeboard discussion on this. Did not User:Murph9000 state very clearly to everyone that: "As for the OUTING, there was none here, just suspicion based on public information and editing pattern. IP editors are given fair warning that their IP will be published, so if they don't want to live with the consequences of that they must register an account and always login before editing. If the information is public and trivially available to anyone browsing the site, repeating that information cannot be outing. There was recent strong consensus on AN/I to support that position." Murph9000 (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

My suspicions of COI, are based solely on public information and editing patterns. So according to User:Murph9000. What I've done, is therefore clearly not OUTING, despite your obsession with claiming that it is.

With all this in mind, I can't help getting the impression that it is really obviously you with the crusade to make this plain-as-day case of a COI, disappear. Are you perhaps also a fan of Robock's or something? As that would explain why I've encountered such a suspicious amount of wiki-gagging attempts and a bewildering stream of nonsensical accusations, and not to mention, even seen an attempt to get me banned...all over something I wrote in January and that I actually forget all about, until I was notified that you fellows had deleted my COI concerns.

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

I totally disagree with the close. This is 100% outing. Outing is defined per WP:OUTING as:

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia

This I.P didn't post his information on Wikipedia, therefore he was outed. FULL STOP!! If this isn't clear to you, perhaps you shouldn't be the one closing this. As far as no evidence, look at the talk page - all the evidence you need is there. As far as my reverts, WP:OUTING tells us

Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly,

that's what I'm doing , it's not a PA Sory, but there's no way you can post someone's name in Wikiepdia or even speculate on it , without the person giving there name and not have it be outing. Incorrect close, please revert.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  16:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, question for you. If Joe Bloggs works at Place, and everyone knows he's working at Place, and an IP traces to Place, then it's not really "outing", is it? it's just confirming that someone from Place is editing whilst logged out. It doesn't trace back to Bloggs specifically, nor does it tell anyone anything that wasn't already known before. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What you've described is not outing, no, but if I imply that it's Joe Bloggs, then yes it is.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  17:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really. We know Bloggs works at Place. So all that they're saying is "someone from Place is editing the article on Joe Bloggs, and I think it's Bloggs himself." That's not outing, that's just reaching a logical conclusion. Honestly, this whole thing just needs to go to WP:COIN. It stopped being an admin issue when the main section of this thread was closed and you were warned. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line is, we do not know who exactly edited the page, and considering only minor edits (removing vandalism, and adding dates), does not really amounts to what has been suggested. Recently, there was a case brought here to AN, where someone leaked an alleged email, yet we had no proof of its authenticity, yet some editors treated it as legit, thats a problem. prokaryotes (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

And in botht hat case and this one, it was handled improperly. The absolute worst way to deal with outing is to pen a bunch of discussions about it. As it says quite plainly int he outing policy, the correct way to deal with outing is through WP:RFO. You only make it worse by opening threads on noticeboards pointing out the outing, and it makes oversight's job more complicated/pointless if you deliberately draw attention to it. See Streisand Effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. If saying a person might also be an IP, then all of WP:SPI is a policy violation. There are ways to use an IP along with a bunch of other info to out someone, but simply saying that "Editor A is also 127.0.0.1" is not one of them and admin, editors, SPI clerks, Arb, everyone does it all the time. IPs alone are NOT personal information and no one owns their IP. Not even static IPs. Again, this is a WP:COIN issue, not Oversight and not ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a problem, but I don't think it relates to outing. My concern with the post that started this was not that it was outing, but that it made unfounded accusations of promotional editing and removal of criticism, when that clearly wasn't the case. My issue now more about the personal attacks on the talk page. I'd like to see if things calm down, but I fear it is heading somewhere other than COIN. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying it is outing, just that if you do see outing ANI is the absolute worst way to deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

As other have said, it's well accepted that connecting an IP to an editor here solely based on their actions here is not outing. Nor is mentioning geolocation or ISP details about that IP. The only way outing is likely to come into play is if you take details beyond ordinary IP details from somewhere else into account. For example, if I find in some other forum that there's someone with a fairly unique username who edits from ISP X and lives in city Y, and I mention this here because we also have someone with that fairly unique username, and use this info to connect them to an IP (or even if I don't); then yes this will be outing. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ban proposal/rangeblock request: Masoom.bilal73

• Masoom.bilal73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is effectively de facto banned already, in that no sane administrator would ever unblock them, but I'd like to propose a formal ban anyway. . Main target for this user is Phalia which they have repeatedly edited to insert their own name, and/or make generally incompetent edits of other types. They have even gone so far as to upload an image of a landmark in Phalia at Commons (now deleted) where they added their own name as a watermark not one but four times over what turned out to be a copyright violation anyway.

I don't believe this is trolling, it is more of a WP:CIR issue. This person seems manifestly incapable of understanding that Wikipedia is not a place to promote themselves, and there is an obvious language issue as well. Their unblock requests make it clear they have an extremely poor understanding of the English language, to the point where it si unlikely they even comprehend the majority of messages they receive.

Part of the reason is simply to get more eyes on them, I seem to be the only admin fully aware of them and if I'm not around the socks tend to go unnoticed even though they are extremely obvious. The other reason is the probably vain hope that maybe, just maybe, a formal ban will drive home to them that they need to stop what they are doing. If one of my fellow checkusers would be willing to look into a rangeblock that might also be helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• If it'll help, I'll support this. I also added Phalia to my watchlist, but my watchlist is getting a bit too large for me to notice everything that happens on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that' something, I was rather hoping to get more than one comment here.... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, isn't your semiprotection of Phalia likely to address the problem? If you have a rangeblock in mind, can you say what it is? Extending the semi to indefinite is one idea. It is easily justified since the problem has been happening since 2015. Another option is WP:ECP since socking is a justification for such a protection under the community rules. For what it's worth I would support a ban on User:Masoom.bilal73. There is a sockpuppet category at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Masoom.bilal73 and an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masoom.bilal73. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations - help requested

While the Copypatrol tool has meant that new copyright violations are (relatively) quickly caught and patterns of violation (relatively) quickly corrected, we have years of a backlog of old copyright problems to deal with. In the past, our tools were not so good, and users could go for years without detection and blocking. So we have a massive backlog (years' worth) of articles that may be contaminated with copy-pasted content. I'd appreciate all the help possible cleaning these up. Given the current situation, other users' work is often wasted where foundational copyright violations require the deletion of content that has been polished for years. Users interested in helping can manually check old diffs and can also run the current revision of articles through Earwig's tool, though I recommend doing the latter only after making sure that all of the reference URLs work and swapping them out for archive versions if necessary. Thanks! List of open long-term copyright investigations below. Assistance also appreciated at Copypatrol and WP:CP but these are more or less under control. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

List of open long-term copyright investigations

Case Date Notes Hauganm 31 July 2011 Sweden, Norway, biographies 20111004 04 October 2011 aviation Ironboy11 09 October 2011 Pakistan SasiSasi 18 October 2011 copyright Borsoka 23 October 2011 Eastern Europe 20111108 8 November 2011 text Tiamut 11 March 2012 Middle East 20120412 12 April 2012 energy Marcus334 19 April 2012 India, environment Anglo Pyramidologist 6 June 2012 miscellaneous Judgesurreal777 23 June 2012 pop culture YHoshua 10 August 2012 Indiana Striver 4 September 2012 Islam Hyperionsteel 10 October 2012 Canada Proudbolsahye 21 December 2012 Armenia IWannaABillionaire 29 January 2013 popular culture Tobyc75 13 February 2013 Switzerland Snigdhasinghsweet 20 February 2013 India Rosser1954 04 March 2013 Scotland Hantsheroes 17 March 2013 Canada Tamravidhir 25 March 2013 India 20130330 30 March 2013 philosophy BhagyaMani 19 April 2013 wildlife Gunkarta 10 June 2013 Indonesia Arrwiki 17 June 2013 Indian films 20130819 20 August 2013 Military Degen Earthfast 5 September 2013 Military 20130908 8 September 2013 geology, paleontology, biology Zictor23 19 September 2013 Politics FreshCorp619 14 October 2013 Schools America789 31 October 2013 Military Buster40004 31 October 2013 Military DrMicro 13 November 2013 medicine Aetheling1125 9 December 2013 British history Premkudva 20 December 2013 India Purrum 15 January 2014 Australian Football 20140127 27 January 2014 Biographies Nehapant19 18 February 2014 India Dante8 27 March 2014 feminism $1LENCE D00600D 17 April 2014 American military history Norden1990 25 April 2014 Hungary DendroNaja 17 May 2014 snakes, crime GordyB 1 June 2014 Rugby Trident13 22 July 2014 Britain Superzohar 10 August 2014 Russia Kprtqrf06 16 August 2014 Canadian military history Zozo2kx 23 August 2014 Syria Lactasamir 27 August 2014 Europe Skoojal 6 September 2014 philosophy, LGBT Gryffindor 16 October 2014 various El Cazangero 17 October 2014 various 20141020 20 October 2014 Native American history Mztourist 29 October 2014 military DocOfSoc 22 November 2014 California Wysinger 1 December 2014 Jazz Ajdebre 5 December 2014 Serbia ProfReader 1 January 2015 South Carolina Hahc21 18 January 2015 music BiggestSataniaFangirl89 21 March 2015 History Rick570 2 April 2015 New Zealand, Christian brothers Headhitter 15 April 2015 Biographies, music, churches Grunners 17 August 2015 Europe, railways Oanabay04 25 August 2015 US railways and popular media 20150927 27 September 2015 Nigeria 20151115 15 November 2015 American history Coldcreation 15 November 2015 Art Koala15 15 November 2015 Film 20151212 12 December 2015 Ireland, TV shows Aldebaran69 22 May 2017 unattributed translations about royalty Nannadeem 23 May 2017 Pakistan, Islam Faedra 23 May 2017 Nobility Josephlalrinhlua786 23 May 2017 Film Ahendra 23 May 2017 Islamic and other history Helena Bx 24 May 2017 South Asian history CJojoC 22 September 2017 Korean movies 20171031 31 October 2017 India Jwratner1 1 December 2017 Earth 20180325 25 March 2018 Women and other minorities in history Tanbircdq 22 August 2018 Asia Sayerslle 11 September 2018 Politics and arthouse films Nauriya 11 September 2018 Film and TV 20150507 11 September 2018 Animals and Cricket Edelmand 11 September 2018 Britain and Led Zeppelin Rochelimit 11 September 2018 Indonesian architecture Hogie75 11 September 2018 Canadian geography Mahussain06 11 September 2018 Boxing Dunks58 11 September 2018 Australia, Milesago.com 20190125 25 January 2019 American military MatteoNL97 24 July 2019 Cigarettes and motorcycles Contaldo80 24 July 2019 Homosexuality and religion Dead.rabbit 24 July 2019 Bangladesh BLPs Flooded with them hundreds 24 July 2019 Music 20190724 24 July 2019 Unattributed NASA copies Favre1fan93 24 July 2019 Superhero media 20190724a 24 July 2019 Terrorism in India Kailash29792 26 December 2019 Indian cinema Dutchy85 26 December 2019 Old films and TV 20200212 12 February 2020 Aviation and transport 20200411 11 April 2020 India: Assam Georgiano 22 May 2020 Caucasus history Dhollm 19 July 2020 Science Snickers2686 21 July 2020 American politics ZarhanFastfire 29 July 2020 Canadian art Isinbill 22 August 2020 Ethnic groups and Mexico Veillg1 2 September 2020 Machine translations, Quebec Lmmnhn 7 September 2020 Hong Kong Kiraroshi1976 16 September 2020 American culture and movies 20201008 8 October 2020 Britain 20201108 8 November 2020 Royalty and foreign arthouse films 20201122 22 November 2020 The Middle East and technology Comhar 27 November 2020 Ireland Greenock125 30 November 2020 Songs Sengkang 7 December 2020 Singapore geography 211.237.125.110 7 December 2020 Japan ZaDoraemonzu 7 December 2020 International relations Ssolbergj 24 December 2020 The EU and Europe JoeScarce 9 January 2021 Catholicism and news 20210111 11 January 2021 Britain Shootingstar88 26 January 2021 Sexuality 20210126a 26 January 2021 Books and art pop 20210126b 26 January 2021 Film 20210127 27 January 2021 Nigeria 20210127c 27 January 2021 Alcohol Backendgaming 28 January 2021 Asia, music, and news 20210128 28 January 2021 Indian cinema 20210206 6 February 2021 Guyana Manannan51 15 February 2021 Catholic TheriusRooney 4 March 2021 Motoring Troy86 12 March 2021 Brazil 20210314 14 March 2021 Austrialia, world history 20210315 15 March 2021 Misc. american history Kahsiav 16 March 2021 India Vvven 22 March 2021 Ibero-America 20210410 10 April 2021 Tamil movies Amshpatten 16 April 2021 Indian history and culture 20210418 18 April 2021 Military history Lg16spears 24 April 2021 Movies and TV shows BornonJune8 25 April 2021 American sports and TV Verosaurus 30 April 2021 Ships Rockysantos 11 May 2021 Portugal 20210531 31 May 2021 World history LupEnd007 4 June 2021 Rap music 20210813 13 August 2021 India- Kollam Bluecountrymutt 26 August 2021 US Air Force Elan Morin Tedronai 2 October 2021 Science fiction, fantasy and music Enthusiast01 13 October 2021 Australia, world events 20211022 22 October 2021 European biographies DaWulf2013 31 October 2021 US military regiments Werldwayd 6 November 2021 Music 20211117 17 November 2021 Hinduism 20211215 15 December 2021 Indian history MWD115 26 January 2022 Unattributed translations BOZ 1 February 2022 Table top games and video games Shadowwarrior8 14 February 2022 Islam Qualitatis 20 February 2022 Israel, Palestine JShanley98 20 February 2022 Movies Harshhussey 20 February 2022 Cricket Ashim nep 20 February 2022 Nepal Ewf9h-bg 4 March 2022 Ancient society Friedjof 4 March 2022 German biographies DeltaSquad833 4 March 2022 Ships Rtkat3 25 April 2022 Comics TDKR Chicago 101 15 June 2022 Biographies and Chicago 20220623 23 June 2022 Cuba 20220731 31 July 2022 Bangladesh and Indian films Nicholas0 1 September 2022 Film Suslindisambiguator 24 September 2022 Science biographies 20221001 1 October 2022 Translations J Bar 23 October 2022 Australian media 20221029 29 October 2022 The Bible Takhellei 30 October 2022 Manipur films Chinakpradhan 5 January 2023 Spaceflight 20230110 10 January 2023 Sikhs Profile101 11 February 2023 Transport SuperSwift 12 February 2023 Nigerian history and government 20230303 3 March 2023 Sustainability SGT141 8 May 2023 US police 20230508 8 May 2023 Afghan military history Sittaconde 8 June 2023 Sierra Leone Chamaemelum 21 July 2023 Science and genetics Zackmann08 21 July 2023 Fires and firefighting Peripatetic 12 August 2023 Biographies 20230813 13 August 2023 Australian music 20230831 31 August 2023 Diving and South Africa 20230909 9 September 2023 Australia 1Sire 22 October 2023 Music Gilabrand 3 November 2023 Israel 20231125 25 November 2023 Botany Piledhigheranddeeper 19 December 2023 USA history Hadden 13 January 2024 USA history FuzzyMagma 13 January 2024 Middle East Cs california 13 January 2024 Plants OcelotHod 13 January 2024 Films 20240203 3 February 2024 Mathematics Gre regiment 2 March 2024 Greece, Turkey 20240428 28 April 2024 Veterinary medicine Opus88888 3 May 2024 Latin American music 20240707 7 July 2024 Israeli archeology 20240708 8 July 2024 Iran Rjdeadly 11 July 2024 Roman history Broadmoor 18 July 2024 US college sports Zeorymer 21 July 2024 Portuguese heritage Colman2000 31 July 2024 Texas 20240901 1 September 2024 Species Skitash 9 September 2024 Middle East Kippelboy 1 October 2024 Catalan BLPs DrPlantGenomics 9 November 2024 STEM

• Comment:--Can't there be a script that automatically runs through the diffs. and after vetting them through Earwig's tool, marks the percentage of copy-vio?It would make the job less tedious by a mile and fasten up the process.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's so simple but I've inquired at WP:BOTREQ. I feel like I've asked a similar question previously, but I couldn't find it in the archives there so I may be misremembering. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• there is a boatload of copyvio in pages here [[44]] and much of it can be axed for other obvious reasons like Promo, NOTAWEBHOST etc without even checking for copyvio. However if someone figures out a way to semiautomate checking copyvio, let's use it against userspace too. Legacypac (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

CAT:ESP severe backlog

I know that anyone can help out here (in addition to administrators), but Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests has been SEVERELY backlogged for a long time. As of 13:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC), it has 80. Some requests have been pending for almost two months. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and frankly think that you have to be slightly insane to want to be one, but I will start working on the backlog later today. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• CAT:ESP is an editor backlog, not an administrator backlog. The administrator edit request backlog is currently 2 pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Is there a central place to make requests for help with editor backlogs? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• There is Category:Wikipedia backlog, but I don't know where you can place backlog notices, so I went here since admins can help with the backlog. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 20:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:VPM is probably about the most on-topic place generic for non-admin backlogs. In many cases, the stuff which sits on the ESp backlog isn't easy to clear, as it can require a significant amount of work to properly assess the larger or more complex requests, validate the sourcing, weigh it against the article's history and previous talk, etc. In many cases, it really needs someone who is reasonably familiar with the topic. I.e. while theoretically, anyone with good general WP competence can jump in and action them, some of them are a bit intimidating or off-putting, and psychologically much easier to leave them to someone who is interested in the particular subject. Also, the numbers possibly look a bit worse than they really are, as some of the pending requests are in discussion or awaiting feedback, and you don't see all of the requests which are answered within 24–48 hours. Murph9000 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Meh, IAR. Backlogs need to be cleaned up, especially time sensitive ones like CAT:ESP and CAT:EDITREQ. This page probably has more watchers than any other on Wikipedia. If posting on AN cleans out a backlog, then so be it. Altamel (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, in suggesting VPM as being on-topic for it, I'm certainly not complaining that it's completely off-topic here. If an infrequent / occasional post here helps keep the backlog in check, that's net beneficial to the project and fine by me. WP:EAR might another reasonably on-topic place for an occasional reminder about it. Murph9000 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Murph9000. Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests is probably a good place to go for non-admin backlogs. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

magic282 malicious links

I just undid two changes, by MCEllis, to their own talk page which did nothing but change a number of links to en.wiki to point to another site, a site which is a mirror of en.wiki and which would convince many readers that they were still on the same site. I don’t know the purpose of the site, whether it includes advertising or whether it has some more nefarious purpose such as to collect user logins, but having links that look like internal ones but which lead to such a site is clearly dangerous. Not sure what exactly the cause is so what can be done, but is this a known problem or has is happened before?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @JohnBlackburne:, it was good that you caught that, I had no idea. The links were changed by my account without my knowledge and against my will. It seems to be a known problem/attack because my account was auto banned instantly after the links were inserted. I changed my password, and will have to keep an eye on my activity to make sure it doesn't happen again.--MCEllis (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That's weird. Thanks for changing your password! I wondered why you'd posted an unblock request when you have an empty block log. I've revdeleted the links, since someone viewing the page history might click them without knowing what they were; feel free to revundelete them if you think it appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend:@JohnBlackburne: I think I know what happened: From Wikipedia I must have clicked on a malicious link to enwiki.magic282.me or a clone of the malicious site. Then I tried to edit an article and the malicious site, which I thought was Wikipedia told me I was banned and needed to "Login" and put the unblock template on my user page. When I did this it changed all the Wikipedia links on my real talk page to the magic282 links. It turns out Wikipedia does not automatically detect these malicious phishing links. Something needs to be done to remove these malicious links from Wikipedia, they are likely to spread given that this site is capable of farming passwords and mass-replacing links throughout wikipedia. Here is the message I get when I tried to edit a page on the site, which led me to login to magic282 and edit my talk page with a request to be unblocked, even though I wasn't blocked from the real Wikipedia:

"You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.
You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from 2604:A880:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been blocked (disabled) by LFaraone for the following reason(s):
Server-multiple.svgThe IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host provider.
Since the web host acts like a proxy, because it hides your IP address, it has been blocked. To prevent abuse, these IPs may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

If you do not believe you are using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. Place any further information here. ~~~~}}. If you are using a Wikipedia account you will need to request an IP block exemption by either using the unblock template or by submitting an appealing using the unblock ticket request system. If you wish to keep your IP address private you can email the functionaries team."

Please prioritize a response to malicious phishing magic282 links, there may also be clones with other URLs. How can we find out how many pages are affected? --MCEllis (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I did a quick search for magic282 before posting here, and found nothing. Hopefully that means it’s not a wider problem, or if it has occurred then the links have been removed. From my own limited experience such sites are common. Quite a few people think it’s a good idea to create a mirror of WP. Which is not a problem, given WP’s license. It’s only a problem when they use it in a deceptive manner, as here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I did a search myself. Didn't find anything but I've added the domain to the spam blacklist so that no further insertions do not occur. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe blacklisting the site is a good idea. There is no valid reason to post that domain here anyway. I can be used as phishing to get login and passwords from editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I went through my history, it looks like I was on the enwiki.magic282.me site for quite a while last night, completely unbeknownst to me. It seems I stumbled unto the site from a google search, when I was looking up Wikipedia templates. I will have to be more careful when clicking on links from Google. I did report the phishing site to Google and described the malicious nature of the site for mass inserting it's own url into Wikipedia pages. https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/report_phish/?hl=en --MCEllis (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

See Special:Log/block&page=User:2604:A880:0:0:0:0:0:0/32. This IP range was indeed blocked indefinitely by LFaraone in 2013 with a rationale of {{Webhostblock}}. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. I still think we need to blacklist it here, as this is a perfect bouncing place to scam people who will think they timed out. Blacklisting isn't something I do regularly, hoping a more familiar admin will spot and add. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support Blacklisting I am not an administrator but I think blacklisting the entire magic282.me domain and all subdomains is necessary since the site was inserting so many nefarious links onto my talk page without my permission, using my username, and also collecting my username and password. In addition to clones of enwikipedia, magic282.me also has a clone of commons and other questionable subdomains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCEllis (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

A further thought: I imagine the script-kiddie behind this chose a .me domain as it is cheap. So there’s nothing to stop them registering other domains under .me, which they can then point to their WP mirror, if they have not done so already. Or someone else could try the same trick, perhaps with domains they own. I.e. if there is some other way of stopping or at least finding and removing these links we should use it. Something IP based, perhaps, or an edit filter. I imagine links to WP mirrors should be removed anyway, as they have no other use – they are not good references or external links.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This misuse of Wikipedia to spread malware should also be reported to WMF Legal. I would do it myself but I'm traveling with phone-only access for a few days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats against an editor and Wikipedia

Could an admin please take a look at this rant from a banned user and advise on appropriate action? He apparently doesn't understand Wikipedia's copyright policy and he is making legal threats against me and the whole project. Pinging NeilN who helped earlier with this user's vandalism and socking. Thanks, — JFG ^talk 12:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Significant non-free files with orphaned versions backlog

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared! Thanks to everyone who helped out! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi y'all! There's a significant backlog of 1,900 non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing revision deletion, and that's after I handled about 100 of them. If any of y'all want to pitch in, it would be most appreciated. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

On it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Down to 675 but my fingers are getting sore so I'm out for now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Bernardo Silva protection required

Resolved

Could an Admin please semi-protect Bernardo Silva.. getting out of hand now. JMHamo (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:RPP is usually the best place for that. I'll take a look though. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

Rich Farmbrough has been unblocked. This appears to be resolved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I just blocked Rich Farmbrough for a week for making an ungodly number of script-run edits. When you check out his contribs you'll see a rate of about 250 pages in three minutes. There was a bot request waiting, and the template being "fixed" is already on the autosubst list, so I'm not sure why he felt the need to do this himself in such an immediate fashion. Either way, it contravenes the WP:BOT policies and (even though the sanctions have been lifted) breaks almost every sanction put in place by the ArbCom case. This is mostly a procedural notice regarding the block, but I think further community-imposed restrictions could be merited. Primefac (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This is actually a topic ban violation of the ban instituted here. That ban applied to all edits that don't change the rendered output of the page unless there's consensus for them. Given that WP:Bot policy is a policy that disallows automated editing from the main account, these automated edits didn't have consensus. Given the history here, a one week block was generous, in my opinion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The rate seems excessive to me. Leaving the TBAN, bot approval, and consensus issues aside, there should never really be a good reason for excessive rate of automated or semi-automated normal edits (i.e. no urgency for the project as a whole, no benefit from going fast). The API includes a rate limiting / throttling feature, to account for server load, and database update and replication lag. Roughly one edit per second strongly suggests to me that this feature was not used, which goes against best practices. See mw:Manual:Maxlag parameter and Wikipedia:Creating a bot § Bot best practices. Murph9000 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed no errors to Rich's edits. I think blocks for editing too fast should stop in the future. There is no server overload. Moreover, I assume good faith and I do not think the edit were fully automated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm failing to see how this block isn't purely punitive. It is actually preventing constructive edits from being made, creating more harm than good. -- John Reaves 20:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits at this high of a rate on a non-bot account (i.e. without a bot flag) are a significant and borderline disruptive nuisance at best, since it floods recent changes and makes spotting non-constructive edits more difficult. At worst, it's a clear violation of the bot policy for running an unapproved bot task. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it different than running AWB (or whatever people use now) or are those edits filtered somehow? -- John Reaves 20:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

AWB edits aren't hidden either, but people shouldn't be using AWB at a speed that floods recent changes either (I think I saw something somewhere, albeit quite a while ago, about it being good practice to limit yourself to about 6-10 edits per minute with AWB). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec)I see it differently. I'll start by acknowledging that Rich has contributed to this project enormously. That said, there have been issues in the past, resulting in the chewing up of enormous amounts of time by other editors looking into issues. Those problems in the past have been serious enough to result in Arbcom imposed restrictions. While I'm not conversant with every detail of past cases or even this incident, it sounds like some tasks that are perfect for a bot are being handled semi-automatically due to impatience waiting for the bot approval. I don't believe any of the edits been made our time critical could easily have waited for the bot approval. Even if every single edit made turns out to be perfect, Rich's past track record requires a diversion of scarce resources (Primefac) into a review of the edits, not to mention the time taken by anyone contributing to this discussion. I am sure there are better uses of the time of all involved.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I do hear you on the delays with bot approvals. I've been mulling over the idea of throwing my name in for BAG, but I have a feeling that would go over like a lead balloon. We really need more technical editors evaluating potential bot tasks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

JFYI, there is a script that allows to hide AWB edits from watchlists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

...which is a very stupid thing to do as long as you and similar careless editors are running AWB jobs all the time. I recently notified you that your AWB edits were moving the hidden comments from AFD messages and the actual AFD template away from each other repeatedly, and you were not aware that this happened and needed explanation of how these AfD headers are formed (User_talk:Magioladitis/Archive_6#AFD_message_and_AWB). You are encouraging RF at his talkpage, but considering your recent ArbCom case and subsequent problems, I don't think you are best placed to educate anyone on how to do rapid editing from their main account, or to give advice on how to ignore AWB edits and the like. Never mind arrogantly thanking RF "on behalf of the community". Fram (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I am encouraging people to stay on Wikipedia and edit more and more. Wikipedia is a place everyone can edit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

But not however they want, in whatever fashion they want to, since we have policies and rules. BTW, considering that you're an admin, could you please learn how to indent properly? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Does the first of his sanctions logged at WP:RESTRICT apply here? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • See my comment on this above. I think yes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Since its obvious he is using some form of semi or fully automated tool to make edits from his main account, I would say his restrictions against cosmetic only edits apply. MEATBOT certainly does. Mags opinion can be safely disregarded given his own restrictions in the area of automated editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Fram I think the community is super happy that Rich is around and contributing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Since Rich Farmbrough is blocked, I'm copying his contribution to the discussion from his talk page. Huon (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Primefac has opposed the use of a bot to make more intelligent replacements of the template than auto substing (note, Primefac crafted the subst version of the template) firstly by opposing the BRFA with dismissive language, and secondly by reverting my edit to prevent auto-substing while waiting for the BRFA "Auto susbting is pretty rubbish for this template." with the summary "has to be done". Primefac is clearly WP:INVOLVED

I have proceeded with process manually, albeit at a high rate, as WP:MEATBOT says "merely editing fast is not a problem", rather than engage in conflict with Primefac.

Today Primefac has blocked me with the block summary of "WP:MEATBOT" - which (after I proposed a mutually beneficial way forward) they replaced with the revisionist "this was fully automated editing" and escalated to AN with proposals for un-specified further sanctions.

This seems firstly a case of WP:INVOLVED, and secondly a lack of understanding of WP:MEATBOT. Upping the ante to an AN thread and "fully automated editing" rather than working on a consensual way forward seems unhelpful.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC).

I agree that MEATBOT does not apply in this case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I do agree that Primefac deserves a mini-trout for making a block related to a BRFA he commented on, but I believe the exception on INVOLVED applies. Operating an unauthorized bot on a main account is such a bright-line action that any administrator seeing this (and familiar with the bot policy - most aren't) would take the same action if the edits didn't stop after messaging the operator. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, it's time to unblock. MEATBOT applies only if the non-bot editing is making "errors an attentive human would not make"; I didn't see any mistakes in the edits I checked (how do you make mistakes when you're just substing a template, anyway?), and unless I've repeatedly missed it in this thread, nobody's alleging that he made any such mistakes. Yes, this looks like an unauthorised bot, so the block was appropriate for that reason despite Primefac's involved status, but unless you're convinced that he'll start back up again once the block ends (I'm not so convinced), retaining the block is punitive but not preventive. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

PS, BU Rob13, I think you're looking for a {{Minnow}}. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOTASSIST is the relevant portion of the bot policy, not MEATBOT, just FYI. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I can accept a minnow (or mini-trout) for my actions, and I've extended an olive branch to Rich. Hopefully this sort of thing can be avoided with better communication (on all sides) in the future. Primefac (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am going to unblock user:Rich Farmbrough per above. I do encourage Rich to wait for the BRFA tfinish (which I think can be speedy approved, the code does not seem to make mistakes). I agree that the auto-subst is inefficient, but there was no hurry either. Please remember your past with ArbCom, you're on a short leash. At worst, your edits were pointy as bot approval is (too) slow. I endorse the trout for User:Primefac, this does border on an involved block, there was absolutely no emergency to stop Rich), especially seen their edits to the BRFA ánd to the template. Maybe I missed it, but I see no response from their side regarding the efficiency of auto-subst. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

(Screwed up both pings: @Rich Farmbrough and Primefac: --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)).

That's fine. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Now that Rich is unblocked, I wonder if there is something to to do with Primefac's false block. Note that if RU Rob13 they would have blocked for bigger period which is absurd! We have to find a solution for this emerging problem. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Nah. Totally valid block. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Ks0stm He was unblocked. Do you disagree with the unblock? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I should have added to my original post, I think that a message to Rich's talkpage might very well have been enough to get Rich to stop automated edits on their main account (and if he would not have, then a block would have been necessary). I said that User:Primefac's block bordered on INVOLVED, but I am sure it was way too heavy handed, and that I expect an attempt at civil conversation first next time ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC) (sigh, editing from iPad sucks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC))

@Beetstra: This was done, actually. The edits continued at very high rates afterward, so a preventative block was issued. It is likely that whatever software Rich was using to make the edits did not show him the message initially, which is why we often need to quickly block unauthorized bots. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I don't see a request to stop, nor did user:Primefac allude to that in their opening statement. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but if I saw when I see things like You really shouldn't be doing bot-like edits on your main account on my talk page, I'd probably stop what I was I stop what I'm doing and start a discussion. Whether I agreed or disagreed with the note, I wouldn't keep going as if nothing happened. As Rob alluded to, he might not have ever seen the note and could have carried on indefinitely if something wasn't done. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC) This has happened, with my own bot. Primefac (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unless you are referring to this, which I think is at best a suggestion to reconsider. But indeed, that should have gotten a response anyway, user:Rich Farmbrough, I stand corrected, I did not recognise this as such, nor did I see the timing of it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

(I have seen this as well when I was high-speed AWB editing) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

More odd, It seems that Rich was not editing at the time of warning, but started again 11 minutes later. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, which either means he saw the message and ignored it or didn't see the message (meaning he was using something highly-automated with no emergency stop feature). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That's why I agreed with the block, even though I requested its removal because I believed it was no longer needed. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

---

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

BAG nomination

Please note a nomination for Bot Approvals Group membership is active. Feel free to comment here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-admin procedural closures of AfDs

Recently, a large number of AfD nominations of Pakistani educational institution articles have been made in a short timespan (see here). SwisterTwister has non-admin closed there as procedural closes. I just wanted to raise this here to check whether this is a valid close rationale, and to get some admin input, as I suspect SwisterTwister might cop some flak from the nominator or others. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

ST needs a trout for not giving an actual reason; a procedural keep, especially by a NAC, needs to have a reason for why it's procedural. So... right result, completely wrong way to do it. That's kind of par for the course, but I don't think there's really anything to be done. This sort of mass-nomination of schools is exactly what we cautioned against in the RFC, and it's somewhat nice to see that it's taken almost four months before someone actually tried it. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is ok, see ANI discussion resulting in this. —SpacemanSpiff 12:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The closures are justifiable, but it would have been good if User:SwisterTwister could have linked to the discussion at ANI in their closure rationale. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC).

WP:G4 and "substantially identical"

I'm looking for some clarification on what "substantially identical" means in WP:G4, and for review on whether an admin declined a speedy incorrectly. I initially meant to post this at WP:DRV, but WP:DRVPURPOSE doesn't seem to include review of declined speedies. I could be wrong about that.

User:Nyttend declined speedy G4 on International recognition of Khojaly Genocide, with the following edit summary when declining: "Rv cluelessness: did you even look at the deleted content? Don't tag for G4 unless you have solid evidence".

The original article, Khojaly Massacre recognition, was userfied to User:Interfase/Khojaly Massacre recognition following 2nd AFD. It's a list of state and supranational recognition of the Khojaly Massacre. The new article, International recognition of Khojaly Genocide, is almost entirely the same article: in the supranational section Human Rights Watch and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (which called it a massacre) have been replaced with the Heydar Aliyev Foundation in Brussels and Turkey; there's a slightly longer lists of countries (unreferenced) and of U.S. states (barely referenced), with 6 inline references overall compared to 52 in the original. Three WP:RS of the six in the new article from U.S. state legislatures are also used in the original; the other WP:RS is new.

The only significant change to the new article is that the word "massacre" has been replaced by "genocide" in the title and throughout the re-created article, despite the references overwhelmingly using the word "massacre" in the original, and in all of the four WP:RS in the new except the one from the Azerbaijani government website. This wording has been the subject of frequent edit-warring in Khojaly Massacre, but consensus there and in all but one of the articles in Category:Khojaly Massacre was to use "massacre". The sole exception in article titles in the category is the exact name of a memorial.

The new article is clearly a POV page fork of the old, using the disputed wording throughout, chopping all but three the sources that use the word "massacre", and adding two opinion blog sources and one government source that use the word "genocide".

The duplication was immediately obvious to me, though I can see how it might not have been to other editors. I should also mention that I would have voted "keep or merge" in the AFD: my aim in speedying it was to follow WP policy on article recreation following AFD.

This post has so far been nearly a copy of what I posted at Nyttend's talk page. Nyttend replied to me at User talk:Uncle_Roy#International recognition of Khojaly Genocide, but appears at this point to have broken off the dialogue. I think that Nyttend has misread the G4 criteria, in spirit if not in letter, and would like to hear from some other admins. If Nyttend is correct and I'm wrong, then editors can do an end-run around an AFD by reposting the article, slightly re-written, with no substantial new additions. Uncle Roy (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The real question (I didn't check this one closely) is: Does the new article deal wit hthe issues brought up in the original AFD? If it does, then we can't claim the old consensus has any relevance, and it can't be speedies. If it doesn't, then the article can be speedied. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The policy on recreating deleted content does not say the new content must be deleted. It says it can be deleted. You didn't even have to nominate it for speedy deletion. Since you did nominate it, then an admin evaluates it. There is no definition of sufficiently identical and in this case Nyttend does not believe it is. If you believe it should be deleted, take it to AFD. ~ GB fan 11:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Is the question about whether this is "subtantially identical" to this? If so we have a good example of a matter that has often been discussed but not resolved. Do we have a linguistic difference between people in different parts of the world, or between people with cultural differences? I absolutely can't see any way at all in which these article versions could be validly described as "substantially identical". Other people obviously will not be able to understand what I think the phrase means. Thincat (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Precisely: someone wrote a new page on the same subject. A repost is when you save content offline (or you find it somewhere online other than the page itself) before it's deleted, and then you put it back after the deletion. Or in this case, you move the AFD'd page back to mainspace or copy/paste the content to mainspace. If you don't like the WP:CSD policy, don't try to get me in trouble: start another AFD, as GB fan says, or try to get WP:CSD changed so that G4 covers identical subjects, not identical content. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with me liking or disliking policy. The policy as documented at WP:G4 is unclear, and the clarifications made here should be noted there. And as I wrote both here and at your talk page, "I would have voted "keep or merge" in the AFD: my aim in speedying it was to follow WP policy on article recreation following AFD." Uncle Roy (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

At running the risk of putting words into someone else's mouth, I think that Uncle Roy doesn't have an issue with your actions, Nyttend, but instead an issue with the wording of the G4 criteria itself. I think your actions in declining the speedy deletion are reasonable and respectable, and I'd be surprised if someone actually had a serious issue with what you did. I don't think this noticeboard post here is to discipline you or any other editor. Instead, it seems Uncle Roy just wants to follow the policy as written, and he had a question about how it was written. Please correct me if I'm wrong with my thinking here. JaykeBird (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That's almost correct, JaykeBird. Other editors here explained why it was ineligible for G4, and I'm fine with that. But I do have a problem with the way the decline was handled. Per WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, all Nyttend had to do was decline the speedy, with a summary along the lines of "ineligible per G4". In this rare case, I did have access to the userfied article, and by the criteria as written, judged it to be "substantially identical". That's a difference of interpretation of a vaguely-written policy, and there's no reason to flame me and other editors for that. Uncle Roy (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

G4 is often tricky because the people tagging it usually don't have access to the previous version to assess whether or not the versions are substantially identical; when I'm working through CAT:CSD, I always find articles tagged G4 take more effort than many other criteria for this reason. I've also got a lot of sympathy for admins declining CSD in general; articles where CSD is declined can always be sent to AfD, while speedy-deleted articles are relatively difficult for ordinary editors to recover. TL;DR: If you think the reasons behind the previous consensus to delete still apply, nominate it at AfD. GoldenRing (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Archiving pages before deletion. ʍw 14:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I trust we all understand that the term "substantially identical" and "sufficiently identical" are use rather than the cleaner "identical" to avoid the potential gameplaying where an editor could make an innocuous change to a version in claim it isn't exactly identical. We also accept the efficiency of allowing a single admin to requiring a consensus of editors in the case an article has been deleted before and a new article is created that is substantially identical to the deleted one. The obvious question is how to draw the line to decide how much of a change can occur between two versions and still accept that the admin can take the shortcut and not go through AFD.

I do accept that there is a fair amount of overlap between these two versions. Yet the title is different, the re-lead has been rewritten and is a significant difference in the sourcing of the two articles. I think it is perfectly appropriate from at an admin to look at the two, observe some sections that appear to be identical but others that appear to be quite different and decide that the best thing to do is submit it to the community for a decision.

I would not even find it ironic that an AFD might reach a consensus of delete because the two versions are so close, but I'll distinguish between the two situations. In one case, editors sit down and spend some time looking at the two articles comparing them in reaching a conclusion that despite some superficial changes at the core they are identical. In the other case an admin looks at the two, and season off differences that they feel uncomfortable making the unilateral decision that the differences are superficial.

I understand uncle Roy's concerned that an editor might make superficial changes to a deleted article and repost it but let's follow that through. What do they achieve? They achieve the fact that the article may last for seven days while several editors look at it and reach the conclusion that it's not fundamentally changed. That's a pyrrhic victory, at best. I think it is wise for admins to error on the side of caution. I support the rejection of the G4.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Anyone can remove a CSD template, so declining to delete is not an admin action as it doesn't require the tools or even the position of "admin" to do so. There is no review for declined CSD. You can take it to AFD if you want a second bite at the apple. The system is this way on purpose because CSD has very little oversight, whereas AFD has a fair amount. This is why CSD is so strict. The general rule for deleting an article via CSD is "if you aren't positive, then don't." That said, Nyttend's summary was a bit harsh, but I get the feeling we aren't getting the full picture here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no more picture here to get: this incident was the first time I've communicated with Nyttend, ever. Uncle Roy (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Nyttend has done the same thing to me and it's annoying as hell. Telling an editor to "Don't tag for G4 unless you have solid evidence" is not helpful. The solid evidence is hidden from us mere mortals! An article that is recreated should be able to be tagged G4 on the presumption that it is sufficiently similar because spammers and autobiographers recreate nearly identical articles all the time. Admims who choose to volunteer to review speedy deletion nominations should assume good faith and help new page patrollers rather than create obstacles. - MrX 22:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Once again: if you can't prove that the content is the same, don't tag it. Period. If you wonder, go ask an admin, or go looking on archive.org; don't complain about me if you don't like what's required by the speedy deletion policy. Such a page is almost never an emergency that can't wait, and if it is an emergency, it will qualify under some other criterion or (if it's a really exceptional situation) you can ask an admin for an IAR speedy. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Once again: work with the new page patrollers without making their efforts more difficult. Please. There's nothing in the policy that requires proof before tagging an article for G4. If it annoys you to have to look at G4 nominations, do something else with your time and let a other admins handle them.- MrX 23:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't put it as directly as Nyttend is, but if you're not sure that an article is a repost (or a repost with trivial changes), you shouldn't be tagging it for G4. This means either looking at the deleted version if you can, or using an external archive if possible to make some form of comparison. If you can't do these things, you shouldn't guess and tag the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC).

• Since "normal" editors cannot review deleted articles but admins cannot do all the new page patrolling, we should not require the editor reviewing an article to be certain the article meets G4 because they never can. IMHO, it's better to tag G4 when the reviewer can reasonably assume that the new article is sufficiently identical to the old one and let the admins patrolling CAT:CSD check whether that is really the case. That's the only way patrolling can work in any meaningful way. Regards SoWhy 07:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's not unreasonable to require at least some basis for that belief though that can be articulated, beyond the article title having been reused. That doesn't necessarily have to be looking at the old version of the article using admin tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC).

• The current policy doesn't require it. Can you give an example of what sort of basis for belief would be acceptable, and what sort would not? Uncle Roy (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Lankiveil I too would like to understand the basis for you interpretation of policy. I have tagged 43 articles for G4 deletion. Of those, two still exist, but the overwhelming majority have been deleted under G4. In almost every instance, I judged the articles to be legitimate G4 candidates based on some combination of the subject, the AfD discussion, the manner in which the article was created, and in very few cases, archived content on a Wikipedia mirror. Note: I have suggested the new page patrollers be granted the privilege of viewing deleted content, but was told that that is not likely to happen for reasons that seem completely non-sensical. I fear we're loosing a lot of ground on the torrent of non-encyclopedic crap ruining the integrity of the project. This is just one more example of WP:BURO making it more difficult to fix that problem, without any justification of how it benefits Wikipedia.- MrX 12:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Lankiveil: I think we are actually in agreement there. The method MrX mentions is imho sufficient for a non-admin user to decide whether G4 probably applies, even without looking at the deleted page. Speedy taggings are after all just requests for administrators to review whether the page meets one of the criteria. Regards SoWhy 13:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• @SoWhy and MrX: I think we're in agreement, the stuff MrX says sounds good enough for me, especially if it is resulting in a high success rate as it is in MrX's case. This is probably assisted by the significant amount of experience that MrX has though, and might not be applicable to newer patrollers. I just want some thought put into the process, rather than a mashing of the G4 button. It really assists me as an admin as well to put some explanatory notes in there if it's not a blatantly obvious open-and-shut case, as occasionally I see G4 where it's not immediately obvious what it's a recreation of. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC).

• The current policy wording at WP:G4 is too vague, and the clarifications made here need to be added there. So snapping at me, User:MrX and others I can see in your edit history about wrong tagging for G4 is not going to prevent other editors from making this same mistake. How about we instead work on improving the wording at WP:G4? Uncle Roy (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I would be opposed to clarifying CSD A4 to automatically enshrine one user's personal preference, but a discussion would certainly be useful. There are more than 22,000 unreviewed articles in the new page queue. More bureaucratic hurdles is exactly what we don't need right now.- MrX 00:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• No one user's personal preference is going to get enshrined, and no new hurdles need be added. I'm only asking for one or two sentences of clarification to G4, and naturally there will be extensive discussion before altering the wording of WP:CSD to better reflect the policy articulated here, which I assume is the outcome of discussions on other pages. Uncle Roy (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I particularly remember a discussion about changed wording back in 2013 because I started it and it rather decisively went against my suggestion: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 50#Wording of G4 criterion. Here are some other earlier discussions you could maybe look at. Also, for interest rather than immediate relevance, User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#Clear remedies, arbitration decisions, and AE and (but only if you have the time) the blog item it links to. Thincat (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Is there really no way of clarifying any of this to editors who have simply read WP:G4, but haven't searched talk archives to work out what it really means? What about a separate, non-binding policy essay, linked from WP:G4, with a link to that discussion? Uncle Roy (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting review of puzzling admin behavior

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

---

The result of this back and forth [45] [46] [47] was the outright removal of my comment,[48] which looks problematic to me (and there is some irony in deleting a comment that mentions WP:ADMINACCT). Despite having filed a number of SPIs over the years (all successful), I cannot fathom what is going on here. I just want to clean up articles affected by this sockmaster, as I've done before. There were successful checkuser results in previous cases, and I don't see why we should assume there won't be now. Perhaps there is some reason for avoiding checkuser here; if so then I would like to know what it is, but the admin in question has refused to provide an explanation. Manul ~ talk 21:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The answer seems obvious to me: the admin in question, a dastardly fellow who has nothing but their own welfare at heart and doesn't care a tinker's cuss for Wikipedia, is on the take, in the pocket of the sockmaster you are attempting to bring to justice. The admin ought to be drawn-and-quartered, tar-and-feathered, hogtied, and then made to walk the plank.

Oh ... wait, I just noticed that after the admin told you that he wasn't going to do a checkuser (which is perfectly within his purview), you never followed up to ask for an explanation as to why, simply came here and filed a report. Well... nevermind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• He did ask why but Bbb deleted the thread. That is the only part that concerns me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• BMK, would you please strike your comment, at least in part? As Dennis notes, I did ask. However your comment is interesting insofar as it highlights the problem: people don't expect -- as you didn't expect -- someone's comment to be deleted like that. It causes the conversation to be misrepresented; it's bad form. Manul ~ talk 03:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to strike it, either in full or in part. It can stand as is, with Dennis' correction to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have all the back story, so I won't jump to conclusions. That said, Bbb23 does seem to be unnecessarily harsh here, I'm just not sure why. Perhaps he can explain more as to why he removed and not allowed another CU to see and possibly review. Oh, and WP:adminacct really doesn't extend to CU actions, although it does to all other actions a CU does. They don't have to explain why they won't do a CU check. Most still give a sentence or two, but that is about it. They answer directly to ArbCom and have to justify every check they do, but they don't have to answer for any check they didn't do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have to justify to ArbCom every check I do. Putting that aside, I answered the question in the case itself. Then Manul kept bringing it back up and repeating it over and over. Then he came to my Talk page to do the same thing. I told him to stop "harping" on it. It was only after that I removed his edit. I ran out of patience. I don't make it a practice - and neither do most CheckUsers - of passing on a CU request to another CheckUser if I think it should be declined. That doesn't mean they can't check if they wish, but in this kind of case, it would be unusual. BTW, I expected that Manul would bring the issue here or to ANI. Some people simply don't know when to let go and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps I phrased it wrong or you misunderstood, but my understanding is that any CU does have to justify any use of the CU tools to Arb, (implied) when asked, but they don't answer to the community directly for it's use or lack of use. Also, I wasn't implying you hand it off to another CU, only that other CUs have cases in full view. Again, not sure how, but this seems to have been misunderstood. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Most of the CU checks were done several years ago so unless something was recorded on the CUwiki (which there probably wouldn't be for such a relatively small case) CU might not be helpful. --Rschen7754 22:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Dennis, I'm not sure what you mean by "cases in full view", but if you mean that anytime a CU declines a check request and the requester complains, I have to reinstate it, that's crazy. In any event, this is a waste of time. I declined it because the case was stale and rarely will I run a check on a single account looking for other accounts that match it. I consider it fishing and not a useful expenditure of my time. Your understanding, as expressed, about ArbCom is not really right, although I understand where it's coming from. That's not their remit. @Rschen, the last check on this case was in 2012. I don't look at CU wiki every time I decline a CU in case someone recorded data there that would be useful. This was a simple and easy decline, and this will probably be my last comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• I have zero concern that you refused to do the CU. I don't have the data, I trust your judgement to peek or not, not really interested in that aspect at all. Deleting the thread did seem unnecessary. Even if he was persistent, he was polite and it seems in good faith, it wasn't vandalism or trolling. I assume the standard is the same as here or ANI, if you turn someone down, you just let it get archived with the rest. That simply struck me as unusual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Dennis, you do realize the comment Bbb23 removed was on User talk:Bbb23 not the SPI. The whole conversation on the SPI was archived. ~ GB fan 11:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, that point was lost on me. For some reason I thought it was a WP: page. Thank you for the correction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23's brimming contempt is so unwarranted, so unnecessary, so inappropriate. For the first time he gives a rationale, but it's a preposterous one: he thinks it's fishing. Wikipedia:CheckUser#Fishing says: "Fishing" is to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry. The case here is precisely the opposite -- it is precisely not fishing. There is ample evidence for the sock, an admin affirmed the sock with further evidence, and the sock has been blocked. Bbb23 also says here that "the case was stale", but according to his own words the sock in question is not stale.[49]

The problems I encountered with Bbb23's behavior in 2013 are very much the same as what I am encountering here. I won't get into it, but needless to say he has a bizarre animus, as further evidenced in this thread. Taking that point alongside the aforementioned proposterous rationale, I would ask another checkuser (if any are listening) to please look at the case. Manul ~ talk 03:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as a former SPI clerk (and former steward) I have seen cases like this declined. But what concerns me is your mention with 2013: so what you're saying is that four years ago Bbb23 did something you didn't like, and now you're still bringing it up against him? I'm not sure that is productive, to say the least. --Rschen7754 04:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: I'd be quite surprised if cases exist that are at all similar to this one, wherein a sock has been positively identified and blocked based upon ample evidence, yet, for some reason, we shouldn't identify other socks to aid in the cleanup. If you would point to such an example it may help explain what is going on here, because the situation still doesn't make sense on its own merits, that is, unless we factor in Bbb23's clear animus, which is the only reason I mentioned 2013 (it shows a pattern in this regard).

It would also help to look at a practical issue in this case: let's take the history of Synergy.[50] As I mentioned in the SPI, there seem to be unreverted socks there (before right now, anyway -- I just did a large revert), in particular Ch.nidal (talk · contribs), Dodoloyede (talk · contribs), Robertnw (talk · contribs), and Jammypot93 (talk · contribs). Perhaps if I listed those in the SPI, the checkuser request would have had a different outcome. However in all my SPI experience, providing ample evidence for one sock is enough to catch the others via checkuser. It would seem that Bbb23 sees it differently: using a definition of fishing that is contradictory to the defintion in WP:Checkuser, he doesn't believe checkuser should be used here. So the brimming contempt from Bbb23 (though still weird and inappropriate) may not be a factor in the preposterous rationale after all -- just a wrong (but sincerely held) understanding of what "fishing" is. Manul ~ talk 12:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Manul, If I am reading this right your concern is that Bbb23 didn't explain to your satisfaction why he didn't use the CU tool. He explained when he declined the CU request on 13:18, 26 May 2017 that all the accounts were stale except one, so there was nothing to to check that one against. Then there was some back and forth where you wanted the CU request reopened based on it being an obvious sock. Now when he explains in more detail why he won't do a CU it is "preposterous". Bbb23 can have a more stringent definition of fishing than the policy does, he just can't make it looser. ~ GB fan 11:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan: Bbb23 isn't free to use a contradictory definition of fishing, which is what he did. Manul ~ talk 12:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Manul, actually he is free to use a definition that is stricter than the one used in the policy. As long as his definition keeps him from doing the fishing that the policy precludes him from doing he can restrict himself further. At no time is he required to do a CU and if he does not believe one should be used he can decline them on SPIs. As Dennis explains no admin/CU/OS is required to explain why they don't use the tools. WP:ADMINACCT only requires admins to explain why they used the tools when asked. It does not discuss anything about CU use. There are specific procedures if you believe there is misuse of the CU tool at Wikipedia:CheckUser#Complaints and misuse. ~ GB fan 13:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan: I was using the word fishing more colloquially, meaning checking on the off chance that you'll find another account. Because the word fishing has a technical meaning, which I'm familiar with, I shouldn't have used it. Separately, if a user believes a CheckUser violated the privacy policy in their use of the tool, they can file a complaint. It's hard to accuse me of that given that I declined to use the tool. --Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Now that the one point is cleared up (my mistake) I would again repeat that no CU is required to use the tools. Hammering him is pointless and obviously annoying. And again, CU is not required to explain why they won't use the tools. The same is true for admin, actually. We don't have to ever explain why we don't use the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Manul, I see that you filed a case with the CU request but didn't have the evidence fully fleshed out. You were expecting the admin that you pinged to respond and help with that before a clerk or CU might see the case and act. It didn't turn out as you planned. In the future, I would suggest that if you want to take that kind of approach that you file a case without the CU request. That way, you and others may get the evidence squared away sufficiently for a CU check and then upgrade the case with a CU request. That is a perfectly acceptable approach. Also, I see that you were quite disappointed when there was a "decline" on the case. Do you believe that once a case is declined that no clerk/checkuser/patrolling admin might endorse a check or otherwise provide CU results?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, thanks, this is constructive and I accept this correction wholeheartedly: I shouldn't write a partial SPI with checkuser request that says "hang on for so-and-so to show up". If I do submit a partial SPI (this is the first time I've done that (just saving time by leveraging existing knowledge)), I should set the checkuser flag later, after so-and-so shows up.

But please note that there were two stages here. After sufficient evidence was given, after so-and-so (an admin) did show up and provided additional evidence, after the sock was ready to be blocked, after I asked Bbb23 to re-evaluate the request at his talk page, at that point Bbb23's rejection of the request didn't make any sense, his contemptuous refusal to provide an explanation didn't make any sense, and his contemptuous deletion of my comment didn't make any sense. Others here have focused on whether Bbb23 has a right to do that, but the important issue is that, whether he has a right to do it or not (let's accept that he does), it didn't make any sense. Manul ~ talk 18:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

But it does. :) He did a straightforward procedural decline noting the accounts in the archive were stale. He was saving time for other CUs by noting the stale part. You asked him to "reopen" the case. He pointed out that the case wasn't closed. You then asked him to "reopen the checkuser request" and presumed that because an admin blocked on behavior that this was compelling though it misses that you are trying to convince the checkuser. Pointing out to a checkuser that an admin was convinced is not sufficient on its own merits. Also, this brings us back to my question from the previous post. That is, because it was declined that it had passed a point of no return. Not necessarily but the turn of events may have taken it that way. I think you dug in your heels without realizing that CU was still possible. Going forward, please be mindful of the info contained in this template (do not try to edit this template, verboten, more on that further down). That info is the critical bit that can best optimize your chances of getting a checkuser to run a check. Don't worry about the cu status, that isn't as important as you may think. You're trying a little too hard on that.

This post has several problems as things started to get conflated. It reads like "an admin did their job, now do yours" and the lower portion of the post is problematic because it reads as if you were about to take propriety where you shouldn't. "On the technical side, it's about time these SPIs were merged..." sounds like you're making a unilateral decision while the CURequest status was still an unsettled issue. "I would do this myself, but (1) maybe an admin needs to affirm the sockmaster first and (2) maybe history merging is preferred anyway." <== This reveals faulty understanding in how SPI works. Verboten. Not even patrolling admins get to do that. Only clerks and checkusers may merge cases or select certain CU status indicators. BOLD and SPI are not a good mix here. When in doubt, ask at WT:SPI.

"Rather than spending time presenting evidence from square one, as if the person reviewing the SPI had no knowledge of the history, I had hoped to leverage existing knowledge". That is a mistake. I understand that this would be a labor-saving shortcut (for you) but you will find yourself at cross-purposes. Sit back and think about it...you want more editors and admins to join you in hunting this sock. You don't want to rely on that one admin that's familiar...you want more to find the case. Folks often devolve into writing "Same as usual", "It's in the archive" or something else that means we have to dig more than we should. I'm telling you from experience that this is a great way to get your case ignored. I have closed out tabs before when seeing that and ignored some myself.

Now that there is an account in the archive that fits in the three month data retention window for checkuser, you should take Ed's advice "Manul, I assume you would be looking for registered sleepers, as well as registered accounts that are causing trouble that we are not aware of yet...." and "...that somebody who was very patient could go through these articles and check for any past disruption from 91.* IPs that was never corrected." Right, you could help the CU's by finding accounts for them to compare. They can't necessarily make your case for you or find every sleeper. I have seen results come up negative only to have someone present an already existing account that then shows positive. It may require more time...patience helps when hunting socks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving forward

Let's refocus by asking the question: What is best for the encyclopedia? That is my underlying motivation here, and if I were to redo my initial post here, I would use that framing. I just want to remove the plethora of nonsense coming from the prolific Mad Lad From Saint Petersburg, as I have been doing for years. Checkuser will help in that endeavor. Evidence has identified a named sock and that sock has been blocked; therefore it's not fishing. The sock is recent; therefore it's not stale.

Despite running up against this wall, I would still like to move forward and do what's best for the encyclopedia. I think it would be best to find any hitherto undiscovered nonsense inserted by the Mad Lad From Saint Petersburg. Would it be OK to file another SPI with checkuser request, perhaps listing other possible socks mentioned earlier in my response to Rschen7754? Or perhaps a checkuser would be willing to look at Attractor321 (talk · contribs) outside of a new SPI? Manul ~ talk 18:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

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

AIV is backlogged again

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

---

There are 19 reports at WP:AIV right now (6 bot and 13 user reports). —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

In the words of the immortal Inspector Clouseau: Not any more. GoldenRing (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

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

BCE and CE is still non-standard

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

---

Most scholarly papers, even from secular authors on secular subjects, still use the traditional BC and AD with year. Those who insist on the CE and BCE notation are generally seen as promoting an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrizzlyEchols (talk • contribs) 11:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If you think our manual of style should change you need to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. ~ GB fan 11:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Allyhall321

I don't know why, but I have some red flags going up on this user. Seems like they're WP:SOCKing. I have no evidence, and I don't want to accuse them of being a sock. But I would like some further input.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 21:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you just have accused them of socking :) GiantSnowman 22:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Not meaning to sound accusatory. Call it a suspicion since I have 0 experience with socks. Hence me asking for more input at AN. :p—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Was blocked for disruptive editing by Berean Hunter. I have no idea about if the user was socking, but my concerns were mostly promotion and original research... — PaleoNeonate — 02:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Indeffed for disruptive editing. We were certainly being messed with...he wrote a bizarre rant over an article submission with this. I imagine that he confused the COI editor whose article he overwrote. The books on his userpage that he authored (?) do not seem to exist. This is certainly a sock.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, yeah, I can see the COI editor getting confused. "What happened to my article? Bad enough that someone wants it deleted, but then someone else puts gibberish on top of it?" Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 04:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Would an uninvolved admin like to try asking them about the overwrite or their editing in general? They have offered some kind of explanation and an unformed unblock request on their talk page. I don't see a reason to unblock so I'll let others consider it.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  I don't know that I'm strictly uninvolved, but I suppose I was a little short with them on my talk page, so I should probably try to explain things a little more. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Fenix Down / Best Known For IP

Need a clear community consensus. We have a long-standing troll, documented at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP.

It's a tough issue. He's now landed on a few difficult to block, high traffic ranges. His MO is the same as it ever was; pick random articles that use superlatives, then fix them. Not a bad problem to have, except that when he runs into a content dispute, he'll inevitably freak out, leading to personal attacks and eventually death threats. There have been thousands of blocks, and dozens of community discussions. The community ban is here.

He also will return to every single content dispute he's been in. An an example will be the article at Greece national football team. He's been removing a questionable section there for a year or so. He's been reverted in the past by Jdcomix, Keri, Andy Dingley, Sro23, Exemplo347, ScrapIronIV, Bretonbanquet and triggered a semi-protection by BU Rob13. He returned yesterday and I reverted him twice, blocking the IP and noting the reason for the revert in the edit summary and explicitly in the block message.

Admin Fenix down reverted me as he liked the article without the content. This is reasonable, and usually I'd just leave it. Unfortunately, I hit the revert button reflexively and immediately self-reverted when I noticed it was not just a rotated IP. Also, unfortunately, I was given a 24 hour block for "edit warring". No attempt at communication or clarification; simply a block for reverting his content decision. He unblocked when he noticed the self-revert which occurred prior to the block.

Follow-up discussion on his talk page was fruitless. He's unwilling to look in to the long-term issue "based on my word". He also does not recognize that by making that last content decision, he's an editor in the article and should not be placing WP:INVOLVED blocks against those who reverted him, mistake or not.

So I'd like a discussion here on 1) Review of Fenix Down's block 2) how best to handle the LTA issue. Happy to stand down from dealing with that particular banned editor until there's some consensus on how best to handle. Obviously, my approach to this LTA issue can be modified based on feedback. Kuru (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ooof, that conversation on Fenix down's talkpage makes painful reading. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid - if you're restoring a banned editor's non-trivial edits, you're taking responsibility for them, and that means you're WP:INVOLVED as regards that article. Blocking an experienced editor (and admin, which is relevant here - this is someone who should know LTA accounts) whilst involved and not even bothering to check the LTA status of the IP/editor who was removing the material strikes me as very, very sub-optimal indeed. Fenix down is probably quite lucky that Kuru self-reverted, because I suspect if he had not, he would still be blocked, and that wouldn't turn out well. Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• (EC - I see Black Kite made essentially the same point) Assuming 'Best known for' is actually banned, all their edits may be reverted on sight. Likewise they may be reinstated by any editor who is willing to take responsibility for the edits. This would be a content dispute. By taking ownership of a banned editors edits, Fenix clearly WP:INVOLVED themselves in a content issue, and then used their tools while involved in a dispute. From their talkpage they also seem to not understand 3rr, what involved actually means, or how banned LTA editors are dealt with. There is also the issue that in a content dispute, unless there is a reason why information should be removed (BLP, copyvio etc) the status quo should remain until the dispute is resolved. But frankly they cant have it both ways, either you were reverting the edits of a banned editor - which are exempt from 3RR, or you were subsequently engaged in an edit war over content with Fenix, in which case they should not have even thought about blocking. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
• Fair enough, at the time I read banned as blocked and was not aware that this was the best known for IP banned user as these edits were not aligned to what I understood to be his usual behavior. Appreciate that this block was therefore totally not called for and happy to take admonishment for it as incorrect and too hasty. I do however stand by my points below though that regardless of the status of this user, the actions of a number of editors over a long period of time in blindly reverting a banned user have led to the repeated reinsertion of a significant element of OR/NPOV content that should never have been there. Fenix down (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A couple of points, firstly, I reversed the block as soon as I saw the self-revert and would not have blocked had I seen this first. Perhaps a little hasty on my part. However, I'm not really interested in the LTA angle here. Whatever this IP has done in the past, their edits to Greece national football team have merely been to remove a section of "Notable matches" which contain no inclusion criteria nor any sourced prose outlining why they are there.

Sections of "Notable foo" which have no clear inclusion criteria, nor any sourced prose to back up the claim of specific notability are by definition original research and not neutral as it is impossible to ascertain why any element has been included / excluded and what, if anything another edit might add to the section. In my opinion, in this specific instance unless editors can show that this section is not in direct violation of these key policies, then they had no right per BANREVERT, to revert their removal, as the edits were obviously helpful, and were therefore edit warring. Arguably edit warring in good faith, but nonetheless, Kuru, and a number of editors listed above, were simply blindly going through the motions of reverting without considering what they were actually doing.

This was my stance when I blocked Kuru. I felt that there was no justifiable reason per BANREVERT and he was therefore just edit warring. My revert was there in my opinion not INVOLVED as it was of a purely administrative nature; namely to remove content that was in clear contravention of fundamental WP policies. The fact that he immediately then reverted me without attempting to discuss further or even add an edit summary suggested that he was edit warring, hence the block. As soon as I saw the self-revert I unblocked. I accept if I had take a minute or so longer then this could have been avoided.

However, in this instance it is important to separate the wider LTA issue from edits to this specific article, as a significant number of editors have been adding back OR / NPOV content simply because it is being removed by a banned user. The series of edit wars could have been avoided had any one of these editors actually stopped to think about what they were doing rather than blindly reverting and either not reverted or at any point bothered to seek consensus either on the article talk page or at WT:FOOTY then they may well have found that editors preferred not to have a meaningless OR/NPOV list of matches in an article. Fenix down (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"However, I'm not really interested in the LTA angle here. "'

Then you need to get interested in it sharpish, or you should no longer be an admin.

Quite obviously you did not block Kuru for edit warring, but for lèse-majesté by reverting you, not LTA. I would remind you, reverting an admin is not a crime. But you blocked immediately, thanks to the red mist of having been reverted yourself, and you did this without any discussion, against another admin, and without even bothering to read the edit summaries of the preceding edits.

If you blocked "for edit warring", that is a claim by yourself that you have looked at the history of the article - but clearly you hadn't.

The block is bad enough, but now you're making excuses for it on the basis that you're not intending to observe WP:DENY. Are you planning to block any other editors who do observe it? I for one am very concerned about such a threat - there are already plenty of admins who think that DENY is withheld when it's applied to their banned friends, but here you seem to be stating that you're just not interested in LTA at all and clearly you're happy to block people regardless.

DENY applies to you too. Editors (and not just admins) are at liberty to enforce it on problem editors such as LTA and we do not need a block-happy admin deciding to block other gf editors for cleaning up their mess. Even if the "change" might be "a good one" (stopped clocks being right twice a day and all). Restoring such content is a matter for Talk: discussion, but that has to recognise all through that process (per DENY) other editors are still at liberty to remove it, and it is not a blockable offence to disagree with you as to its virtues.

As an editor who does a lot of cleanup work around persistent trolls and socks, I want to see a clear statement from you here and now that you have read WP:DENY and that you are going to observe WP:NOT3RR §3 in the future. Otherwise this needs to start a desysopping. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Feel I have made that statement above, but happy to reiterate that I read "banned" as "blocked" and if I had realized that this IP had a community ban I would have seen that DENY and NOT3RR#3 were relevant and would have spoken to Kuru rather than assuming edit warring. Fenix down (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Fenix down, suggest you read WP:3RRNO again. "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." But really, this is a red herring. You made a content edit so you are precluded from using the tools against an editor reverting you, period. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledged, I won't act incorrectly in such haste in future. Fenix down (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Fenix, this is the second time I've seen your name here lately, on the wrong side of good judgement (Month or so ago). If you have an issue with another admin's admin actions and it isn't urgent that you block to prevent damage, you take them to WP:AN for review. Your explanation of WP:involved is labored, to put it mildly. Blocking him without discussion was just plain stupid. Good judgement is a requirement for keeping the admin bit and acts like this put that bit in peril. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right it was totally the wrong thing to do, I should have discussed it with him in the first place. Fenix down (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is: While it's true we have an enforceable policy against too many reverts, it's also true that there's an exception for Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban; if a user clims to be doing that (and you need to check the edit summeries for such a claim), there is no justification for blocking the user unless either the claim is obviously wrong (and with an admin you'd better have extremely good evidence), or you've tried to discuss it with the user and got no reasonably satsfactory answer. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible issue with non-free files with orphaned versions

I don't know where else to post this because I'm not even sure what's causing the problem (can't find any issue with the template, nor with the bots that tagged these). The following files seemingly refuse to show up in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old no matter how many times I purge the pages involved or make null edits:

• File:Windows 95 Desktop screenshot.png
• File:Windows NT 4.0.png
• File:Windows NT 3.5.png
• File:Windows 3.0 workspace.png

Modernponderer (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but the first one shouldn't show up in that category because it doesn't qualify. That category is for images where prior versions have not yet been deleted. This particular case all the prior images have been deleted.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick, the revisions were deleted after I posted this. But there still seems to be something very wrong with the category: it looks like it doesn't list the files beyond a certain number of them, as I'm seeing an alphabetical order that ends with D, with no option to go to the next page.

If someone with technical knowledge could take a closer look at all of this it would be appreciated, as I'm almost sure the problem is not fixed. Modernponderer (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that there is no problem. I work with that category extensively. It is quite common for the entries in that category to appear to be a nonrandom subset in terms of initial letter for two reasons. If the newly populated items are roughly a consistent reflection of the alphabet, when I work on deleting them I often start on the second page and go to the end, which means early part of the alphabet is overrepresented. A second reason more likely to be the case here, is that the bot that populates these entries is generally picking them up from a bot that does the reduction. Those bots typically have some throttling to make sure they do not send too many images in a large batch. While I haven't checked the gory details, my assumption is that the bot doing the reduction, or the bot identifying images needing reduction doesn't identify all available images but only a subset per throttling rules, and this is likely to produce a set of images from a narrow selection of initial letters. I have often seen a new population of images from a narrow selection of the alphabet. As an aside, someone is supposedly working on a bot to carry out the removal, which I hope happen soon because manually clearing them is mindlessly numbing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick, that may indeed be a reasonable explanation for the category behavior I was seeing. But I still do not understand why these images that I had periodically monitored for several days never showed up in it. Again, I had tried purging the pages (images and category), making a null edit to the template, etc. Nothing worked, even though most of them were long past the initial 7-day period after tagging. If you can think of a reason for this phenomenon as well, do let me know, as I'm completely baffled about it at this point. Modernponderer (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Carolus

(previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive953#Editor "translating" person's names and other problems from early May 2017)

Multiple users have contacted User:Carolus about issues with his article creations and additions, including (but not limited to) sourcing problems. One such problem is that sources like "RD 8.4.1932" or "RD 21.7.1924" (only source on Hubert Krains) are not understandable to our readers at all. This has been noted during the past few days by User:Reb1981, User:Andreas Philopater and myself, while User:Boleyn has tagged similar articles for sourcing issues as well (see e.g. Werner van den Steen de Jehay). User:TonyBallioni has also suggested that Carolus should change his approach to article creation and perhaps develop them in draft space first. Carolus' response to this polite and patient editor was "If you want it back, then stop crying, i have other things to do. sorry, but do not delete and come back crying" which was completely missing the point.

Now, his latest reply to the requests to change his "RD date" sources to something readable and understandable is "No, i will do as i like, evreryone understands the meaning of an RD in Belgium."[51] Never mind that we don't write for people in Belgium but for people around the world, and that both I and (I think) Andreas Philopater are Belgians and still had trouble understanding what was meant...

Considering this reply, his approach to editing, his manner in other discussions (see the previous ANI discussion, and see User talk:Carolus#Belgian monarchs and related pages for another recent good example), I think it is time that some sanction is implemented. I don't know which sanction, apart from a block, would prevent all these problems though, as they are not all limited to e.g. article creation. A topic ban from the main space (forcing him to use either draft space or article talk pages) may be a solution. A good mentor, assuming that Carolus is willing to be mentored, is also a possibility. But seeing that his userpage states "This user has been on Wikipedia for 11 years, 9 months and 22 days." I fear that no swift and easy change should be expected. Fram (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You choose Fram, 1/ i leave EN wiki, or you leave me in peace, no other options; you decide. Do not wast my time, and say what you want. I have a problem with you as well, but i do not cry like a child. So let me know your decision. --Carolus (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: The most cursory of checks would have verified that this user has been on Wikipedia for about 2 years. --Izno (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

And a somewhat more indepth check would have verified that this user has been on Wikipedia for 11 years, with the first 6 or so on nlwiki (where they got indef blocked), then a hiatus, and now 2 years on enwiki. Fram (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Izno, don't you understand Fram?? He is very clear? But i don't get the point if someone is blocked elsewere? If Fram does not see that a Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Leopold II is enough notability, then he has a serious issue about the facts of wiki. --Carolus (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

As I can see the situation: A user gets blocked on Dutch Wikipedia for sock puppetry (the block reason includes a URL to their equivilent of our WP:SPI), joins us a couple of years later, and creates pages with cryptic source data, and he says that No, i will do as i like, evreryone understands the meaning of an RD in Belgium [sic]. We need sources to be understood by English-language readers, not by Belgians; amd sockpuppetry elsewhere is clearly a red flag, IMO. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet? I am Carolus? what is your point?--Carolus (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, forget other solutions, time to indef block them for WP:CIR. His latest claim is that he doesn't write full biographies because "people will change them anyway because of 1/ their oppinion, and 2/ the spelling errors. The last one is discriminating people who do not speak fully english"[52]. Yep, you read that right, correcting spelling errors in encyclopedia articles is now a form of discrimination... Fram (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure if "mentor" is the word, since Carolus has been active longer than I have, but I would be willing to partner with him – for example if he's willing to create new articles in draft space I'd be happy to check them through and move them to main space. His interests to some extent overlap with mine, and I've effectively been revising his work as and when it shows up on User:AlexNewArtBot/BelgiumSearchResult anyway. (I'm not actually a Belgian, but I did spend a year in Belgium as a student, and have been working in Belgium for the past couple of years.) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• I've left Carolus a final warning. If they carry on editing like this, I'll simply block them. Black Kite (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• This was the response to the final warning. I think we're quickly approaching a CIR block for not wanting to work with the community on the issues presented. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • i don't get the point? being blocked for a sockpuppet of 5 years ago? Ok, then block me please.--Carolus (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

As for the Belgian monarchs situation, I agreed to compromise on that topic (even though we don't chronologically number monarchs), in order to stop the edit warring. PS - Again, Philippe's title is "King of the Belgians", not "seventh King of the Belgians".

GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Carolus You really might want to tone it down, you're not going to win any allies by issuing ultimatums. Also, the RD (Royal Decree - which you explained on your talk page ) isn't referenced anywhere online, nor is it referenced as a printed item (no ISBN numbers or anything ) so I'm not sure it can be used.

Regarding R.D's, if this was the Dutch Wikipedia you could possibly get away with "everybody knows what RD's are, however on the American English Wikipedia, none of us really knows what that is, you would need to explain that, otherwise someone could, potentially remove it as "unreferenced".  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: I didn't realise that wall had been built already  ;) I think it's still the English Wikipedia though :D  !!! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Wall? Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi , BLP violation removed  !  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• In online discussions it's often helpful to sleep on things before reaching a decision. Carolus isn't a vandal, and a tetchy response in not unusual online even from the calmest of characters. As to the American Wikipedia – I'll bite my tongue. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • OK guys? what is "tetchy", me no speak uk?? and who is Carlous?--Carolus (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Carolus: "Tetchy" is not "uk", tetchy is English. I'd like to see a clear response from you regarding the sourcing concerns others have brought up, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
      • If you expect me to change my sourcing, sorry, no can do. There are no other sources. But that is not my problem. If you realy think you can do better, yourself, please be me guest. If you don't like it, please delete them, no problem. Better it it is not getting, but your choice. Some people like to make a point by deleting articles, i like to create articles to make my point. that is all. So, perhaps you should only allow UK people to write, then the world would be happy. So, now my question, again, what has an old sockpuppet here to do? What is that point?--Carolus (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Creating articles to make a point, could be seen as a violation of WP:POINT, however. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, indead, so please block me, naughty me. :D--Carolus (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• • • • • @Carolus: I expect you to provide enough info about a source so that a competent English reader can discern what the source actually is so they can find it if they should choose. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Carolus as you've shown on Augustine Kasujja, you do in fact know how to create articles with better sourcing. Like I've said to you on your talk page: the articles you create are almost always notable, but also almost always not fully in line with what we expect for an article in the main space. I'd really suggest working in the draft space to develop the articles first, or even send it through AfC. We want your contributions here, but when they involve living people in particular, and biographies in general, we tend to prefer clear sourcing upon creation. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Carolus, the editors here want you to use a standard format for citing a Royal Decree. I don't personally know what that is, maybe someone else could link to a guide? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Carolus has in fact been improving these references over the course of the day, e.g. this diff. It's an improvement, although it still isn't optimal. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, they're referring to specific source material although not in a standardized citation format. I imagine there is one for this type of source, probably similar to citing a legal statute? But I don't know what to suggest. {{cite act}} maybe? It would also be helpful if Carolus could provide a link to where they're finding these sources, if they are online. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The standard format in Dutch would be "KB 1923-7-21", in French "AR 1923-7-21" (with KB/AR standing for "royal decree" in the respective languages). Carolus's attempt to translate this into English as "RD 21-7-1923" is what triggered this round of scrutiny of his editing. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

tetchy = irritable --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• • I will just add, as I've already mentioned on my talkpage, I once put a new article on nlwiki. Within minutes it was at AfD with people mocking my poor Dutch rather than discussing the substantive merits. My response was, I have to admit, not dignified. Hitting the right tone in a foreign language in an online forum is very tricky, especially when people seem to be knocking your good-faith efforts. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• On Belgian Royal Orders as sources: these are published in the Moniteur belge (or Belgisch staatsblad - basically the Belgian Gazette), which is only online from 2003 onwards (barring some scans of 19th-century copies that crop up unsystematically on Google Books or Internet Archive). Going by deeds rather than by words, Carolus has in fact made an effort to improve these references, and as they are to paper-only sources it is true not much more can be done to improve them, but they should ideally include a reference to the issue number and/or date of the Moniteur belge in which they appear. If "RD 21.7.1923" in fact means "Royal order as published in the Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur belge of 21 July 1923" then something like that would be best as a reference. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Andreas, you are almost Correct, the date is when the King has signed the koninklijk Besluit, but this can be put in the Staatsblad on a different date. You should ask concrete someone who knows the procedure of the procedures of a Koninklijk Besluit. I am not a Legal specialist, but i know that only after they appear in the Staatsblad, the royal decision is legal. I realy am suprised nobody never heard of this basic rules of Belgian law.--Carolus (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Not having the paper publication myself, I cannot know whether you are giving the date of the decree or of its publication (this is why references are important: so those of us who don't have the publication in front of us know where to look!). So the ideal reference would be: "Royal order of 21 July 1923, published in the Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur belge of xx [month] xxxx"--Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok then i wil stop writing those articles, because that is realy impossible, i do not have time for that. --Carolus (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That's your call. But you could keep the format handy as <ref>"[[Royal order (Belgium)|Royal order]] of [date], published in the ''[[Belgian official journal|Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur belge]]'' of [date]"</ref> (on your user page, say) and just copy/paste it and fill in the dates when editing. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Carolus, you have been offered some really excellent advice, and I ask that you please please please consider carefully following it, or adapt in some other equivalent way. As a reader, I would have had no idea what a reference reading "RD 21-07-1923" or something like it actually meant. I would find it useless for either trying to find or verify, or to use to obtain further information (wording, for example). I would be stuck, and I doubt that you would want every reader who is trying to understand it to come and ask you, potentially years after you have made the edit. By contrast, if you follow the advice from Andreas Philopater, you would leave a reference that tells me that the source is a Royal order from the Belgian monarch, and I could follow a wikilink to find out more about what that is. It would be clear that 21-07-1923 was a date and not some sort of file reference. I would know that it would be published in the Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur Belge and the wiki article or a google search would tell me that it is only available offline for that date. I would have a concrete date to start searching. If you happened to have the title of the royal order, providing that would be helpful too, but even if you don't, the reference would give me an excellent starting point. If you don't know the date of publication, you could at least note "and published shortly afterwards" as something like:

• <ref>"[[Royal order (Belgium)|Royal order]] of [date], published in the ''[[Belgian official journal|Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur Belge]]'' shortly afterwards"</ref>
• <ref>"[[Royal order (Belgium)|Royal order]] of [date], titled [title], published in the ''[[Belgian official journal|Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur Belge]]'' on [date]"</ref>

For the ones available online, using a {{cite web}} template would provide a link and all the bibliographic information. It is great that you are adding sources to Wikipedia, and I thank you for that, but it would be much more helpful to add them in a way that what they are is clear to a reader... it is really not fair to expect others to change your "RD XX-XX-XXXX" references to something like that shown above, especially as you only need copy and paste the code and insert your XX-XX-XXXX where it says [date] in my first dot point. Please, this is not difficult for you and would be helpful to others. I understand that you may feel stressed / targeted for adding references, but now that it is clear what the references are, might I say that we are all working towards a common goal – high quality and source encyclopaedic content? Please, you are only being asked to make a format change that is for the benefit of readers now and in the future readers. EdChem (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Noticing disturbing trend

I have been doing new page patrolling for a while now. Recently on a hunch, I started digging around new pages and I have noticed a pattern. A lot of questionable pages are created by the new handles, if I check their contributions, they are limited to just one page they created. Some of the pages were created in March, April and those users have been silent since then. When I PROD a page, after being silent for 2-3 months, they just surface to delete the PROD without giving a reason or improving the article. These users are clever enough to not keep names related to the article in order to avoid potential WP:COI or WP:SPA, but their behaviour clearly makes it evident. I have no option but to go AfD route and in my experience, due to lack of participation, a lot of AfD close in no consensus. I am not sure how to deal with this. I have not linked pages or users because I do not have clear evidence that these are indeed paid editors. Coderzombie (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Coderzombie: Can you giive one or two examples of these pages? It sounds like paid editing to me; they (the ones that know what they're doing, anyway) tend to load a new page 'ready made' into user / article space as their only edit under a disposable account name, and then disappear. Staying below the r radar, see. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Some examples I have noticed recently. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Coderzombie (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Well, 1, 2, and 4 are probably just fans- they're not written well enough to be paid for. But #3- compare the history to what I said above- an account created a new article about a Pharma in one big, clean edit. Paid editor. Although, ironcally, what you were saying in your OP doesn't seem to apply- the PROD is still there! But the others, meh. They want their favourite songstress to have an article- their 'work here is now done'- it gets PROD'd- they get an email telling them so, they come back, you go to AfD instead. The songstress loses articlespace. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Could we add a log-onlytag edit filter for PROD template removal by new users anyone? —Guanaco 13:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

We have tags for CSD removal and AfD removal, so I don't see why not one for PROD removal. Ask at WT:EFM or on the mailing list. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem with it is that removing CSD and AfD tags are not legitimate ways, in those cases, to object to deletion, whereas removing a PROD template is a legitimate way to object to deletion. An edit filter that shows the removal of PROD templates by non-autoconfirmed users who have at least one warning on their talk page might be useful, though. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

My thought on this is that if one person objects to the deletion, consensus on AFD might still be to delete. Whether the removal is in good faith or not, the tag would identify these so we can decide whether to list them at AFD. —Guanaco 16:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is an old pattern. Typically paid editor/socks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:BADAFD

We've got about 90 articles that need to be deleted (or otherwise dealt with) after a massive AfD; some have been tagged for G6 and they've been slowly whittled down from about 120 over the last week, but could an admin or three please deal with this so that the list isn't overwhelmingly big? Thanks, ansh666 19:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I did about 40 of them...now I see 200x's allover...Lectonar (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle's dbatch is a marvellous thing... Primefac (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ansh666 23:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Machine translations

What are the guidelines or rules regarding obvious but undisclosed machine translations (or obvious but undisclosed translations in general, come to think) from foreign-language Wikipedias? There's this initial version of a page which is obviously a this page run through Google Translate (go ahead and compare). The editor who did this is relatively new but has already had stuff deleted as copyright violations. --Calton | Talk 19:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The obvious thing would be to list them at WP:PNT....and a little discussion concerning machine translations in general can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Translation#Machine-translations and Wikipedia talk:Translation#RFC. Unfortunately, there is no consensus to delete them outright as for now. Although I will use this occasion to leave this little titbit of information: stumbled upon this on It-Wikipedia....a speedy deletion tag which kind of expands our A2 here: "(C3) Pagina scritta in un'altra lingua o tradotta con traduttori automatici" which is "....page written in another language or translated by machine translation...". You think we should try to expand ours too, or is this actually perennial? Lectonar (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing". Prod them on sight unless you feel they're salvageable. ‑ Iridescent 20:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wouldn't there also be a copyright issue since they didn't properly attribute the source? Yes, easy to fix, but that is still a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

  There is in fact a copyright issue. Lots of people think that "free use" means "unconditional use". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Having taken a quick review of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and I see nothing that indicates it does not apply to WP:ANI and this page. I just removed three BLP comments, two of which sat for 24 hours, and the editors concerned notified. However, you feel about the man Wikipedia is not the place to be making derogatory remarks. People need to pay more attention to what is written and remove glaring violations. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Page moves

Howdy. Would an administrator please restore the article Ministry of Sir Robert Borden to 10th Canadian Ministry? The article was moved (originally to 2nd Ministry of Sir Robert Borden), without discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed and I dropped a note, in a rather ironic discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Holy hell, he has done a TON of these. EdJohnston please take a look at his user page, where I linked the SPI on him. I'm about to be busy, but we need an admin to revert a bunch of moves. I blocked him for WP:DE with the moves and concern over this] but I need a clean up on isle 4 via his contribs and the moves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Any admin is free to unblock or whatever, btw, as I'm about to be away for a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Charles lindberg has been a problem for some time now. As seen by their talk page competence concerns have been raised multiple times. Their involved in slow edit wars all over......not a new editor. --Moxy (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

To add on to this, they've uploaded a bunch of copyvio images screenshotted from Youtube videos using clearly incorrect CC tags, which have all been deleted at Commons. [53] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears that he might be dabbling in editing signed out, as well. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is |Light2Shadow......the War of 1812 infobox edits gives it away.--Moxy (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)