Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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

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

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

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

• 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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 22 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 138 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 135 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case

(Initiated 118 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 85 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 68 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 7#RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)

(Initiated 55 days ago on 14 March 2024) It's been about two weeks, since the RFC tag expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 53 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 53 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 48 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 39 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 39 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 31 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 30 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 30 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

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

(Initiated 48 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 47 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 14 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 123 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 123 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 117 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 114 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 105 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 99 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 99 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 92 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 85 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 72 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024

(Initiated 65 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024

(Initiated 59 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of generation VI Pokémon#Greninja Merge Discussion

(Initiated 34 days ago on 3 April 2024) – The discussion has been largely inactive for the past month, and though there are occasional comments, it has largely slowed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 21 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

Tazerdadog (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 WPT: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)[reply]

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

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:

# 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

@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, 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I have been editing for years in US politics, I am totally uninvolved in German politics, and happened on this RfC by chance when browsing through WP:RFC/POL; I took up the close as it looked like a clear consensus. Jytdog is exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on a content issue where he happened to find himself in the minority. He could easily discuss the extra "ideology" items with his fellow editors instead of contesting a close which simply attempted to reflect the balance of the RfC discussion.

Concerning Jytdog's innuendo about my editing activities, the "do not revert" sanction levied today against me is totally irrelevant to my close decision. In case anyone here is interested, they can refer to my appeal for clarification. — JFG ^talk 23:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No battleground; I am not objecting to the main close. I am objecting to the over-reach. If you cannot see the continuity between AfD's politics and Trump/US populism I don't know what to say to you. I will not respond further here unless asked to. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your objection, I considered your arguments carefully and I stood by my close because you look very isolated in your refusal to trim the other infobox entries. I advised you to open a new discussion if you want them back. Regarding similarities between AfD and Trump's political positions, they are indeed obvious, so what? How does this fact have any bearing on the validity of my closing statement? — JFG ^talk 00:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that you (JFG) are asserting a consensus in your close when that was not the question asked, and as such we don't know if there was really the consensus you are claiming (maybe those that disagreed just didn't participate in the discussion section). Can you explain to me why you think there was a broad consensus on this topic (as a close of an RfC usually is) despite the fact that it was "not part of the formal RfC question"? -Obsidi (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to provide a more detailed reasoning behind my closing statement. (For a shorter version, see Talk:JFG#Close at Alternative for Germany.) Prior to the RfC, there had been abundant discussion on the talk page about what was perceived as bloat in the infobox field "Ideology" that included up to 10 items (see for example this version of the article. Some editors argued that "ideology" should not be a laundry list of political positions or policies, whereas others were adamant that such policies reflected the core values of the party and should therefore be included. Some argued that articles about other political parties did not include such long lists. There were some semantic discussions about what can and cannot be called an ideology. Accusations of "whitewashing", "trolling", being "childish" or "dysfunctional" were thrown around, so clearly it was time to assess community consensus more formally.

The RfC was opened with a question to include or exclude a particular item from that list: "Climate change denial". In the survey and in the discussion, the issue of the other items was addressed again. At closing time, I saw not only a very broad consensus to exclude "Climate change denial", but also an emerging consensus among many commenters about the 3, 4 or 5 items that should remain in the "Ideology" box. Conversely, I saw no comments arguing to keep any of the extra items not included in those five. This situation informed my reading of the consensus: closing only on the narrow first item would have been a misrepresentation of the balance of the discussion, hence my wording. While consensus was to trim the list, there was no prejudice in my mind against adding back an extra item if people would agree on it separately. But I also felt it was more helpful for editors to start from a core list that most everybody agreed on, and build from there, rather than starting from a long list that had already created a lot of noise, and arguing each item to death.

In the event, the list was trimmed to the "top 5" ideology items that most people agreed upon, and in the next couple days a straw poll was open to discuss the whole list: Talk:Alternative for Germany#Ideology field. As of this writing, most commenters in the poll agree with the reduced list and would even remove another item: "German nationalism". Again, I see no pledge yet to add some of the five deleted items. As you said, this may be due to lack of participation, but on Wikipedia Warnock's dilemma is generally interpreted in the Latin tradition of Qui tacet consentire videtur per WP:SILENCE. Most editors who had been active on the talk page also participated in the RfC, and seeing the discussion veering into what to keep in general, they could have voiced their opinion about items they deemed important to retain. Of course, those who speak up now can argue for inclusion of any item that has been excluded, and see if they get consensus. — JFG ^talk 14:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What it sounds like you are describing is a WP:Local Consensus as to changing the Ideology field as you describe. The question is one of if there is a different level of consensus for an RfC. I've always understood RfC's bring in the entire community to decide the issue, as such they shouldn't usually be overturned shortly after they are closed even by a local consensus. (After a long period of time or a intervening new event/facts, then potentially a local consensus might change the consensus.) By incorporating it into the RfC closure, it seems to be expressing a community consensus on a wider scale than is necessarily occurring. You say those who speak up now can argue for inclusion of any item that has been excluded, and see if they get consensus, but if this is the consensus of the RfC than trying to change that consensus would usually be considered disruptive so quickly after the RfC was closed. For instance, look at what happened on this very page when someone tried to create a new RfC about the same topic as a recently closed RfC: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Third_time_unlucky_RfC_at_Talk:Human.23Proposed_merge_with_Homo_sapiens. I don't have a problem with the straw poll or with you changing the Ideology field as you describe, if there really is a local consensus on the issue. But I would prefer if that line was removed from the RfC's closure. -Obsidi (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Obsidi: Thanks for your cogent remarks. I still stand by my closing statement which I consider a fair and neutral reading of the discussion among editors. However I would be happy to clarify it by adding "No prejudice against further discussion of the exact contents of the "Ideology" field, starting from the baseline of 5 items that have attained local consensus at the time of closing this RfC." @Jytdog: Would this take care of your concerns? — JFG ^talk 22:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been kind of upstaged by the far more interesting stuff below, but I would be grateful if this could be reviewed and decided upon, as the 2nd consensus claimed in the RfC is now governing that page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of this technical dispute, there would not appear to be a consensus at the moment on the talk page to restore any of the material in question. You will need to discuss this with us on the talk page before you make any changes, though I understand that you may not have done so yet because of the outcome of the RfC. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline here, and consensus and descriptions of what there is consensus for, are important. If this part of the close is overturned, then of course we will discuss what should be in the field, on the basis that there is indeed no consensus about that. It is important to follow sound process with regard to consensus building. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Resolved

 – CU backlog cleared. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you admins and non-admin page watchers who may be interested, there is apparently an incredibly urgent backlog at WP:ACC. I am judging this urgency by the fact that a user has been repeatedly inserting a notice to this effect at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations, despite having had the notice removed by one administrator, having been advised to post the notice here by a second administrator, and having now been advised that this behaviour is silly by a third administrator. So, please, for the love of all that is good and starchy with a nice creamy alfredo and some fresh grated parmesan, please somebody log in to WP:ACC and offer assistance. Won't somebody please think of the children?! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten a little out of hand, and part of it is my fault for getting annoyed with Mlpearc because of the way they went about things. I'm consulting privately with a couple of other CheckUsers, and it looks like Mlpearc's post at the WP:SPI Talk page (reverted by me) was not unreasonable. In other words, there may indeed be a backlog at ACC that can be handled only by CheckUsers (not something I do, but I think some others do). Anyway, Mlpearc left the building in a huff, although I don't know how long that will last. I'm still letting another CheckUser review all this before I or they restore Mlpearc's post at the SPI Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: How did I "go about things" ? besides lying about the backlog? Mlpearc Public (open channel) 20:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I logged into ACC and there are indeed 87 checkuser needed requests, which is a rather significant backlog that requires checkuser attention specifically.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just re: the 'proper place' for such a request, would it be at WT:SPI or WT:CHECK? I'm thinking it's not directly related to the carrying out of investigations, but is relevant to the CU tool itself. Unless the difference I'm drawing between the two is irrelevant and a sign of developing dumbassery? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose another issue here is, where exactly is the "CheckUsers Noticeboard"? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we necessarily need one; if there is a specific sock concern then SPI is the venue, or IRC or the mailing list (for requests requiring discretion). For general policy queries we have Talk:Checkuser. I think a noticeboard would just turn into "SPI light", which wouldn't benefit anyone.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just knocked out 20 requests from the CU queue. Several were for IP blocks that had expired during the long wait, and I anticipate there will be several more further down. When the requests put into the CU queue are easy, they're really easy, but when they're not, it can be more difficult than SPI to analyze. I'll work on it some more tomorrow morning. Katie^talk 00:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: Thank you very much, it is appreciated. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Light show (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First of all, this is my first time bringing a problem to ANI so if there’s any information that’s missing from this message, please let me know and I will add it ASAP.

To get to the point — for the past five years User:Light show (previously known as Wikiwatcher1) has been a disruptive editor on several entertainment-related articles, such as Charlie Chaplin, Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor. The Chaplin article was overhauled and brought to FA status by myself and another editor, User:Loeba, and throughout that process and ever since the FA nom passed, he has been showing up to complain, argue and edit war on numerous different topics. Usually his edits seem to be dictated by his opinions and are contradicted by the most authoritative sources. Regardless of how you try to explain that his point of view is not supported by the sources, he refuses to consider this and continues to force his opinion. He rarely tries to be diplomatic and is quick to accuse others of slandering the subject of the article when the content differs from his opinions. It seems impossible to discuss anything with him, as once he has an opinion about a subject, he will try to edit the article to match it, no matter what. Unfortunately, he is also a very prolific editor, especially in entertainment-related articles, despite the fact that his understanding of research and source criticism is shoddy at best, thus endangering any credibility that Wikipedia has.

Here are some of the repetitive talk page discussions that we’ve had with him on Charlie Chaplin:

• March 2013
• October 2013
• November 2013
• November 2013 #2
• November 2013 #3
• February 2015
• July 2015
• September 2015 #1
• September 2015 #2
• April 2017

Despite having all these grievances about the article, he chose not to bring them up during the GA and FA reviews.

When I began to edit Marilyn Monroe in the summer of 2015, this behaviour continued there, again even after the article reached FA status:

• October 2015
• April 2016
• July 2016
• July 2016 #2
• July 2016 #3
• July 2016 #4
• November 2016
• November 2016 #2

When I began to edit Elizabeth Taylor in late 2015, Light show was there immediately, attempting to bar me from editing it by nominating the article for GA despite it clearly not meeting GA standards:

• The article when LS nominated it
• Our first ‘discussion’ once I began editing the article
• Light show’s subsequent GA nomination

Unsurprisingly, the nomination failed. As I continued overhauling the article, it became apparent that it contained paragraphs that appeared to be plagiarized from Alexander Walker’s biography on Taylor:

Yet another dispute, during which I listed the plagiarized paras I had found and diffs proving that he was the source of the plagiarized material in the article:

• Diff 1
• Diff 2
• Diff 3

This is especially concerning given the fact that Light show is banned from Commons due to repeated copyright infringements.

Light show’s latest campaign is to change the nationalities of famous figures to “American” if they spent major parts of their career in the US. The above discussion on Chaplin’s nationality is just one example, you can find several others by quickly browsing his recent edit history. In particular, I find it concerning that he changes the nationalities of people who apparently do not/did not hold American citizenship. Examples:

• British actress Claire Bloom
• Egyptian actor Omar Sharif
• British neurologist Oliver Sacks
• Austrian-born Swiss actor Maximilian Schell

This kind of behaviour is standard with Light show. He has been banned from Commons for similar disruptive behaviour regarding copyright questions [2], and is banned from editing articles related to Stanley Kubrick [3] and Peter Sellers [4].

After five years, I'm fed up of having to spend so much of my time arguing with this user, who seems to be more interested in editing articles from his point of view than based on research. Arguably, he is also violating the credibility of Wikipedia. His disruptive editing has been reined in at Commons, but I now think something needs to be done in Wikipedia as well, as he has had several years to improve but he simply refuses to get the message, as he does not see anything wrong with his style of editing despite constant negative feedback from other editors. The examples I've listed here are from my personal interactions with him, but if you browse his history, it becomes apparent I'm not alone in having issues with him.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Comment Am in agreement as the disruptions never seem to stop. A failed FA of last year, started RfC when his changes weren't welcomed, a recent violation of WP community upload ban (see above) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Violation_of_community_ban . The editor seems to want everything his way and is willing to disrupt in the effort. This is just a sample; there are more examples at the Stanley Kubrick and Peter Sellers talk page archives. We hope (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not a member of the Light Show fan club and in the past I have found him frustrating to deal with, and in one article (whose name escapes me) I contemplated going to ANI. Most recently I was summoned by bot to comment on an RfC he commenced in Charles Chaplin, in which I initially agreed with him but then decided not to do so. He can be tough and somewhat tendentious. However, he edits in an area in which editors jealously guard their articles to the nth degree, to OWN levels at times, and in which FAs are viewed as being chiseled in granite. In the Chaplin article he is in the wrong in my view, but he is attacked like it's going out of style. Not every editor functions well in that environment. So I would suggest that this be taken into consideration. Coretheapple (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question-What's the suggestion then? More topic bans at Charlie Chaplin and Marilyn Monroe to go along with the ones he presently has for the Peter Sellers and Stanley Kubrick articles? Years worth of continual disruptions which mainly return to the same theme or variations thereof can be hard for editors producing and maintaining these articles to take. We hope (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern has always been the copyright problems. Images, quote spam etc... But what are people asking for here? What is being proposed ...community ban....comment limitations...edit limitations ? -Moxy (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Also in reply to We hope above) If an editor is getting to the point where they are banned from two biography articles, and people are considering banning them from two more where they are being disruptive, its clearly at the point where a topic ban from all biographical editing broadly construed should be considered. Its an ongoing issue, its the same behaviour at multiple articles, existing bans from articles have failed to curb their disruption - the next step is either a broad topic ban that allows them to continue editing, or just saying goodbye on a more permanent basis. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(In reply to Coretheapple) We must be careful not to confuse stewardship with ownership. The problem with Light show is that he will try to change an article to his liking, based on his opinions and maybe one or two sources that he has found to support them through the Google Books preview function etc. When you explain to him that his additions to the article are not supported by the majority of sources on the subject and hence are false or misleading or superfluous, he refuses to consider this and charges on. Sometimes he also drops his original grievance and immediately comes up with another, hence continuing the fruitless discussion. To get an article to FA status, you have to do months of research and read dozens of books and articles — this is especially true in the case of pop culture giants like Chaplin or Monroe who have had hundreds of books written about them. When LS has an opinion about something (e.g. nationality), then he will never back down and consider other people's perspectives, even when the majority of editors contributing to the discussion disagree with him. This is also evident from the problems he has with copyright: he is of the opinion that his interpretation of the US copyright law is right, and Wikipedia's legal team is wrong. You can't really co-operate with a person like this.

In addition, given the plagiarism I found on Taylor and his refusal to comply with the Commons rules, I would not be surprised if he was guilty of more plagiarism. Overall, I'm concerned that this is the type of editor who is extremely prolific but doesn't actually improve Wikipedia, due to his strong opinions and inadequate research and prose skills (which could be fairly easily improved if he were able to admit to himself that he needs to accept feedback and develop his skills). Personally I wouldn't consider it unreasonable to maybe ban him from biographical articles. He's had lots of feedback over the years, with no noticeable change to his behaviour. However, even if that were done, I think he would simply take this behaviour to other articles and continue wasting his fellow editors' time there. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I particularly enjoyed the changing of the description of Omar Sharif to include 'American'. Personally I am of the opinion someone who makes that sort of error shouldnt be anywhere near a biography. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disruptive, never; Following guidelines, always. That's clear from my original question about Chaplin's lead. I try to avoid giving any opinions, even on a talk page, where I gave multiple sources and guidelines. I've never been accused of trying to own an article, as I actually prefer collaborating and having text copy edited and improved.

But note that neither the complaining editor nor the commenting editors here, have any issue with someone redefining those guidelines: According to the MOS, we give official citizenship priority. And blatantly violating them, as she did here and on other talk pages. In fact, that was my last comment at the Chaplin talk page. No one took issue with it. She never denied violating it. And while such continuous PAs have consequences, ie. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks, it's only the complainer that gets censured and even banned for bringing it to the attention of admins, as I did for Stanley Kubrick and Peter Sellers. --Light show (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is far from the poster boy for no PAs. He's willing to hand them out and ready to cry wolf when necessary.

• at Kubrick talk "BTW, your math is about 3,000% off, since it's closer to 5K at most. Guess math wasn't your favrit subject either, huh doc?"

When some editor attacks me for adding 27,000 words of quotes, when it was only about 800 in a massive article, that kind of reply is an understatement. --Light show (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• to another editor at Joan Rivers "I'm glad you found a buddy to cover for you, but this will go to ANI if you can't get over your erroneous edits."
• again at Joan Rivers "Before posting there, let me know if you've used or are using different usernames, since socks are an exemption to 3RR, and your arrogant style of discourse and warring methods are too similar to previous events."
• At FAC talk page Catherine Zeta-Jones "And it's worth absolutely nothing, just as the giver." "Couldn't resist another PA, huh?"

Don't forget to mention that the PA came from you, not me. Credit where credit is due. --Light show (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's laughable that you construe what was said as a PA-you were invited to take it to ANI, but chose to pass. We hope (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I wonder why I'd actively avoid complaining to that neutral forum? --Light show (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• reply to Light show"Take it to WP:ANI with the understanding that your past and present actions will be part of the discussion."

We hope (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Light show, it's not a personal attack to point out that you're changing the nationalities of several people on Wikipedia on very dubious grounds. It was pointed out to you in the discussion on Chaplin's nationality that citizenship takes priority as that's a non-negotiable legal definition, and that you appear to be the only person who believes that Chaplin's forty years in the US is not prominent enough in the lead. Please also note that this AN concerns not just that most recent discussion, but your behaviour in general during (at least) the past five years. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

It should be obvious by now that I don't change any nationality statements on "dubious grounds." Quite the opposite, as you'll discover here. As for your PAs, the last time you falsely accused me of so-called plagiarism you apologized for not reading the source. And yet you continue to use that pretext to attack my edits. --Light show (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You changed Omar Sharif to add American. I am not sure how much more dubious you can get... Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He spent 20 of his prime career years acting in American films. Why is it wrong to then describe him as having been an Egyptian and American actor? The MOS covers this. --Light show (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change his nationality, unless he has dual nationality. The MOS does not explicitly say you can do that. Indeed, the MOS is perfectly met by the sentences "Omar Sharif ... was an Egyptian actor. He began his career in his native country in the 1950s, but is best known for his appearances in both British and American productions.". Claire Bloom is another example. The MOS says "or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". Bloom was born in England, became notable in England, most of her major films were British productions, and still has British nationality. This edit on Oliver Sacks is even worse - you are suggesting he gave up his British nationality and became American, which is clearly untrue. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the MOS is wrong, please say so. Otherwise, commingling his place of birth with his career misleads readers without proper context. Since he only practiced neurology in the U.S., saying he was a "British neurologist" simply because he may have still held British citizenship, can be considered phrased without proper context. That's the case now with Chaplin, where everyone makes context (his career) irrelevant and says his citizenship is all that counts. And anyone who even questions that, despite citing the guidelines and numerous reliable sources, is considered disruptive. Per guidelines: The opening paragraph should usually provide context. --Light show (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Context is fine - all you need to do (in the Sacks example) is say "British neurologist who spent most of career in USA" (which is exactly what the article did say before you changed it) - that's perfect context. Changing someone's actual nationality without any reliable source is (a) simply wrong, and (b) if they're still living, a BLP violation. MOS is irrelevant here, that's a failure of WP:V, which is policy. You can't override that with an interpretation of a style guideline. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sacks wasn't discussed after it was changed back since it at least did have context in stating he spent his career in the U.S. Now getting back to Charlie Chaplin, do you agree that it lacks proper context? (See RfC.) He moved to the U.S. at 19 where he spent the next 40 years making films. Yet not only the entire first paragraph, but the entire lead section, skips over his relationship to American films. In fact the article doesn't even mention he actually made films in Hollywood until 7,000 words into the massive article. Do you think someone commenting about that is being disruptive? --Light show (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was - I was merely commenting on the nationality-changing issue. But I'll have a look at that - will have to be tomorrow now as it's past midnight here. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(In reply to Light show)First of all, the paragraphs that I have linked above are plagiarized; yes, I was wrong about an additional one, and I apologized for that immediately when I realized that. As for the US not being mentioned in the lead of the CC article, that's simply untrue. "At 19, he was signed to the prestigious Fred Karno company, which took him to America. Chaplin was scouted for the film industry and began appearing in 1914 for Keystone Studios." The lead then describes his career in the US, and also mentions his leaving of the country in 1952. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Well, that's very unusual. You link to a discussion implying some plagiarism yet the lengthy discussion proved the opposite. The other few links also proved that if anything, I may have been over-quoting to avoid it. So between your silly plagiarism accusations, and User Moxy, who always complains about me using too many quotes (see above), it's quite a circus.

As for CC, I said "his relationship to American films" was essentially skipped over. You show it was, unless people go to film articles, note that they're all American, and see his name. Of course if they did that, they might also wonder why he's mis-described as having been and "English filmmaker, actor, director, composer, and producer," when he did his 40 years of work outside of England. It's because the context is excluded. I'm also surprised you said that the lead "also mentions his leaving" America, when you wrote on his talk page that the U.S. "booted him out." It sounds like you're now supporting what I wrote there. Golly, maybe we're both being disruptive. --Light show (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With plagiarism, I am referring to the three paragraphs, which are related to the beginning of Taylor's film career, her family's relationship to Cazalet, and her preparation for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? — I don't see any quotes in these paragraphs, you're just reproducing the author's text as your own, with minor tweaks. As for your quotefarming, you've been told not to do it by several editors, many of whom have been concerned that you might be breaching copyright laws. It's definitely not just Moxy who is concerned about this.

It's pretty clearly stated that Chaplin worked for American companies before setting up his own. As for 1952 and Maland's statement – Maland does not mean that Chaplin would have been ok to return with no consequences, what he is saying is that the US government had no real 'dirt' on him, despite their hostile treatment of him. The message was pretty clear: we don't want you here and will continue making your life difficult if you do return. In this situation, Chaplin chose to leave the US and settle in Europe, but it can hardly be said to have been voluntary. To claim otherwise is to seriously distort historical facts. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Light show continuing with disruptive editing

• Changing the wording to imply that Sam Wanamaker wasn't in fact blacklisted: [5]
• Changing Hitchcock's nationality, despite a statement on top of the page clearly prohibiting it: [6]
• Reacting in a hostile manner when another editor points out that he needs to use proper sources: [7]

Tagging We hope, Coretheapple, Moxy, Black Kite, Light show and Only in death does duty end.

TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I can't believe that AN editors keep letting such content issues be discussed here.

• The Wanamaker change was based on cited material and expanded shortly after with actual reliable sources. If THS thinks that it's OK to label someone a Communist and say they were blacklisted without any source, she should explain that on the article's talk page, not in the AN. If she wanted to add a conflicting source, she should have done so.
• The Hitchcock nationality addition change is also common sense, as he became an American citizen and a U.S. resident for most of his career.
• The Bacharach talk page comments were clear on their face and the tagger did not reply there. A link to an explanation about "drive-by" tagging was included to support my comments there.

THS is hounding my edits, which is itself the only thing that is "hostile," and disruptive. I have not been involved with her on any of those articles. She seems desperate in a desire to undermine valid edits or comments anywhere, as shown by this most recent post. Misusing AN as a platform and stage for discussing content issues instead of on the talk pages, shouldn't be allowed. There are no edit wars. --Light show (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Responding to ping. This strikes me on its face as a content dispute, but I'm not denying that this editor seems to get in a lot of these kinds of tiffs. Coretheapple (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Striking out my comment as I simply don't want to get further involved with this editor or his articles. Also I wanted to mention that I was originally pinged to this discussion after it was already archived from ANI, and I carelessly responded to it there and got yelled at. This whole issue is simply more trouble than it's worth. Coretheapple (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The Wanamaker article is in need of more RS re: BOTH claims of blacklisted or not, Communist Party member or not. Re: Hitchcock, suggest it be "was a film director and producer...". The next sentences deal with his being a well-known director in Britain, his move to Hollywood in 1939 and his US citizenship in 1955. It's neutral and just states facts without stepping on any toes. This is a classic response to anything he disagrees with -"blitz tagging" and "drive-by". We hope (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• When a user's editing follows certain disruptive patterns in several articles over several years, it's more than a content dispute. These are just further examples that demonstrate the issues I outlined above; I chose to include them to show that this goes beyond the articles on Chaplin, Monroe and Taylor and my own interactions with this person. The changes that Light show has made on Wanamaker seem very similar to the ones he has attempted to make in the Chaplin article over the years. It appears that the blacklist article itself lists reliable sources for Wanamaker having been placed on a blacklist, which certainly should be mentioned on the Wanamaker article as well, but that's beside the point here. My point in bringing this up is that Light show focuses on certain themes (politics, nationality) and edits them, often without mentioning a reliable source, or without having looked at research on the topic as a whole, or without engaging the community in discussion. It's again illuminating that Light show seems to regard mentioning that a person was blacklisted to be equal to stating, as a fact, that someone was a Communist. As for Hitchcock, it's explicitly stated in the lead that you shouldn't change his nationality, to do so without prior discussion and consensus is questionable; more importantly, I wanted to bring this to your attention to demonstrate that Light show is continuing with his nationality changing campaign, without discussions, RS, or explanations. He focuses on enforcing his POV, disregards research and reacts very poorly to constructive criticism. In other words, his edits are not constructive. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Comment Agree with you that he returns to the same themes at different articles. Re: the blacklisting, many people were blacklisted because "someone said" or "someone thought" he/she was a member of the Communist Party. If you read Frank Sinatra's FBI files, though he wasn't blacklisted, he was suspected of having Communist sympathies. Others had their lives ruined by actually being placed on the blacklist because you couldn't get work if you were on it. His "America First" campaign needs to stop as it's not in the interest of facts.

Taking the Hitchcock example, Hitchcock was a very well-known and respected director before he ever set foot in Hollywood. His important works were not all done in the US. When someone has done notable work in countries other than the US, it appears arrogant to stress the US theme-they should be treated equally. We hope (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, any editor who spends nearly half their time editing over a two week period by hounding and attacking another editor is not exactly "constructive" either. There are over 5 million articles in WP, so please get off my case. Excluding you and We Hope, who also tracks my every edit, there are very few actual disputes I've dealt with over the past months. When Core used an RfC, the discussion was kept reasonable and sane. When I added one for Chaplin, likewise. But when I once commented about Marilyn Monroe being more than a cartoonish "dumb blonde," THS went ballistic.

We Hope's comment claiming it's "arrogant to stress the US theme-they should be treated equally," again is ridiculous. The edit and even her mentioning Sinatra re: Wanamaker, makes that clear. Either source it or stop complaining. --Light show (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you guys continuing this on an archived page? Please either move this section to WP:AN or let the issue lie. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No point in trying to explain.....hes not going to change.....been asked by many many many editors over the years to stop spamming quotes.... to no avail. Think hes going to stop the Americanization of random bios...no way....even community ban on uploads has not stopped him. Best we just watch his edits over a ban.....would be harder to track any socks that would showup after a ban. Perhaps mentors to lead him in the right direction.--Moxy (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about a TB for biographies? Despite the accusations of hounding by this editor, I was brought to the discussion by the ping above and didn't read any of his edits until then. I could care less about watching his edits-that's self-flattery. As he said above "Either source it or stop complaining."-he should try taking his own advice re: accusing people of hounding him. We hope (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing others of hounding/tag teaming is nothing new from Light show. I would support a topic ban for biographical articles, either a shorter (i.e. three months) one as a warning or an indefinite one. Unfortunately I don't think that a temporary ban is going to do much though, as haven't the other topic bans or the Commons ban.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Proposal

Given Light show's persistent disruptive editing (disregard for research/proper use of sources, quotefarming, plagiarism, POV pushing) and disregard for feedback, I propose that he is banned from editing biographical articles. He is a very active editor, but ends up creating more work for editors who have to deal with the factual errors and copyright problems (among other issues) that he introduces. A mentor scheme was mentioned by User: Moxy above, but given the fact that he does not seem receptive to feedback at all, I doubt it would work. I also don't believe that anything other than an indefinite ban would work here; Light show already has two bans from biographical articles and is banned indefinitely from uploading images to Commons (which I believe followed several shorter ones which produced no change in his behaviour). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

• Support While I've dealt with him more regarding images here and at Commons, I've seen the repeated disruptions at Peter Sellers and Stanley Kubrick that went on until topic bans were imposed. Also having seen the editor argue the point time & again about his interpretation of copyright being correct while those in opposition were wrong, I doubt a mentor situation would solve the problems.

His Commons unblock had been conditional on having someone else approve proposed images prior to upload. The editor decided to forego this and the result was a community-imposed ban at Commons; he's currently under the community-imposed bans mentioned above and one for uploading images here at en:WP. A topic ban for biographies was brought up earlier and would be preferable to banning his total participation here. We hope (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with hesitation. Honestly, I don't believe they are capable of contributing in a collaborative way and an indef block is coming eventually, based on what I've seen here and in checking some diffs. I feel we are putting off the inevitable, as it takes more man hours to monitor the editor than the editor gives in worthwhile contribs. I would see this topic ban as the last chance before we just follow Common's lead and block them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military personnel participating in the [[Syrian Civil War]] who were [[killed in action]] or died of wounds received in battle.
[[Category:Military personnel killed in action by war|Syrian Civil War]]
[[Category:People killed in the Syrian Civil War]]
[[Category:Military personnel of the Syrian Civil War]]

More eyes on this article would be helpful. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI to everyone — this is a political party, not a redirect to "Greater Denmark" or "Greater Poland" or something proposing an alternative to the existence of Germany as I initially thought :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:) Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was bothered by template message by some people regarding my articles that I been writing in two years see User talk:Mjbmr/Archive 3, most of my articles are gone now, but now I have created AfD for the rest of my articles but it seems people have conflicting opinions on the same type of articles, I'm getting ambushed by groups of people who are protecting an article or trying to take than an article. to compare people's conflicting opinions see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OmarGoshTV (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Robinett (2nd nomination). Mjbmr (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mjbmr, I know you're upset at a recent spate of successful AfDs of articles you created, but that is no reason to nominate more of your own articles. Those users were correct to leave template messages to notify you of the deletion nomination. Those articles were deleted due to notability problems, but not all of your article creations were about non-notable subjects. For future article creations, take extra care to have found multiple independent reliable sources before you start the article.

Other admins - is the Autopatrolled userright appropriate for this account? Fences&Windows 19:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and windows, given the rather large number of now-deleted pages created by this user, I would say that right would no longer be appropriate. Primefac (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fences and windows There is no red line for notability, it was an ambush, I don't want be creater of the rest articles, they all had the same amount of resources, if they weren't notable then other articles should be deleted right away. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BigHaz Mjbmr (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mjbmr, every article must be judged on its own merits. Just because a few articles from a user were deleted for lack of notability doesn't mean every article by that user fails notability. Give yourself some credit! Throwing your hands up in the air and calling it quits is a lousy way to go. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac Yes, you should see the new AfD I made. Mjbmr (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that AfDing your own articles because you're pissed about others of your articles being AfD'd is pretty darn WP:POINTy behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Once you press the "Save changes" button, you have freely licensed your words under the CC BY SA 3.0 license and GDFL license. You might still own your words, but you can't revoke that license. That means the community has the final say whether it is kept or deleted, not you, and any other website may also use your text as they please, under the terms of that license. That is how it works. Some articles are going to be deleted, some will be kept. Acting out by throwing your toys out of the pram isn't a mature reaction. I agree, autopatrol is probably the wrong bit for you[8], not sure how that happened. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the history, I think it was a mistake for Schwede66 to grant autopatrolled, given the sheer volume of deleted articles created, so I have removed that right and pinging him as well. I think that is the first time I've taken a right away from someone, but this is one of those cases where it seems rather obvious you are not prepared to use that particular tool. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't look good, and if you hadn't removed autopatrolled, Dennis Brown, I would have gladly done so myself. I haven't delved into the user's talk page history to see whether there were deletion discussions that had been deleted, but from memory, the account looked pretty clean in mid-February when I assigned the right. When the user first applied to get autopatrolled, the 25-article threshold hadn't been met. A week later, that was no longer an issue. The issues now are of different nature, of course. Schwede66 02:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to know which rule on Wikipedia is applied to these articles, there should be either Keep or Delete not if we say keep it then later we say delete it, Schwede66 you said there was no problems with my articles and you can see there are a lot other articles like mines which you see you can't even touch them, Dennis Brown please leave a message regarding removed my rights and based on what rule on my talk page, autopatroll right were granted before I get ambushed by AfDs, I didn't say I own the content of my articles, I'm the creator and every time someone whats to delete it, I get bothered by messages, so I don't want be the owner of those articles, delete them and recreate them with your own name. Mjbmr (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were notified here, which is sufficient. It isn't personal, it is just that anyone, regardless of who it is, that can't create articles with a near perfect record of "keep" at AFD should not have the bit. As far as getting messages, notifying you is a courtesy and we generally frown on any editor that does NOT give notice of an AFD. If you are bothered with too many AFD notices, it means your articles are likely not up to par for Wikipedia, and you might want to consider using the WP:AFC system or keep them in user space until they are ready for prime time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You REALLY want to be blocked huh? For your own sake, stop talking. --Tarage (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tarage Stop harassing, we are talking, I wanted to clarify this Wikipedia is full people who ambush to either keep or delete one's article, don't worry I won't bother anymore as you can tell, this admin Dennis Brown took an action based on his own interest on any policies. Mjbmr (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After being told to stop three separate times, one has to wonder if perhaps they should stop. --Tarage (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mjbmr, you are welcome to open a new thread to review my actions. You are not welcome to cast aspersions and claim my actions were for my own interests. As for me, I'm no longer willing to discuss it as I feel I have fulfilled my obligations under WP:ADMINACCT, so again, take it to the community if you think I did something wrong. I'm happy to comply with their wishes in the matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is WP:CANVASSING [9] Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just block them. This temper tantrum has gone on long enough. --Tarage (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He continues to revert his personal attack on his user page. Anyone? --Tarage (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that call. I know as an admin I can do the blocking myself, but I was involved in this to the extent that I de-tagged his original bad-faith CSDs and so on, so any actions I take here would probably be seen as part of a "vendetta" of sorts. If anyone feels it's my button to press, please let me know and I'll get to it tomorrow morning (my time, AEST). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BH is probably the last person who should be pushing buttons, for the sake of propriety, but nominating almost a dozen of your own articles for deletion is pointy enough on its own, even without two ANI threads, and now this. If they come back, someone kindly do us the favor of putting an end to this dog and pony show, at least until such a time that they decide to WP:LISTEN. TimothyJosephWood 12:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Before becoming aware of this thread, I have just warned OP for making an explicit legal threat in an edit summary due to a post I saw at ANI. This thread is a bit of a pile-on, I'm inclined to leave this as it is and see if Mjbmr calms down. That being said, they did just revert my warning. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage: we appreciate your input and intervention, but please stop taunting the user. Posts like [10] and [11] aren't really helping here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and RickinBaltimore has blocked OP. Well, good job, team, that was obviously coming. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Upon seeing the "legal threat", followed by the immediate revert and accusation of "committing a crime", not to mention the above dialog, I've given the user a 31 hour break for disruption. I would agree with this being a "temper tantrum" in some why, and I feel the editor needs to cool down and WP:LISTEN. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this block, in case anyone was going to ask based on my other posts here. While I would have liked to see if we could have worked out the issue with the user, there's obviously consensus here for a block, and we can try again in a day and a half. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I think we will be right back here with their recent edits to their talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A clear case of Wikipedia:Suicide by admin, but as their recent edits were only to noticeboards and talk pages I don't think we needed to pull the trigger. The initial deletions were a pile-on and now we've piled on their over-reaction. Fences&Windows 17:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats, canvassing, forum shopping, POINT, IDHT, personal attacks (read having your user page deleted as a BLP violation)... am I missing anything? When did we suddenly become so lenient? TimothyJosephWood 17:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I'm not falsely accused(again) of 'taunting the user', I'm going to make special note here that he restored my comment, not me. I disengaged. --Tarage (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User rights have been transferred from User:Khaosworks to User:Khaosworks101 following a discussion at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. 28bytes (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all - this is not a call for help (I've checked and there's really no help to be had), just a very sad announcement that once the current cookie on this login vanishes I'll be losing access to this account, since I've lost my 2FA authenticator token and scratch codes. I'm not sure it's worth creating a new account and going through applying for admin all over again, so that'll probably be it for my administrator career here. Thanks for all the good times! -- khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While there might be a technical barrier to you keeping access to this account, I am sure there is no process barrier if you have to make a new account to have admin rights transferred. Assuming you can satisfy the crats you are the same person as the editor who created this account. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Khaosworks: The simplest remedy would be to Special:CreateAccount a new account directly from your current account, which would prove once and for all that it is you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Khaosworks:, create a new account now, from your current one, link to it on your UP, and link to this discussion for background. Hey presto! -we don't unnecessarilly lose an admin. Simples! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: - stupid question: are you saying I just put up another admin application? What do I link to the original account on the new User Page? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Khaosworks: Just choose anywhere prominent (for example, the very top). To remove all sense of doubt you can indicate the status of your current account (Khaosworks) on your current userpage and explicitly name your new account as the successor. In turn, on the new account's userpage, prominently wikilink your current userpage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Khaosworks:, yes, I agree with Jasper. This should create a paper trail to satisfy your application at WP:BN that it is who you say you are and that the account is not compromised. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Khaosworks:, perhaps I don't understand the problem, but why would you lose the account? I don't have 2FA, and don't anticipate losing my account over it (compare [12]). If you've lost your password, you can reset it via e-mail. Bishonen | talk 08:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: The entire premise of two-factor authentication is that you are authenticated if and only if you satisfy both authentication factors. The password is only one of those factors. Therefore, if he loses his other authentication factor, he will never be able to get into the account again.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, while (as Khaos points out below) he can log in as already authenticated, any change to the 2FA method (if it has been implemented correctly) will require the 2nd factor to authorise. Its a big downside for 2FA in areas that do not have a painless method to reset it. Of course most companies that use 2FA where you are a customer (banks, any paid internet service like games etc) always have some route by which you can remove the 2FA or reset it, but thats because you are a paying customer. The theoretical loss of your business outweighs the cost of handing the occasional person who is locked out. Given Khaos' comments, I am guessing the WMF has nothing of the sort set up for usernames using 2FA Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, Jasper Deng, the takeaway for others is, don't activate 2FA? At least, don't do it if you only edit from home and have a strong password which you don't use anywhere else. But then I suppose the idea of 2FA is to keep your account safe also when you edit from less safe places. Bishonen | talk 08:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Wasn't it encouraged to prevent admin accounts being hacked quite recently. I don't think it matters what or where the machine is. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna, I won't go further down the rabbit hole here, but please compare this discussion that I linked to above. Bishonen | talk 09:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting. Thank you very much. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is already resolved, but for the benefit of anyone reading this belatedly: if you don't want to use 2FA, the most important thing you can do to secure your account is to use an unguessable password that is unique to Wikipedia. If you do want to use 2FA, and don't want to be in the position of losing your account, then you should print out your recovery codes and put the paper in your underwear drawer. If your underwear drawer is compromised, you have worse problems that someone stealing your Wikipedia account. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: 2FA is a really great thing, but it shouldn't be used unless you know what it means and what it does. Anyways, I think discussion of 2FA in general (unrelated to the OP's case) should continue at m:Help talk:Two-factor authentication.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: - I set up 2FA, but have lost the ability to authenticate so I can't log in from any other machine which I'm not logged in already. Those cookies are set to expire after a year, so at the end of that time I'll be logged out and without my token, although I have my password, I'm unable to key in the authenticator code on top of that to log in again. So, the account will not be accessible. My fault entirely. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Khaosworks: An alternative to creating an alternative account now is to create a WP:committed identity, which will allow you to prove your identity even at a later date. It should be a relatively painless process to transfer administrator access from your current account to any other you would like to make. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tazerdadog: Too late, (s)he's already invoked the creation of an alternative account. By the way, from a technical standpoint, while a committed identity is a great way to do it, many bureaucrats don't have the technical background to understand it, so a paper trail is prudent. Plus, if P=NP then all bets are off!--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I would still advise using a committed identity, especially if they have to drop 2 factor authentication for a time. While many crats don't have the technical background, enough do to make it useful (I remember that Cyp's identity was very clearly established by the crats using a committed identity a few months back). Also, P very likely does not equal NP, we just can't prove it yet. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea - if I do set a committed identity up, probably better to do it on the new account once admin access is restored? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do so as soon as the dust settles and you know which account you'll be using for the forseeable future. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the suggestions. I've created User:Khaosworks101 and linked this discussion as suggested. Just placed a request at WP:BN - will see what happens. Thanks again! -khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we've now got to hope that your account isn't already compromised and that this is a way of granting the tools to a hacker :p ;) ^[FBDB] — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are already logged in and still have an authenticator app then you could just disable 2FA in your preferences. Or you could ask WMF tech staff to remove it through a Phabricator request. I guess the current solution works, though. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: The OP can't do that because per m:Help:Two-factor authentication#Disabling two-factor authentication, they'd need their second authentication mechanism to work, and they've said it doesn't.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with regards to asking through Phabricator: without checking the credentials themselves, the following could happen: the OP forgot to log out on a public computer, a malicious user comes by, authenticates to Phabricator via that, and asks for 2FA to be turned off, making the account easier to hack. 2FA requires that any privileged action be authenticated in the sense I mentioned above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I had this EXACT issue happen, turned on 2FA, lost the device that had my authenticator, and lost the scratch codes. I fortunately had multiple admins confirm my identity and through Phabricator I was able to recover my account info. (I also printed out scratch codes and have them at home to make sure this doesn't ever happen again). RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep multiple flash drives with the free, cross-platform KeePassXC installed (KeePass for Windows users). One master password to access your encrypted list of passwords. It supports 2FA. There are a few others as seen here but this one is free and I've used it before unlike the others so I can recommend this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I keep my scratch codes in Dropbox. They're available across all my devices in case I need them. Katie^talk 16:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea to have them available. I have them (both for GMail and this account) somewhere I know where to find them. I don't particularly like the idea of having them available online, just in case someone were to compromise me in such a way that they were able to both sniff my password and compromise whatever cloud storage platform I have them on. You can't remotely crack into a piece of paper, I don't care how good you are. :) I've actually had to use a couple of the GMail scratch codes, when my phone wasn't getting the texts for some reason, and my wife wasn't around (hers is my backup). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Five days ago I requested help at ANI with a disruptive user who had recently received a BLP ban but whose other edits are highly problematic and so far it has yet to be addressed. The behaviour has ramped up since but it's not really vandalism per se so reporting to AIV won't help. Is someone able to take a look please? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issue has now been addressed, thanks. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• edits by me and Ms Sarah Welch (12 may 2017)
• reverts by WikiEditorial101
• JJ:

• removal of doublure, created by re-insertion by WE101;
• revert of re-insertion of problematic information, which was removed by MSW, and re-inserted by WE101 without discussion;
• removal of doublure, created by re-inserion by WE101;
• Discussion at the talkpage: Talk:Divine madness (religion)#Re-insertion

• edits by WE101;
• addition of info from reliable, University Press sources, by JJ and MSW (and removal of a source-tag by WE101);
• wholesale revert by WE101;
• counter-revert by JJ: "Undid revision 780489016 by WikiEditorial101 (talk)See talk. You removed sourced info from reliable sources, and seem to be taking WP:OWNership of this page"
• follow-up whole-sale revert by WE101.

At Talk:Divine madness (religion)#Administrive intervention WE101 states:

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

• The lead was updated with info from reliable sources, in contrast to the sentence "is the universal phenomenon of any unconventional, outrageous, unexpected, or unpredictable behavior that is considered to be a manifestation of spiritual accomplishment." I tagged this sentence with a "source needed"-tag; this tag was removed by WE101; it is not supported by the info in the article, making to broad claims. In contrast, I added info which questioned this sentence and it's interpretation of divine madness; this info was fremoved by WE101's wholesale reverts.
• Both June McDaniel and David DiValerio make the comparison with mental illness; and explain why divine madness is not mental illness, but derives it's name from this comparison.
• The "accurate understabding" og WE101 seems to be mainly based on Feuerstein, a source which is discredited by DiValerio, as explained in a note (this was removed too by WE101) and noted at the talkpage (Talk:Divine madness (religion)#Additional sources and info).
• "Destructive" is a misqualification of the edits by me and MSW
• WE101 has now three times asserted that I changed the Trungpa-quote when I shortened it; I've explained two times that I didn't change the wording (Talk:Divine madness (religion)#Trungpa-quote: "Nothing was changed to these three sentences."; "No, I didn't change the wording. If the quote was incorrect, that was not my work."). Somehow this doesn't get through to him.

WE101 seems to be taking ownership of this page, and unwilling to reaxch a compromise. So far so good, but removing sourced info from University Press published schlarly sources is unacceptable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This doesn't belong here. It might belong at ANI or ANEW, that is, if either of those were literally the first step in the dispute resolution process, which they aren't. The two of you have spent all of 72 hours "discussing" the issue, with almost zero input from anyone else. Consider WP:3O, Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, and... basically everything on WP:DR other than here. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Timothyjosephwood. I've also stated this yet. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Too early, WikiEditorial101, this content dispute is. Even for DRN, leave aside AN. As Timothyjosephwood notes, this needs more discussion on the talk page, then if necessary by other dispute resolution process. AN is not appropriate as the first stop. You are edit warring, which needs to stop. Further in an AN case, WikiEditorial101, always provide edit diffs whenever you allege/accuse anything significant by anyone. This is a borderline WP:Boomerang case, but I urge that this case be closed without action AGF. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ps) I am too busy IRL, will review that article later this week. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@(ps): okay; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this thread: issue resolved, and this wasn't the right place for this anyway. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...is using the article Rölli as their playground. Please see its recent edit history. 169.54.85.74 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article semi'd for 1 month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[13] 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.[14]. 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)[reply]

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 [15]? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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) [reply]