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/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 21 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 76 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 53 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]

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 52 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 52 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]

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 49 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 40 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 36 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 53 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 51 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 24 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 24 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 44 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]

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 28 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 27 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: I've  Done that one for you. Mdann52 (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?

(Initiated 16 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 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]

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]

Per WP:GS/SCW&ISIL, I am submitting this report to request editing restrictions on Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) on Syrian Civil War related articles for the disruptive behavior outlined below. The disruption consists of edit-warring, intellectual dishonesty, battleground behavior, and gaming the system. Volunteer Marek is pushing hard pro-rebel POV on across the Syrian Civil War and is an experienced user adept at gaming the system. The disruption is long term and severe, but has been increasing in intensity lately. Hence my report will focus on the most recent examples.

Battle of Aleppo (2012-16)
1. Violates the 1RR restriction by first performing this revert [2] (which is a revert of this edit [3]) and then this revert [4] (which is a revert of this edit [5]). Brightline 1RR Violation. VM later self reverted[6], but then immediately re-reverted [7].

2. Two days later he removes the pic again [8], narrowly missing violating 1RR again.

3. Blanket revert to his highly POV version [9].

4. The dispute at this article escalated, leading BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) to issue a stern warning at the talkpage [10]. VM practically begs BU Rob13 into ordering Etienne to self revert [11] [12]. It is evident he really really wants "his" version put in place. VM then tries to deceive BU Rob13 into blocking EtienneDolet by alleging that Etienne Dolet is restarting old edit wars [13]. But the Christmas celebrations VM mentions were added by me in December [[14]], at which time no one reverted and were still in the article at the time VM posted this. There was never an edit-war over that. Similarly, EtienneDolet added the pics of the burnt buses in December [15], and VM did not revert them then, he reverted them now [16]. He is the one re-igniting old edit-wars (actually creating new ones), all the while lying so as to trick BU Rob13 into blocking his opponent.

5. VM waits a few days and then re-ignites the edit-war with this edit [17], a straight-up revert of the original edit [18] that started the edit war that began on April 13th. This is after BU Rob13 issued his warning and while a discussion is in progress at the talkpage on if and how Al-Masdar news is to be used. The sheer brazeness of this cannot be overstated.

6. For good measure, he also removes relatively uncontroversial, reliably sourced material [19] I had added back in December [20]. The source is reliable and faithfully quoted, the fact that Christmas was publicly celebrated in Aleppo for the first time in years clearly notable. VM did not revert my addition back in December. This has all the hallmarks for a "revenge edit". His habit of re-igniting old disputes after months is incredibly disruptive.

Khan Shaykhun chemical attack
7. Removes reliably sourced material he does not like [21]. The source is reliable (ibtimes.co) and Theodore Postol is a notable academic expert on chemical warfare.

8. [22] Blanket removal of a large amount of reliably sourced material (all sources pass WP:RS except rt.com, and are faithfully quoted). Not even an edit summary, let alone an explanation at the talkpage.

9. [23] Slaps a fringe tag when his edit is reverted (a favorite tactic whenever he can't revert due to the 1RR restriction on these articles, more examples below).

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
10. [24] Again removes reliably sourced material on false pretenses. In his edit-summary he is referring to this RfC [25], but the RfC is only about the lede of the article, not the body text. This is a deceptive edit-summary, falsely alleging that his removal is in line with the RfC.

11. [26] He then doubles down, but switching tack and now alleging that somehow this material cannot be included because there hasn't been an RfC on it. One of VM's tactics is to demand the other party file an RfC whenever material he does not approve of is being added to an article.

12. In the same article, he removes more reliably sourced material [27] with a lazy edit summary, even though the source is clearly reliable and faithfully quoted. No explanation is provided as to how the material is POV and UNDUE. When his edit is reverted, since he cannot revert, he slaps a tag [28].

Ghouta chemical attack
13. [29] Yet again removes reliably sourced material without even an edit-summary. Technically a revert since this material was added at some point to the article (even if long ago), and surely VM is aware of this.

14. [30] Doubles down 4 minutes later, this time with a deceptive edit summary (he did far more than just "attribute"). Technically another 1RR vio.

White Helmets
15. Same story here [31] and here [32]. While some of these sources are junk, sbs.com.au is reliable and quotes an academic expert. When he can no longer revert, he slaps a tag [33].

Other
16. One of VM's disruptive tactics is what I call the "revenge edit". When neither nor the party he is warring against are able to revert because of the 1RR restriction, he adds material that he knows the other part will find objectionable but won't be able to revert. The addition of the pov and fringe tags mentioned in #9, #12 and #15 are examples of this, as are additions such as this [34] [35]

17. VM is abrasive and condescending in talkpage discussions, going so far as to even mock a typo [36] I made [37] (plenty of diffs, omitted for brevity, but you get the idea). He was blocked for precisely such talkpage behavior in the not too distant past [38].

18. Obsession with the lede: Note how he inserts the same exact material both in the body text and the lede (for greater effect, obviously). [39]. This is another "revenge edit", because he cannot revert till tomorrow. Khirurg (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19. Frankly, this diff alone [40] is proof that VM is WP:NOTHERE as far as Syrian Civil War articles are concerned. Khirurg (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20. Another perfect example of the tendentiousness of VM's editing is this [41]. He rams two pro-opposition primary sources (the Syrian Network for Human Rights and the Violations Documentation Center) right in the lede (for maximum visibility, naturally), while also removing the widely covered Christmas celebrations (which unlike the SNHR report, were widely covered by secondary sources). He then re-adds this [42] for good measure (which was discussed here [43]). The Guardian is misquoted, since VM leaves out the crucial fact that the accusing was done by the UN ambassadors of the US, UK, and France. Since these are western governments hostile to Russia, mentioning them would reduce the "sting" of the accusations in many readers' minds, so VM is sure to leave that out. It is quite clear that what VM is after is to repeat "Russia" as "war crimes" as many times as possible in the lede. He then removes reliably sourced material showing the rebels in a negative light [44]. I've lost count of how many times he has done the same edits (especially the Christmas celebrations - this is turning into something of an obsession).

21. Casting aspersions [45] and making personal attacks [46] (two of many examples).

Based on the above, I propose the following findings of fact:

• VM is highly tendentious. He is pushing a hard POV across these articles, is willing to edit-war to no end over it, and demands that other submit to his will.
• VM is intellectually dishonest and adept at gaming the system. Tactics include gaming 1RR, deceptive (or no) edit-summaries, and attempts to deceive administrators into blocking his opponents.
• VM displays WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, using such tactics as revenge edits and re-igniting old disputes after they have been dormant for months.

I therefore propose that VM be topic banned from articles on the Syrian Civil War. Proposed.

Note On past experience VM's defense strategy on proceedings such as this is to filibuster. If not tightly controlled by administrators, this discussion will turn into a circus. Khirurg (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update since report was filed

I note that VM is still edit-warring, doubling down at Battle of Aleppo (2012-16) [47] , Khan Shaykhun chemical attack [48]. Notice how he demands consensus for re-adding well-sourced material, yet he feels no obligation to seek consensus for the infobox edit [49] which he just sneaks in along with the removal. Both are classic VM moves: Everyone who disagrees with him must get consensus, but this does not apply to him, and sneaking in POV edits concealed within other edits. He is edit-warring against multiple editors at this point. Khirurg (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was remove the same crap as previously. I want to note that you and couple of your buddies are actually expanding the crap in this article, making that whole "Christmas celebration" section even bigger. This article has serious problems and you're just making it worse. A topic ban for a couple of you, as suggested above (hey, I thought you said you were going to "step away from the topic area"? What happened to that? Just empty words thrown out there to escape the possibility of an explicit topic ban?) is way way overdo.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg You just refactored your post. I am leaving this link so that other readers can see the one that Volunteer Marek replied to originally. MarnetteD|Talk 00:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks. VM should be writing his responses in his own section, like we do at WP:AE. Khirurg (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No he does not need to do that. This is not AE. You should not be refactoring your posts (see WP:REDACT) because it then becomes a different post than the one that an editor responded to. Please make a new post if you want to say anything further. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(@Khirurg - edited cuz I didn't see MarnetteD's comment) I've replied to your false accusations where appropriate following standard practice of this noticeboard. You on the other hand went back and changed your comment after I replied to it to make it look like I was replying to something I wasn't. Own section or no, that's a bit disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Given the number of emails I've received from editors (including you) suggesting a sanction other editors (either explicitly or by providing links to alleged disruption), point 4 is dubious at best. Everyone has a different idea of what is disruptive in this topic area, one that just happens to align with their own POVs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I've never emailed BU Rob13 with any requests to sanction Khirurg or anyone else on this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming this. If it was unclear, the "you" I referred to was the original filer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, another "why won't they let me push my POV in peace" request. And the personal attacks and smears in the request alone merit a WP:BOOMERANG. I don't appreciate being called "intellectually dishonest" and all that other crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Really quick (1) re that 1RR, it actually wasn't but I self-reverted anyway [50] to show good faith, (2), (3), nonsense, (4), yeah BU Rob13 issued a warning, to other editors. And it's false that I tried to "deceive" anyone - at worst I confused Khirurg and EtienneDolet since they have a long standing history of tag-teaming on these articles (both came over to Syria related topics from Armenia related ones - also should note that EtienneDolet is banned from filing enforcement requests against me because so many of his past ones were BS, and this is likely Khirurg doing it on his behalf). (5) through (17) all nonsense. Removing fringe, badly sourced crap and various conspiracy theories from articles is the OPPOSITE of "disruptive" or "tendentious". Like I said, this is a "why won't they let me push my POV in peace" request.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I read point 1, which was suggesting VM ought to be sanctioned for reverting badly-sourced POV crap out of the article (and the latter revert he self-reverted anyway). I've assumed the rest of this TLDR complaint is similar. Black Kite (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um no, he self-reverted [51] and then re-reverted [52]. Khirurg (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the problem, actually. Frankly, editors that add stuff like this, sourced only to an Assad mouthpiece news agency, are probably the ones we should be looking at sanctioning. The talkpage of that article does not make edifying reading. Black Kite (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is an ongoing discussion as to how the source could and should be used. Even VM has conceded it is "semi-reliable". And the 1RR vio stands. The fact that VM thinks he's right is not an exemption from 1RR. Khirurg (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uh... no. I didn't conclude it was "semi-reliable". Another editor, when pressed about its reliability said something like "well, it's sort of semi-reliable". I then quoted him to highlight how ridiculous it is to use a "semi-reliable" (it's actually not reliable at all) source for controversial text about massacres and rapes that cannot be found in any reliable sources. Nice try. And you're still lying about the 1RR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • [53] Nice try indeed. Khirurg (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, please note that the phrase "semi-reliable" has "quotation marks" around it. "Quotation" "marks" look like this ' " " '. They "usually" indicate that "someone" is being "quoted". Like let me "quote" myself here: "I then quoted him to highlight how ridiculous it is to use......". Hope that "clarifies" things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Quotes or not, you conceded it can be used for some things, implying it's semi-reliable. So much for that argument. Khirurg (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Uhhh... your complaint is that I *didn't* concede. You're not making sense. Anyway, as BlackKite points out, the actual problem is you and ED making edits like this, which constitute pretty blatant POV pushing based on non-reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also User:Iryna Harpy's assessment of Khirurg's edits [54] (false WP:ASPERSIONS by Khirurg), [55] (WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by Khirurg), [56] (WP:GAME by Khirurg, trying to declare victory in RfC shortly after it was opened) etc. Like I said, WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citing an editor that shares your POV and frequently tag-teams with you is a very poor defense. But suit yourself. Khirurg (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, Iryna is a highly respected editor, so you might wanna watch what personal attacks you throw her way. Second, she does not "tag-team" with me. True, sometime she makes edits that I agree with but... pretty much any reasonable editors who tries to follow actual Wikipedia policies would do that. Third, this isn't a "defense". It's pointing out that your and your tag-team buddies (yes) edits have been flagged as problematic and disruptive by several other editors - including a few commenting here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "For the first time since the civil war began, Christmas was celebrated in Aleppo, with a tree lighting ceremony." - yeah thats well encyclopedic. Did they sing carols too? Given the other contributions are equally inane I am not surprised VM removed them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps they played football in no-man's land... — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well played sirrah, well played. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, it's funny, except Khirurg and his buddies are actually now *expanding* the section on the Christmas celebrations, which makes a ridiculous situation even more ridiculous. And that part's not that funny.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A short note (non-admin): I thought I'd note that I have been editing the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack for several weeks, and User:Volunteer Marek has been very useful in removing blatantly non-NPOV tattle from that article. I would suggest, given the general tenor of this report, that someone ought to review the contributions of the user who referred VM. The edits referenced here were to a section which was only re-included after a compromise on the talk page. Perhaps VM ought to have checked there first, but I'm still not convinced that some of the content he removed should feature in the article. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If someone were to propose a topic ban for SaintAviator and Khirurg, I would heartily support that. Like, support. This stuff has been going on for too long--the fake sources, the weaselish allegations, the propaganda. If editors think that citing propaganda/clickbait like the Washington Standard and the Indicter are acceptable to cite, they should not be editing this material. And part of what the fight is over is a thoroughly debunked claim, one actually supported by a misguided administrator (El C--what were you thinking when you made this edit?) A reliable source cites a report that thoroughly disproves that this Swedish outfit said what Russian propaganda said it said: "The news was based on reports falsely attributed to Swedish doctors..."--that is, falsely attributed in the sources added by SaintAviator. We cannot have editors fighting to put that kind of trash into an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Drmies Huh? Are you calling Arab News for a WP:RS site? You know it is owned by one of the sons of the Saudi king, right? Fine, but If that passes as WP:RS, then surely any newspapers speaking for the Syrian, or the Russian regimes also have to count as WP:RS. There is no way that I would agree that Arab News have more "freedom", or independence, than say any newspapers close the the Syrian, or Russian regimes. Huldra (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Huldra, that ownership doesn't mean they're always unreliable--or as unreliable as the notoriously unreliable Washington Standard. And in this case they were right, and that's borne out by a statement from the organization. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Drmies, you have a heck of a lot more faith in Saudi press "independence" than I do. And, sorry, that Arab News article is riddled with mistakes/halftruths. It fails to mention the complaints from the SWEDHR about the White Helmets, say, in the link you gave me: “Conclusion:

‘Lifesaving’ procedures on the children showed in the White Helmets videos were found to be fake, and ultimately performed on dead children. The syringe used in the ‘intracardial injection’ performed on the male infant was empty, or its fluid was never injected into the child. This same child showed, briefly, discrete life-signs (uncertain in my judgement) in the first segment of WH Vid-1. If so, this child might have died during the lapse in which the ‘lifesaving’ manoeuvres showed in the White Helmets movie went on. (Which is not the same than affirming that the personnel seen in the videos caused the dead of the infant. In forensic terms, the actual cause of death, as well as the mode and the issue of intent, refer to different items than those treated in our analysis).”

• To me, it looks as if SWEDHR made a legitimate complaint about the White Helmets videos, this was then widely exaggerated by Russian/Syrian sources, then having the Arab News article "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Does that seem like a fair description to you? Huldra (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Did I not misread the story after all? I thought SWEDHR claims were proven not to have been made by them, at all. Is that not the case? If SWEDHR did make statements critical of the WH, then it should be included in the article. Arab News is about as reliable source as RT is, so I did use it cautiously. But the question remains: what did SWEDHR say? Clarity is needed. El_C 00:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Arab News is reliable, in fact, I think that's one of the complaints against me. It's possible that I missed something somewhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think the Arab News is about as reliable source as RT. And Swedish Doctors for Human Rights made some very critical statements about the White Helmets, see e.g. the link above from Drmies. And yes, I think that should be in the article about the White Helmets. BUT: in order to see what the SWEDHR says about the WH, we really need to go to the original source, i.e. themselves, at theindicter.com, and not rely on biased secondary sources! And I have tried to clean up a bit of the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights article, which was in an absolutely horrible state: well into libel territory, IMO. Huldra (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Huldra, I think the worst distortions are in the Washington Standard article, and those related to them. What's noteworthy is that those are the ones most easily found on the internet. The Indicter itself is a strange little thing, and I sort of agree with your characterization--but what's odd is that ((El_C, here are the links) a. the "initial" piece seems almost to have been published a titre personnel, and its title is sensationalist; b. the "clarification" argued it had been seriously misread, but at least it's signed by two people. And I have doubts about the publication, and possibly the doctors that run it--see also this piece, which claims that Dagens Nyheter also misrepresented the report, but can't do so without using up half the ink in the world, or muddying the waters even further. But the long and short of it is (and El_C, this is what you were looking for I believe), the "Swedish Doctors" claim that their claims were seriously twisted by Veteran's Report and Dagens Nyheter, even though their report appears to be critical of the White Helmets.

  By now I've read a half a dozen articles on The Indicter, and I am inclined to think that we shouldn't be citing that joint at all on Wikipedia, and that Prof Marcello Ferrada de Noli PhD has entirely too much time on his hands. Note that The Indicter seems to get no play whatsoever from the media, nor does Swedish Doctors for Human Rights as an organization (search in Google News). I do not believe we should cite them anywhere. I'm about to start pruning their article. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the detail explanation, Drmies. Unless Huldra can provide convincing argument to the contrary, I'm inclined to defer to your research on the matter, as I simply do not know enough about the organization or the scope and potency of their infamous report. We should probably take this entire discussion to either the WH or SWEDHR talk page though. El_C 12:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok User:Drmies and User:El_C: until a couple of days ago, I had never heard of Swedish Doctors for Human Rights. But I just googled some of the names behind it (like Marita Troye-Blomberg), and they a serous "heavy weight" medical people. And I am rather horrified to see that Dagens Nyheter is used as a RS here, I would consider, say, the Daily Mail far more reliable than Dagens Nyheter (And no, I don't consider the Daily Mail very reliable, and yes, I can read Swedish) Huldra (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad. I partially misread the source you cite, which I myself added ("Propaganda, lies and videos: Russian media and the Khan Sheikhun massacre"). El_C 20:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Drmies: Edits removing bad sourcing [57] may be helpful, but edits that remove well-sourced material are just POV pushing: [58][59][60]. As an admin it's bogus to selectively go after POV-pushers you disagree with and support those with whom you agree. -Darouet (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well thanks for the personal attack here, and I'll forgive you your terribly dangling modifier. See below on the difference between "editing" and "insertion of fake sources which runs counter to our editorial policy. El_C, thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • SaintAviator, given this I don't think you should be here at all: you clearly have an agenda, you clearly do not agree with accepted standards of reliability. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a question, are these [61] fake sources too? Khirurg (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That very question, which is nothing but an attempt to sidestep the issue, proves my point. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no idea what you're on about, but just for the record, seeing how I have all of 3-4 edits to the articlespace of the Syrian Civil War, I have no problem stepping back from the topic area, provided others do the same (or even if they don't for that matter). I'm also not sure why you bring up St. Aviator here. I have nothing to do with them, I do not approve of their methods, and this is quite frankly guilt-by-association. Khirurg (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you have no idea, you're proving my point again. You compare one editor's removal of what they call undue, not via consensus, etc., with another editor's insertion of fake news. The first is editorial procedure, and they may be right, they may be wrong; the other is the insertion of fake news, which runs directly against editorial policy. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is not "removing fake news" [62], nor is this [63], nor is this [64]. It's WP:JDL using "fake news", "undue", "fringe" as excuses, as are in fact all the diffs I have presented. It's easy to say "fake news" and then remove anything one does not like using that as an excuse. Khirurg (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, in those edits VM is not removing fake news, nor is he claiming that he is, so it may be easy to say "fake news", but he's not saying it. In other words, there is no point here that you are making. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oh no, he's just removing large chunks of sourced material that just happens to not fit his POV, using flimsy excuses to do so (re-igniting old edit wars in the process in some cases). Nothing to see here folks, move along. Khirurg (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • • First, removing a sentence is not "large chunks" so quit it with the hyperbole. Second, you appear to be purposefully not understanding or obfuscating the difference. Removing some stuff like I did because it's undue or because it's repetitive or because it's worded in a POV manner or because it's not based on reliable sources is not against Wikipedia policy. Someone can disagree with those kinds of edits but there's nothing wrong with them and the disagreement can be hashed out on talk per usual. On the other hand, you, and a couple other editors like SaintAviator, are putting in highly POV text based on fake news sources (Weekly Washington Standard or whatever else) or outright propaganda outlets like Assad's al-Masdar news which are clearly unreliable (and inventing this new magical category of "semi-reliable" doesn't help) is straight up against Wikipedia's policies. So yeah, topic ban is warranted. For you. Especially since you've down right refused to try to engage in good faith discussion on talk and have instead relied on edit-warring and tag teams to get your way, while at the same time basically telling anyone on talk who objects "screw you, we've got the numbers, policy be damned!".Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You didn't remove "individual sentences", in some diffs you removed 3.5k of well-sourced text. The only one sabotaging any discussion is you, with your trademark incivility, abrasiveness, and obstruction ("Invalid RfC! Invalid RfC!" when someone tried to resolve the dispute by starting an RfC which you knew was going to go against you). Every editor at the Battle of Aleppo tp (except the 1-2 usual suspects that share your POV) is fed up with your behavior. Your aggressive style is counterproductive, generating even greater resistance to your edits. You would find it a lot easier to achieve progress if you adopted a less confrontational style. Mocking your opponents and demanding they submit to your will will conly create more tensions. And please drop the "you and St. Aviator" guilt-by-association canard, St. Aviator hasn't even edited Battle of Aleppo. Khirurg (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<--- The diffs you gave above are [65] and [66]. Those are sentences. And no, not "every editor" is fed up with anything. Several editors, including ALL uninvolved commentators, for example User:R2D2015 (who independent proposed removing the "Christmas celebration" nonsense), as well as several commentators here, see that there are serious problems with the article and that my edits have generally tried to *solve* these, whereas your edits make them worse (see User:Black Kite's comment above).

Now, having said that, the article does indeed have a very serious problem with a tag team. Look at this RfC. Look at the first EIGHT out of the first TEN votes. These are all editors who came over to this article from Armenia-related articles. They all share a history edit warring and battlegroundin' on Armenia vs. Turkey and Armenia vs. Azerbaijan articles. Then, there are TWO more editors from Armenia related topics, further down in the RfC. Then another guy with interest in Greek topics who shares the anti-Turkey POV of the editors from Armenian topics. Somehow they all popped up together within a short period of time to brigade that RfC. Even though most of them have never edited ANYTHING related to the Syrian conflict (some of them got involved subsequently). Now, it's circumstantial, but if this wasn't canvassed through off wiki communication then I'm a flying marsupial in spandex. And you, you also share that same edit history of Armenia or Turkey related articles, no? So yeah, there's some very sketchy, obnoxious off-Wiki coordination going on here to control and WP:OWN this article and make sure that it pushes a pro-Assad POV (in fact, the extent to which it does is so over the top that it's ridiculous). ANYTIME anyone independent or uninvolved takes a look at this article, they say the same thing - yeah, that crap shouldn't be there. This is also presumably the reason why any of you have been so reluctant to take the relevant issue to WP:RSN, since when you're up to sketchy shenanigans, outside eyes are unwelcome. But unfortunately most editors don't have the patience nor the stamina to deal with this kind of organized, obstructionist and dedicated WP:CPUSH and after noting their dissent they usually leave. Which leaves you and your tag team buddies to resume inserting crap text with crap sources into the article and then edit war to keep that way.

This, and so many other of our Syria-related articles are a complete pile of shit precisely because of this situation. And the fact that admins have had only limited time to deal with it and so have done so only piecemeal. An outright topic ban for you and several others is long long overdue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave many many diffs, so don't try to weasel out on a technicality. And you keep creating even more diffs with your incessant edit-warring. It's hard to keep track quite frankly. As for the Rfc (which you have tried to derail), yes, every editor except R2D2015, and the two that share your anti-Russian POV, is fed up with you and disagrees with you (Ekograf, Esn, Asilah, Tiptoethrutheminefield, Applodion, I could go on and on). And they are all from diverse background, so so much for the racist "Armenian cabal" canard. Frankly, your talkpage behavior alone is grounds for a ban, let alone the incessant edit-warring and system gaming. Khirurg (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they were all equally bunk. Like I said, this is a "oh no, they won't let me push my POV in peace plzbanzthem!" request. Let me quote Black Kite, an uninvolved editor from above: "1. is suggesting VM ought to be sanctioned for reverting badly-sourced POV crap out of the article (and the latter revert he self-reverted anyway). I've assumed the rest of this TLDR complaint is similar.". That's pretty much all of your "diffs". This isn't me "weaseling" out of anything. Not a technicality. Quite simply, your entire request is meritless and only serves to convince others of your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Seriously, did a single uninvolved editor agree with you here? No? Why do you think that is? Yes, there is a dedicated tag-team on the talk page of that article (I would exclude Ekograf from that group, however much I disagree with them). And again, I'm not the only one who has noticed this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i see, it's all a conspiracy, isn't it? And no, "uninvolved" editors have agreed with me here, and even more have at the Battle of Aleppo tp, where, again, except for R2D2, the only ones who agree with you are, well, the usual suspects. Khirurg (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

""uninvolved" editors have agreed with me here" Wait, wha??? You serious?

Ok, let's see.

On April 25, 7:14, BU_Rob13 notes that you've been spamming him with emails requesting blocks for those who disagree with you and calls your point "dubious at best". [67]

On April 25, 7:34, BlackKite chastises you for demanding that "VM ought to be sanctioned for reverting badly-sourced POV crap out of the article" [68]

On April 25, 13:05, OnlyInDeath notes how ridiculous the text you're trying to add to the article is and says "Given the other contributions are equally inane I am not surprised VM removed them". [69]

On April 25, 13:29, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundri has a laugh at your expense, or more precisely, at the expense of the text you're trying to add. [70]

On 25 April, 14:58, L.R. Wormwood says, quote, "User:Volunteer Marek has been very useful in removing blatantly non-NPOV tattle from that article. I would suggest, given the general tenor of this report, that someone ought to review the contributions of the user who referred VM" - basically saying that you're the one who deserves a sanction and a WP:BOOMERANG here [71]

On 25 April, 16:39, Drmies says "*If someone were to propose a topic ban for SaintAviator and Khirurg, I would heartily support that. Like, support. This stuff has been going on for too long--the fake sources, the weaselish allegations, the propaganda." - so that's a second editor (other than myself) who says that you deserve a sanction and a WP:BOOMERANG here [72]

On 26 April IrynaHarpy (yes, she is uninvolved) says "Yes, there are problems with articles surrounding the subject of Syria, but I do not see them as a reflection of VM's editing practices... And, yes, admin intervention is essential as the GAME is afoot, but I believe you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction", which makes it a third editor who suggests, although here more implicitly, that you need a sanction. [73]

Now, that pretty much leaves only James J. Lambden as the only other editor commenting here. But James J is not "uninvolved" of course, me and him go awhile back, don't we James. In fact, I can't think of any drama board discussion in the past two years where I was mentioned where James J did not make sure to also pop up and agitate against me. Maybe there was one.

So... lemme count... one, two, three, four, five, six, seven... seven uninvolved editors who are critical of your behavior, at least three of whom suggest a boomerang sanction against you. One involved editor who sorta supports you. And you think that, quote, "'""uninvolved" editors have agreed with me here""

???????

Maybe tha...

??????

Sorry, still sorta trying to ... ?????????? .... understand that claim. I read that right, didn't I. "Uninvolved editors have agreed with me here".

Oof. Ok. See, maybe that sort of illustrates the problem here. You have a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem (on top of few others).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it looks like you somehow missed James Lambden and Darouet (wonder why). No, I'm not the one with the IDHT problem. And counting Iryna as "uninvolved" and yourself among the three that request a boomerang (are you uninvolved too?) is just plain funny. Khirurg (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg: "Oh it looks like you somehow missed James Lambden" Sigh. Quote, myself: "Now, that pretty much leaves only James J. Lambden". Like I said, you have a problem with what can charitably be called "accuracy". I'm also not counting myself among uninvolved. I'm counting LR Wormwood, Drmies and Iryna. And yes, Iryna is uninvolved - the fact that you have a problem with her statement really just evidences your general WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and nothing else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of response anyone who tries to curb VM's behavior has to deal with: false accusations and jumbled walls of text like this.

First against me with this slippery claim:

• But James J is not "uninvolved" of course, me and him go awhile back, don't we James. In fact, I can't think of any drama board discussion in the past two years where I was mentioned where James J did not make sure to also pop up and agitate against me. Maybe there was one.

It's demonstrably untrue but he leaves an out with "maybe there was one." If I showed "one", which I could, he would say he meant it figuratively. If I showed several, which I could, he'd claim it was an honest mistake. He relies on the fact that "the amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it", frustrating well-intentioned admins and editors like Ks0stm here.

Where I detail his false accusation of canvassing against me he ignores it. Where I detail below clear instances of misleading edit summaries he doesn't respond by addressing the accusation but by claiming that – because other editors thought the statement was important enough to include in the lede he could slyly remove it from the body. Does that seem reasonable? Does it address the accusation whatsoever?

He pushes that defense again in his response to Khirurg now claiming the lede text was added by a sockpuppet. No it wasn't. Before the article had a lede EtienneDolet inserted "pro-opposition" with this edit, which was adjusted shortly after to the current language by Stickee, here. Neither of these editors are sockpuppets. Its placement in the lede was not the result of a sockpuppet but of an RfC which VM himself participated in.

When others edit-war against the majority he calls for sanctions, when he edit-wars against the majority the majority must be coordinating off-wiki. These responses are designed to frustrate and obfuscate. "Order of magnitude." James J. Lambden (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "jumbled wall of text" but actually a detailed list of every editor who's shown up here and been critical of Khirurg. Three of whom in one way or another advocated a sanction against them. You want me to add bullet points to it or something?

The sockpuppet added the text (I removed the text added by the sockpuppet (redacted, clarified later - VM)) here, (the text was added by the sockpuppet account - redacted, clarified - VM) here and [74]. Please actually check what you are talking about before casting offensive WP:ASPERSIONS. As an aside, here we have yet another account with a background in Armenian-related topics (sort of). Add that to the long list and to the evidence for off-wiki canvassing and meat puppeting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first diff links to your own edit. The other two don't add or remove the text under discussion. None are relevant to your claim. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first diff links to my own edit - the one where I state that I am removing text added by a sockpuppet, which is what you're complaining about. The text under discussion is "SOHR has been described as being "pro-opposition"". The other two diffs show the sock puppet account adding this text. It's obviously relevant. The third addition of this text by the sock puppet account was actually here. Sorry, you're the one not making any sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of these diffs (including the one you just added) show the "pro opposition" text being added to the lede or the body by a sock puppet, as you claimed. A long explanation is not necessary, if the diff exists just link it. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Khirurg: Yours links [36], [45] and [55] point to invalid or incorrect diffs. Surprised I am the first to mention it.

I was the editor who reverted VM's edit with the referenced edit summary ("this is the part that RfC decided on, not the other stuff") here because as far as I could tell the RfC was unrelated to his edit. He objected so I started a talk page discussion , pinging the RfC editors for clarification. None of the responding editors agreed the RfC justified his edit. VM then accused me of CANVASSING for pinging the RfC commenters:

And oh yeah, nice job of WP:CANVASSing there James. You pinged every single user you could think of that would come and agree with you here. You sure you didn't miss anyone? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

To be clear: I pinged all involved in the RfC and only those involved in the RfC. This is not the first time I've seen him employ an offense-is-the-best-defense strategy (diffs provided upon request.) I asked him to strike the unjustified accusation which he has still not done. Unfortunately many comments here follow the pattern of obstruction that allows his behavior to continue. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Lambden: "I pinged all involved in the RfC and only those involved in the RfC" - unless I'm missing something, that's actually not true - you didn't ping all the users, and you pinged a user who wasn't involved in the RfC. But honestly, this isn't worth arguing about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense. Which editor and why did you choose not to name them, so it could be easily confirmed or disproven. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ping Stickee, the first "No" vote in the RfC. By the way, in that RfC where 9 people !voted, there were 4 "No" and 5 "Yes" !votes (I didn't participate) . Now, out of those 5 "Yes" !votes, 2 are blocked/banned for causing trouble in this topic area and 1 (Happy Warrior) appears to have been a throw-away, fly-by-night, account. You see the problem with these RfCs? You see why some editors refuse to go to outside boards like RSN and instead try to decide things just on the talk page?Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, in my cut and paste I missed one editor. That is still not canvassing. Now will you either substantiate the second part of your claim ("and you pinged a user who wasn't involved in the RfC") by naming that editor or withdraw the accusation? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This recent diff and edit summary is one type of GAMEing I see in VM's edits – he makes two unrelated changes in a single edit, one justified and relevant to the edit summary and another unjustified and irrelevant. I don't know if there is a Wiki term for this. Edit summary:

• if the discussion is ongoing let's keep it out for the time being given these are highly controversial claims sourced to... junk sources. Adding in "not independently confirmed" is sort of OR but it pretty much admits the original source is crap

The edit summary makes two points:

1. "These are highly controversial claims"
2. they are "sourced to... junk sources"

These points are relevant to the removal of Al-Madsar, which is justifiable, but his edit also removes an unrelated passage on a Christmas tree lighting ceremony which the edit summary does not address.

The tree lighting content has been present in the article since early January. VM attempted to remove it the day before (again with an edit summary that didn't address its removal: the image is intended to convey a POV of "liberation". Also, clarify per source) and was reverted by EkoGraf who correctly states there is not even a debate about removal. There is discussion about removal/inclusion of an image to accompany the statement but no debate about the statement itself. So ignoring BRD and with no consensus it's snuck in with an unrelated edit.

We see the same behavior in this edit today to Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Edit summary:

• text with no consensus added by sock puppet, unduly restored - please don't enable socking, even if the sock puppets align with your POV

The paragraph that begins with "A common criticism of SOHR..." was indeed added by a sockpuppet Guru Noel but the statement "SOHR has been described as being pro-opposition" which the edit also removes was not added by a sockpuppet, is not addressed in his edit summary, and has been present in the article since at least November.

I mention this here because this is not a content issue which any amount of discussion among editors can address. It is a behavioral issue in a contentious topic which is not likely to change without admin intervention. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" but the statement "SOHR has been described as being pro-opposition" which the edit also removes " - ummmm, that text is still in the article James. It's just not being repeated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Then why did you re-add it after James pointed out your deception [75]? Khirurg (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OH FOR FUCKS SAKE. It was in the goddamn article TWICE. I removed ONE instance of it. I guess if you want to get fucking technical it was THE OTHER INSTANCE which was added by the sockpuppet, not the one I removed it. That's my fucking "DECEPTION". I didn't specify that I guess. Gimme a fucking break or better yet go away cuz you're really starting to get on my nerves with your constant lying and smearing and just generally being-full-of-shit-ing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden: Please check the article's talk page for the RfC on the issue of whether the content should or should be included. Please note who initiated the RfC; who !voted; the closer's observations. Notice any patterns emerging in the formulation of RfCs, weak !votes, and good faith closers who are uninvolved, but may or may not have made an genuinely informed decision? There is another RfC which is dubiously formed running right now. Yes, there are problems with articles surrounding the subject of Syria, but I do not see them as a reflection of VM's editing practices... And, yes, admin intervention is essential as the GAME is afoot, but I believe you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden, thank you for pointing that out. He is doing it here too [76], sneaking in the infobox edit along with the mass removal of sourced info. Khirurg (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? That edit has a well articulated edit summary which explains exactly what I'm doing. You're just making stuff up, hoping everyone's too lazy to actually check your diffs. Also, didn't you just say you were going to "step away from the topic area"? Whatever happened to that? Looks to me like you're just continuing the edit wars [77] (reinstating POV text added by a user who was blocked for it) and trying to start new ones [78].Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said I would be willing to step back if you would too, but somehow you a) misread that, and b) I doubt you would agree. Khirurg (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. What you said was, quote: "I have no problem stepping back from the topic area, provided others do the same (or even if they don't for that matter)". You seem to have a problem with, uh... "accuracy". Diff. So, was that meant in earnest? If so then show it. Or was it just a tactic cuz you saw people were starting to float the idea of a topic ban for you from all Syria related topics? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no prizes for guessing who "others" meant. Anyway, let me rephrase: I'll step back if you step back. Deal? Didn't think so. Khirurg (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

God damn it; both of you go take a break and do something, anything, away from each other, please? I'm tired of looking at this and y'all's back and forth is rapidly heading towards generating more heat than light. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You're right. I'm gonna go play some minecraft.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Topic Ban So lets deal with this in parts. (1) Is he tendentiously editing to pushing his POV? It does appear to me that Volunteer Marek has a very clear POV, but the question is if he is pushing that POV into the article text, or is he instead just removing badly sourced content that is against his POV and adding in well soured neutrally worded facts that support his POV while keeping due weight. It seems to me it is mostly the later. While he has a clear POV, he is mostly removing content he reasonably believes is badly sourced or undue. Is he willing to push hard for what he believes, absolutely. But I don’t feel he is crossing the line into being disruptive in this manner.

(2) Is he edit warring? There are times where he is reverting content added multiple times. But what should usually happen is that someone is bold, they get reverted, and then everyone discusses on the talk page. Instead, what is happening is they get reverted, and then the person that was bold re-adds the information again (or someone else re-adds it). I don’t get the feeling from examining his reverts, that he is trying to push content into the article by his reverts, instead he is trying to keep out controversial and potentially badly sourced content that was recently added. He is doing so in a manner mostly consistent with 1RR. Still the long term reverts to the same content seem like this has at times been a slow running edit war. But he is hardly alone in these edit wars, most of the things he is edit warring (if you can call it that) on seem to be a large slow moving (over a long period of time) many-editor edit wars over the same content.

(3) Is he being intellectually dishonest and gaming the system? I don’t see the evidence of attempting to deceive administrators into blocking his opponents. Can you explain this claim more? At times he does seem to add things with an edit summary that says something else. But the edit summary that says something else is actually an explanation for the rest of his edit. Instead, it appears that he is trying to use his 1RR per day to revert multiple things and not including all the explanation in the summary. I don’t feel he is trying to be deceptive in the edit summary though.

(4) Is he exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? He seems to see things in these articles as an “us vs them” kind of thinking. But that said, the articles are basically being edited by two groups of diametrically opposed editors who seem to be pushing two entirely opposite points of view. It practically is a battle ground going on with these articles (and I’m not even editing any of the articles!). If he were to be topic banned for this there are lots of editors on these pages that would need to be topic banned.

My overall conclusion is that Volunteer Marek isn’t being substantially more disruptive than many of the other editors on these pages. It would be inappropriate to single him out for a topic ban without the other editors doing the same thing also getting a similar sanction. I’m not sure this is the appropriate place to hash out all the editors who would need to get sanctioned here. If you wish to open an WP:Arbitration Committee request which would include Volunteer Marek and many of the other people involved in this, I would support that. But I am not ready to support a topic ban for him alone at this time. -Obsidi (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is really tl;dr for me, but a lot of statements by Khirurg on this page are simply not true. I can only comment on one example where I was involved. This edit by Khirurg with edit summary "POV pushing". Khirurg, why did you blame another contributor (Iryna) of "POV pushing" when in fact it was you who included the reference to RT (TV network) and removed correct statements referenced to Reuters and The Guardian? My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have now twice had to remove Volunteer Marek's blatant personal attack against Khirurg calling him "full of shit". I was well allowed to do this as per WP:RPA and WP:TPO (which one of his supporters tried to use against me, ironically.) He seems to also have forgotten about WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 12:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• English is not my first language, so I checked it here. It tells this is A personal conjecture towards another informing them that you do not believe what they are saying. Yes, it is exactly what VM is telling. I do not see any problem. Yes, it is a personal comment, however starting this entire thread was already a personal comment by Khirurg about VM. This whole noticeboard exists for discussion of user's behavior, not for discussion of content (as would be article talk pages). Somehow I am not surprised. It has been numerous times already when Khirurg participated in complaints about VM, complaints that have been dismissed by admins. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation

There was a 1RR violation on the part of Volunteer Marek yesterday (1, 2). I don't think he ought to get a pass just because he represents the mainstream view. El_C 21:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• El_C, is this, given the time stamp, not possibly indicative of an edit conflict? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, that did not occur to me—yes, that's a possibility. Is that what he's claiming? Because I would be willing to overlook a 1RR violation on that basis. El_C 22:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, I don't know--it would be good if Marek explained. Maybe it's in here somewhere, but this report is a bit large. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see that as a 1RR violation unless you can point to a recent edit that inserted the MIT professor stuff for that first edit. I looked and it has been in the article since at least beginning of April. Typically, we don't consider removing literally anything to be "reverting". It has to be undoing something semi-recent. (As a note, I did look into those edits earlier today before this post, but decided they were not a violation.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't argue with my own point. Fair enough—didn't realise it was that old. El_C 01:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was making edits, I got an edit conflict, I copy pasted per usual and hit save. I didn't even realize the Terrorist guy made an edit in between my edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removes reliably sourced material he does not like

• Regarding #7: "Removes reliably sourced material he does not like [79]. The source is reliable (ibtimes.co) and Theodore Postol is a notable academic expert on chemical warfare."
  I agree. Theodore Postol is an established expert on this subject, ref. MIT, and his work has been published by reliable sources, ref. IBT, DW, RT, TheNation, pressTV, Truthdig, consortiumnews. Even if some of the sources mentioned may lack a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", they are still reliable for reporting what Postol said. The reliability of a source depends on context. It's not "undue" as VM says, nor is it a "conspiracy theory". This is a viewpoint held by a significant minority, and Postol is a "prominent adherent". As long as we include his viewpoint, we must do so "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". How many words that is required to explain his view depends on the subject. I agree that it is disruptive editing to repeatedly, ref diff, diff, diff and diff, remove Postols statement. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. He is not an established expert in the subject. He is an expert in another subject. 2. These sources did not "publish" his work, they may have commented on it. 3. Look at the list of these sources - you have i) Postol's original paper. This is a WP:SPS, ii) RT News, iii) PressTV (official Iranian propaganda outlet) iv) Consortiumnews - a conspiracy website and v) Truthdig - another unreliable source. Out of that list only possibly the Nation and IbTimes are reliable. vi) There's this continuing tactic of using "these shitty sources are reliable for reporting what someone said" as an excuse to include WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE material into these articles. Now, there might be a reason to include a brief mention of what Postol said - but not a whole freakin' section. (And yes, it is a conspiracy theory - that's why this got reposted through the far-right outlets as #SyriaHoax, by the same people who claimed Sandy Hook was a hoax, who claimed 9-11 was a hoax, etc. etc. etc.).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"These sources did not "publish" his work, they may have commented on it." Is that so? I think you should read them. You can read Postol's reports in full in the IBT article and in the RT-article, but if you are tired of reading, I recomend this video (also included in the RT article). Erlbaeko (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are not publishing it. They are commenting on it and link to it with easy access. Publishing involves a peer review process. This isn't that. (And I don't care about what's in a RT article nor am I going to waste minutes of my life watching RT youtube videos) Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material is "attributable to reliable, published sources" whether you like it or not, and RT is reliable for what Postol said. They even have him on tape. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and he is an established expert on the subject. Here is an article where William Broad is commenting on a similar report he and Richard M. Lloyd, a former UN weapons inspector an expert in warhead design, made. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and here we go again. Removed as "fringe and WP:EXCEPTIONAL fluff" by Stickee, ref. diff. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a content dispute in this subsection? There's a talk page for that. PS: Thanks for the notification. Stickee (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of reliably sourced material can be disruptive, but this report is about VM, and I believe that was your fist edit to the article, so I am not saying your edit was disruptive. You're welcome. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this report here rather than at ANI?

Why is this report here rather than at ANI? (Or even AE?) This is the wrong board for a topic ban proposal. Therefore, unless this report is moved to the proper venue, I Oppose topic ban and Support Boomerang for the filer. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community_sanctions: "The community may also impose general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area, usually after a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, since much of the original complaint has been refuted, we could just close this. I suspect it will end up at one of those venues soon, unfortunately, as a number of editors don't appear to recognise what they're doing wrongly, however many people point it out to them. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, that says "all editors", not "an individual editor". Softlavender (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: I'm guessing "all editors" means "any editor". I cannot fathom a situation where every single editor working in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL area would be sanctioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it simply means that ArbCom or the community can impose general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area. As has already been done with numerous topic areas. If WP:GS had meant "an individual editor" in those sentences, it would read "any editor" or "individual editors". But GS are a broad general sanction(s) (hence the name), not an individual sanction. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're right. It would help if sanctions only had one consistent meaning. See my suggestion below. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

Comment - there are two helpful things that could happen here. First, a much deserved topic ban WP:BOOMERANG for the filer, User:Khirurg, as suggested by User:Drmies, User:Iryna Harpy, User:Softlavender and to some extent ("sanction" rather than topic ban) by User:L.R._Wormwood and User:Black Kite. The matter was also broached in general terms by User:NeilN. Second - and I'm ready to BEG for this - please, really, outside, uninvolved, eyes are desperately needed on Syria related articles. In particular Battle of Aleppo (2012–16) (and a few others). For freakin' sake, the article uses al-Masdar News, an unabashedly pro-Assad propaganda network which has been known to spread fake news and conspiracy theories [80] [81] TWENTY EIGHT times as a source! This despite the fact that even some of the "pro-Assad" (roughly) editors admit that it's only, quote, "semi-reliable". And it's not like it's being used for non-controversial stuff, quite the opposite, it's being used for straight up POV pushing [82]. Yet, any attempts to fix this problem are stymied by systemic edit warring and tag teaming combined with tag page disruption and obfuscation (and of course Khirurg has been an active contributor to that). That's why I'm really really BEGGING some of you who have commented here to make the effort - and I know it's a huge pain - to take a look at these articles and make some edits. It's absolutely striking how different the comments and discussions are when they are held in an outside venue, where outside eyes are present, such as here, and what is happening on the talk page. It's two different worlds. And one of them is way past the bizarro phase.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had the time so I went through the whole reference list of the article and counted. Out of 369 sources used in the article, only 22 Masdar reports are used (7 of which in the infobox alone - units, troop strength, commander names) while of the remaining 15: 10 are for territorial claims (which you yourself said are justifiable), one regarding a ceasefire proposal and only 4 are for controversial claims (as you put it). And only two that are cited more than once are again citing only unit names. In contrast, almost 20 various pro-rebel reports are used, so the balance of both sides POV is pretty much scaled. The removal of maybe just a few Masdar reports would even it out entirely. EkoGraf (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm entirely uninvolved in articles on this topic, but I have seen Al-Masdar come up as an issue on different articles, so maybe an RSN discussion would be helpful - maybe we shouldn't use it at all in Wikipedia articles, if there is consensus that it is not WP:RS Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it just came up, that one of the editors of al-Masdar has been active on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront where he frequently posted racist stuff using slurs, like, well I'll let you click here. Al-Masdar admitted it and suspended the guy... with pay. He's not denying it either.

Now, this source wouldn't be reliable EVEN IF they didn't have neo-Nazis writing for them. But what is the response of the pro-Assad editors on the talk page of Battle of Aleppo? Why, it's that "if a NY Times editor was caught making the same offensive remarks at Stormfront, we wouldn't be dismissing NYT as a source altogether on Wikipedia" so it's okay to continue using al-Masar. I shit you not, that's an actual quote from one of the editors [83]. Because apparently, it's okay to use sources which employ neo-Nazis (and there's a ton of other stuff wrong with them besides that) because in some alternative universe the New York Times employs neo-Nazis and the Wikipedia in that alternative universe continues to use New York Times as reliable. You. Can't. Make. This. Shit. Up. That is an actual argument made by User:EtienneDolet (who, btw, in the past has insisted that anti-semitic conspiracy websites are "scholarly sources").

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks its okay to use a source like this has no business editing Syria-related topics.

Anyone who will then defend a source which employs neo-Nazis as reliable because "New York Times could have done it" actually has no business editing Wikipedia.

Above, User:Drmies, User:Iryna Harpy, User:Softlavender and User:L.R_Wormwood have all more or less proposed a topic ban for User:Khirurg. Which he deserves. But at least so far Khirurg hasn't defended using neo-Nazi writers so this is even worse.

Look, there's discretionary sanctions here. Any admin, if they so choose, can topic ban these guys who do this. Alternatively, admins need to take responsibility and become active on the page in regard to content. Because this crap is way out of control.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Examples of editors squarely disagreeing with VM at the Battle of Aleppo talkpage: [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]
• Examples of editors fed up with VM's behavior [89] [90] [91]
• I would also like remind everyone (Obsidi (talk · contribs) in particular) of this little gem [92] where VM is trying to trick BU Rob13 into blocking EtienneDolet by alleging that Etienne re-started old edit-wars about the Christmas material and the pic of the burnt buses. But both of those were added in December (the Christmas material by me, and the buses by EtienneDolet) and were never removed. There was never any edit-war over either of these (until now, when VM ignited one by trying to remove the Christmas material. VM is falsely accusing EtienneDolet so as to trick BU Rob13 into blocking him. And he is doing the same thing now. This alone is grounds for a sanction. Khirurg (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Also note how he is still trying to remove the Christmas material (this is turning into an obsession), even though it was widely covered in reliable sources and literally everyone in the discussion totally disagrees with him [93] (except user R2D2015, and even then only as far as the pic and not the text). We are deep, deep in WP:TEND and WP:HORSE territory here. Khirurg (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, nothing is going to happen here, because only the community (on ANI) or ArbCom can administer a topic ban. This is the wrong venue for this request, and I suggest that the filer and everyone else making proposals withdraw them now before they get hit with boomerangs. A TBAN request should be filed at ANI. An Arbitration Enforcement request should be filed at AE. Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imposing 1RR on ideologically contentious articles can understandably lead to personally invested editorial disputes. It's a structural problem. A 2RR would be more efficient, more psychologically "natural", and less stressful. Till that day, I'd be happy to let these two editors continue firing broadsides at each other here. We could come back in a week or two to survey the damage... No sanctions needed. (Meanwhile the article lead looks surprisingly good. There's a poorly sourced claim which seems to suggest that if you're going to kill civilians it's more ethical to use a regular military-specification bomb than a barrel bomb; but I'm just going to tag it for now.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

While 1RR is strictly enforced, less obvious but more pernicious behavior is seemingly overlooked. I have outlined what I believe to be two significant behavioral issues in these articles:

1. Unsupported accusations of behavioral violations
2. Edit summaries that disguise or don't address controversial edits

Others have suggested off-wiki SPAs have affected the !votes.

Will administrators active in this topic commit to the following going forward:

• Topic ban for any editor who accuses another of violating behavioral guidelines without substantiating that claim
• Topic ban for any editor who disguises a controversial edit by not addressing it in their edit summary
• Topic ban for any editor who justifies an edit with demonstrably incorrect claims
• Extended confirmed protection applied to articles where there is evidence of off-wiki coordination

Enforcement must be strict and immediate. Noticeboard complaints are not effective and tend to amplify disruption. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• Support (as proposer) James J. Lambden (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Close this thread. Enough disruption. There are already General sanctions in this subject area. Nothing else is needed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No "Topic ban for anyone who tries to WP:GAME Wikipedia rules by making bad faithed unenforceable proposals which implicitly try to falsely smear other editors"? No "Topic ban for anyone who parades around their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality by abusing Admin noticeboards"? Honestly, the only proposal that might get a measure of support here is a topic-ban from Syria related articles for User:Khurig. That's more or less what... four now? uninvolved editors have proposed so far (and I of course would support it) so why not propose that rather than engaging in what is really just empty posturing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're still waiting for that diff... James J. Lambden (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support closing this thread. No, you can't have a pony. Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and trying to impose a new 'subset' of laws because you're unhappy with processes and want to simplify things to appease your sense of order is prohibitive to the development of article content and is contrary to the spirit of the project. These are case-by-case issues to be dealt with as individual cases unless admins see fit to protect a page temporarily until disputes are resolved by whatever process is deemed fitting. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support closing this thread There are already WP:General sanctions in this area which are sufficient but for if an ArbCom case is necessary. -Obsidi (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Close thread or move it to ANI or AE, before WP:BOOMERANGS start getting handed out. Softlavender (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will AGF that objections to any modification of the existing enforcement structure are an acknowledgement that process above was productive, and not an endorsement of misleading edit-summaries, unsubstantiated accusations and off-wiki coordination. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more that any process is not going to be perfect, and the proposed changes are not any better than what we currently have. -Obsidi (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more precise the rule the less room for debate the less time is wasted debating. 3RR is easy to enforce so threads there are relatively short. Other than 3RR (1RR?) in these articles the only real behavioral rule is "don't behave disruptively." Without precision these long back-and-forths are inevitable until one camp eliminates their opponents. That is not ideal. Contrary to the suggestion my proposal is posturing I'd endorse any more precise (and still reasonable) restrictions. With the current consensus against that however I won't push it. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, obviously. Starting with a well-deserved topic ban for VM. Khirurg (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, nothing is going to happen here, because only the community (on ANI) or ArbCom can administer a topic ban. This is the wrong venue for this request, and I suggest that the filer and everyone else making proposals withdraw them now before they get hit with boomerangs. A TBAN request should be filed at ANI. An Arbitration Enforcement request should be filed at AE. Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just open a thread at ANI pointing to here. It's not like only admins post on AN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not my job. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: Please see WP:GS, particularly WP:GS#Process#Community_sanctions. It would have been thrown out at AE because Syrian Civil War is covered by general sanctions, not Arbitration sanctions. Neil's suggestion about ANI is a good one. Khirurg (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then move the thread to ANI. It's not my job to do that. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender: Yeah, ANI, or ABB as it should be called (Administrators' BoomerangBoard), would probably be the correct place for this report, but according to the Remedies of the SCW & ISIL sanctions, "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.". Marek have been notified of the remedies in place, and have been warned and blocked several times, so it's not like you or any uninvolved administrator can't do anything about it, that is, if you are an uninvolved administrator. Are you? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. The OP, who is not an admin, is asking for a TBAN, which is an individual sanction to be imposed by the community (i.e. at ANI) or by ArbCom. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in this area (Syrian Civil War related pages). After beeing notified of discretionary sanctions with the {{subst:GS/SCW&ISIL notification}} template, any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions. "The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.", ref. the Remedies. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. All people who contribute in this subject area know about it. And at least some administrators use these DS. This complaint is unusual and qualify as "block shopping". During four days of discussion no one was convinced that VM should be topic banned. To the contrary, at least one admin suggested that Khirurg and SaintAviator should be topic banned. That sound logical because Khirurg was engaged in a similar block shopping previously on a number of occasions. So, what is your point, exactly? To topic ban Khirurg and SaintAviator? OK, I certainly do not mind. My very best wishes (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not exactly. I have not looked into Khirurg and SaintAviator edits. The point is that any uninvolved administrator can do whatever he or she believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project, and it is not functioning smooth. I would have given Marek a clear warning for gaming the system and blocked him on the spot the next time he push his POV. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are telling that Khirurg posted this request in a hope that at least one uninvolved admin will topic ban VM. Yes, that is what he certainly did, and not for the first time. My very best wishes (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i didn't even realize that Khirurg was User:Athenean until last night. So yeah, he's done this before and it's never worked and generally back fired.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and "before opening an Sockpuppet investigations, you need good reason to suspect sock puppetry. Evidence is required." You you can open an investigation here. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC) I misinterpreted VM comment above. Struck after a message from My very best wishes on my talk page. Did you realize that Khirurg was User:Athenean last night, too? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what he hope for, but he said he was submitting the report to "request editing restrictions on Volunteer Marek on Syrian Civil War related articles for the disruptive behavior outlined below", so I guess he wants a response from at least one uninvolved admin. Maybe he just had enough of that drama board or maybe he read about General sanctions witch says "The community may also impose general sanctions on all editors working in a particular area, usually after a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard." But Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request". Erlbaeko (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe he just had enough of that drama board" - nah. Khirurg just block shopping cuz he knows (since he's a regular at drama boards) this wouldn't fly at WP:AE and he'd very likely get boomerang. I mean, he might get boomerang here as well, but there's a near certainty of boomerang over there. Most of his buddies already got it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• How about another proposal: do not comment about other contributors on article talk pages because that is exactly what Hirurg does right now [94]. I do not think he is ever going to stop. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, in that edit I am not commenting on VM, but on VM's edit. But you already knew that. On the other hand, it looks like it's your friend this is commenting on ther editors, and looks like he is not going to stop [95] [96]. Khirurg (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You tell "another terrible, unencyclopedic, ultra POV edit by Volunteer Marek". And you tell this about a reasonable edit. Come on. You just singled out this contributor, followed him through a number of pages, complained about him on several noticeboards, and for what reason? Is it just because you and ED happened to disagree with senator McCain about Putin [97] [98], or is it because you disagreed about Putin with Canadian and French Prime Ministers [99]? My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg's edit is ridiculous, and it was followed by a worse one from Tiptoe, whom I just blocked for a week. It's not just the personal attack, but the ongoing disruption that makes for an impossible editing atmosphere. Volunteer Marek is well aware of the fact that admins consider such personal remarks to be disruptive enough for a block, but at least Marek didn't make that mistake again after being blocked for it. In the meantime, I don't know what to do with this thread and I hope that some innocent admin comes by and does something about it, and that an uninvolved admin considers the matter carefully and employs the power given to them via DS to improve the editing atmosphere here. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that is any worse than this from VM, posted some hours earlier. Ok, so Mareks comment wasn't on the articles talk page, but come on. Wikipedians are humans too. Policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense. And before you continue, remember that Mareks buddies may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes like this. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? What conflict of interest? See WP:ASPERSIONS. You might want to back that up or strike it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back up what? That your buddies have a conflict of interest in disputes like this? Of course they have. "A conflict of interest is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation or decision-making of that individual or organization." Ref. COI. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you to define what COI is, I asked you to back up your accusation. Let's see the diffs which show that I, or "my buddies" (sic) have "multiple interests, financial or otherwise" in this topic area. Because that accusation is, frankly, stupid. If you can't then please strike your WP:ASPERSIONS because then they are a straight up personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, this is as if I accused you of being a marsupial-lover, then when you ask me back that up I respond with "Are you a marsupial-lover? Of course you are! Marsupials are any members of the mammalian infraclass Marsupialia. All extant marsupials are endemic to Australasia and the Americas. A distinctive characteristic common to these species is that most of the young are carried in a pouch". Defining something and backing up an accusations are two completely different things. Strike it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VM: Three weeks ago you falsely accused me of canvassing. I have asked you to retract or substantiate that accusation multiple times and you have not. Within the last day you accused me of "defending a neo-Nazi writer" in response to my arguments regarding the reliability of a publication with which the writer is no longer affiliated. Twice you restored that aspersion after I removed it. These examples come from just our direct interaction in the last month. I have seen you target other editors with similar smears. (Note: you have yet to substantiate your sockpuppet claim with a simple diff.) So when you complain about WP:ASPERSIONS I hope you understand why others may have difficulty taking those complaints seriously. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James, up above, you yourself first claimed that you notified "those who participated in the RfC" and "only those" - then you were shown to be wrong and you admitted that indeed you had omitted an editor who would've most likely opposed you. So my comment was substantiated. On WP:RSN you did indeed say "Calling a journalist a "neo-Nazi" because he's alleged to have made racist comments sounds like a BLP violation"", basically defending source from a guy who had posted racist crap for something like eight years on a Neo-Nazi website. You added that "alleged" in there, among other things, as if there were some question as to the facts. Then when pressed, you admitted, or claimed if you like, that you had no idea what you were talking about and hadn't actually bothered to read anything about it - you were just going after me. Again. Same with the other diff. You take a simple inaccuracy in one of my edit summaries and try to blow it all up as if it was some horrible sin on my part, while you yourself can't get your facts straight.

And even this comment of yours - it's a straight up attempt to change the subject and deflect from the fact that Erlbaeko made a pretty serious and completely unsubstantiated accusations that I (or "my buddies", whoever that is suppose to be) have a "conflict of interest". As in, I'm paid to edit or something. You're basically trying to come to defense of someone, simply because they're "anti-Volunteer Marek" which just displays your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And are you really gonna sit there and claim that the sockpuppet claim was unsubstantiated when I already provided the diffs [100] [101]? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you were "paid to edit or something", but when your "buddy" act as an administrator in a case that involves you, yes, then that administrator "may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest", ref. involved. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted COI. Now you're changing it to WP:INVOLVED. Well, I guess that's an improvement, but then you should still strike your original accusation. Also, if you're going to go around insinuating shit about people, have the balls to come out and name'em.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually quoted WP:INVOLVED in the first coi-statement (without using quotes). Then I added a quote from the "Conflict of interest"-article. I did not quote the COI-guideline. It's a general term, and I think they already got the message. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Updated. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Close this thread, nothing good is going to come out of this other than more drama. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two-front war?

I'm taking some fire too...

• 06:58 1 May 2017
• 07:45 1 May 2017
• 05:17 2 May 2017
• 08:24 2 May 2017
• 12:25 3 May 2017

... And I only started editing the article 3 days ago. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13, Black Kite, Drmies, El C, Ks0stm, and NeilN: Care to comment? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, you came into this article, which is indeed chock full of unreliable sources, and started tagging... the few reliable sources that are present, as unreliable. Not sure how that is suppose to work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dervorguilla, why did you claim that The Independent is not a reliable source? Drmies (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly protected the article, only to reverse myself as it seems that the edit war has died down. Now I'm not so sure anymore. El_C 02:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I have just fully-protected it for 3 days to prevent the edit war from flaring up again. Hopefully, discussion on the talk page (or talk pages, rather, as this is part of a broader conversation about the reliability of certain sources) can bring this to a resolution. I apologise again to everyone for my indecision. El_C 03:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(←)
@Drmies: I claimed that the McKernan story isn't RS, not The Independent.

From RS#Overview:

The word "source" has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article); the creator; and the publisher. Any of the three can affect reliability.

From RS#NEWSORG:

Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

From the McKernan story:

The report from the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) found that Syrian regime helicopters dropped 12,958 barrel bombs in 2016 in total. The strikes resulted in the deaths of 653 civilians, SNHR found...

653 civilian deaths ÷ 12,958 barrel bombs = 0.050 civilian deaths per barrel bomb.

E-mail from [Dervorguilla]@alum.mit.edu to info@sn4hr.org (May 5, 2017):

Subject: Request for information

Attn: Syrian Network for Human Rights

On January 9, 2017, you wrote: "The Syrian Network for Human Rights ... is a primary source for the United Nations on all death toll-related statistics in Syria." Report

Your website says: "The Syrian Network for Human Rights is considered one of the most distinguished and prominent sources of information and references for all the analytical and statistical studies issued by the United Nations." About Us

I ask that you name one analytical or statistical study issued by the UN after 2013 that mentions you as a source. Compare Google Search

Sincerely,

[Dervorguilla]

Cambridge, Massachusetts

I'll be posting SNHR's reply here. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, don't post that kind of stuff here--this oddly formatted post is already unwieldy enough. Article talk page please. In this edit you removed an article from the Independent that said "a watchdog claimed that...", which verified the text "it was claimed that". If a reliable newspaper uses a source, we most surely can report that the source said what the reliable source says it said, no matter how much you semanticate around. BTW, El_C, no apology necessary: adminning in this area is difficult enough and I appreciate your help. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, El C, BU Rob13, Black Kite, Ks0stm, and NeilN: I'd be happy to work with Volunteer Marek here. One last question before signing off. I think it would be helpful to add this (currently unchallenged) fact: "According to The Independent, the Syrian Network for Human Rights claimed that regime helicopters dropped 12,958 barrel bombs in 2016. The strikes resulted in 653 civilian deaths (an average of 0.050 deaths per bomb)."

As I understand WP:CALC, there would have to be a consensus among the editors that the result of this routine calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the RS. Would you interpret the policy the same way? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not be helpful. One can derive any numbers, but they are frequently meaningless, unless interpreted by RS. What this number of 0.05 suppose to mean? That Assad forces wasted a lot ammunition without any result? Or that Assad forces were highly successful in targeting enemy combatants and had very little of collateral damage? We do not know until that was interpreted by secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't see the point. You don't need the Independent to warrant explicitly what they're saying; you need them to warrant that what they're saying bears repeating in an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: "You need them to warrant that what they're saying bears repeating in an encyclopedic article." Two points:

1. To be more correct: We can use the Independent to warrant that what it's reporting is newsworthy. And here's what it's reporting: A "watchdog claims..." A "watchdog has published data..." "SNHR found..." And so forth. (In the UK, a watchdog is a "group that acts as a guardian against illegal practices" -- an activist group.)

Nowhere does the Independent suggest that a reputable group has published authoritative data. Or that it's verified any of the group's data, or that it has any reason to believe what the group claims. If it did, it would likely have acknowledged the group as a "primary source for the UN" or a "prominent source of information".

Maybe the Independent doesn't believe a watchdog that claims it takes 20 barrel bombs to kill 1 civilian?

2. To be clearer: The only claim that bears repeating in a Wikipedia article is one that better informs our readers about the article subject. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had to withdraw from Khan Shaykhun chemical attack‎ for a while due to several reasons—unfortunately, it just didn't seem feasible for me to be editing the article or talk page any longer. With Volunteer Marek, much there appears to be in flux, including hard-won consensus. His behaviour has not been glowing. El_C 01:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC on the page about including this material [102] with six "pro", six "opposed" and no official closing. Hence, including this material right now seems like inclusion without consensus. As about the "Battle of Aleppo", this looks to me as a typical content dispute [103]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fall for the obfuscation masquerading as "typical content dispute," folks. El_C 04:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous discussion regarding including a small statement similar to what is linked in the diff MVBW supplied. The result was fairly clearly inclusion. In the absence of consensus for a different result, that is the status quo, so even if the current RfC demonstrated no consensus, that would support inclusion as the status quo. I'm not sure what the continued misunderstanding is. I've explained this extensively on the talk page as a neutral party. Further questions about the current state of consensus can be directed there, not at ANI. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarity, Rob—I appreciate you not letting hard-won consensus evaporate into the ether. El_C 06:03, 10 May 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]

As some of you may know, there was two recent entries WP:RFC/N, probably the most widely attended ones of recent years, in which a consensus was arrived at that we will in fact allow unicode characters and emojis as usernames. And now all of the sudden there is a discussion at m:Talk:Global rename policy to make it a global policy that emojis cannot be used. Thought the community should be made aware of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're reading a bit much into one of those discussions. The close says that the specific rename was acceptable, not that "all future renames" (i.e. at the moment there is no actual consensus regarding emoji usernames). Thank you for bringing this to our attention, though. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those cases hardly mean that emoji usernames are now fair game. If they were, then why hasn't the local restriction on creating an account with one in the name been removed? This is just a discussion within the global renamers group (and open to the public, of course) regarding our own practices, and whether future renames of that sort should be allowed given the drama they might stir up. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's good to see that people are weighing in on the really important issues that face Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our own Sayre's Law 😲

I'm guessing the answer to Ajraddatz' question is "because it's easier to argue about pointless stuff than to actually do anything about it" ;) I've wondered aloud in every one of these threads about why emoji are on the local blacklist, and nobody's taken the cue, so: why are emoji on the local title blacklist? Have we really had a problem with people running around creating bad emoji titles? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: This edit by @Ilmari Karonen:. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the recent examples, have there been well-attended discussions establishing some sort of broad consensus on non-Latin characters in general? I know they're generally accepted, with various suggestions, but I've long thought any name with non-Latin characters editing on enwiki should be required to have a Latin equivalent that redirects and, in some way, generates notifications for them. Copy/pasting every time you want to engage with the person (or using one of the other mechanisms to produce such characters) is a nonminor obstacle to communication. I realized this most clearly when I tried to ping someone with a non-Latin character in their name from a mobile device in a Village Pump discussion. Reading isn't a problem, but finding the name in a long section, copying, returning to where I want to add a comment, and pasting... potentially repeatedly, is a huge pain especially to our mobile users. This is a bit of a tangent, I know, so feel free to respond on my talk page if someone is more inclined and finds it more appropriate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There going to be some discussions in the WT:U archives. I don't buy the argument that names need to be easily memorable and typeable. Try reproducing any usernames you're familiar with containing over 8 characters, with punctuation, capitals, and spaces here and maybe there. I sincerely doubt I could accurately spell your username if it wasn't right in front of me. Even my username is usually got wrong. I'd go so far as to say that most names should be clicked on or copy-pasted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This characterization of those discussions is incorrect. The close contained "In that light, I am recommending that anyone who wishes to disallow emoji usernames should start an RFC at the appropriate noticeboard (be that here or at a Village Pump) to formally allow/disallow such usernames to be used as the primary name of a user." That very explicitly states there is no consensus here to allow emoji usernames, just that the issue hasn't been discussed. Indeed, many of the comments supporting the specific emoji username said this should be handled in a big RfC, not individual cases, but that they didn't necessarily support emoji usernames. That global discussion is the wider discussion requested in the close, from what I can tell. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I'm glad someone read my close. Primefac (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The global discussion isn't even quite that. We aren't talking about banning those usernames altogether, just banning renames to them. Stewards and global renamers, much like bureaucrats, should be seen as neutral processors of technical requests. If people are going to be complaining about a certain type of action, then we (on that principle) should avoid it. Our own decision to not allow such renames won't prevent people from using those usernames, since they can always create a new account with one as the name. It just takes the dramahz off of us. Ironically, in a process which creates more drama. What a fun website. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, well, at least it will get you guys out of the emoji username business. We'll need an RfC on this on enwiki at some point. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The result of the RFC/N was that current policy doesn't forbid it. That doesn't mean that policy should or shouldn't.--v/r - TP 18:09, 10 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 [104], and is banned from editing articles related to Stanley Kubrick [105] and Peter Sellers [106].

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: [107]
• Changing Hitchcock's nationality, despite a statement on top of the page clearly prohibiting it: [108]
• Reacting in a hostile manner when another editor points out that he needs to use proper sources: [109]

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]

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288 § EJustice matter

I spotted this at Talk:Donald Trump § Breitbart tutorial on BLP. The thread has been reported on by Breitbart.[110] Jytdog is named and quoted in the article. It even includes links to the discussion here, the Wiki Ed discussion, WP:BLP, and Jytdog's user talk page.

Murph9000 (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Seems oddly neutral to me. EJustice did something improper, they were reverted/banned. I can see how some people would read between the lines (especially with the feminist snipe) and see them saying "we're pro-Trump" but I read it as a decent commentary on our neutrality. If anything, Jytdog's comments helped that narrative. Either way, I don't think it's anything to get our panties in a twist about. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think there's anything of immediate concern here. Overall, it doesn't feel like a bad news article for WP. This thread was for the sole purpose of letting people know that it exists, and the side issue that there may be slightly more external eyes watching AN than usual for a while (hello outsiders, welcome to WP, we do just about everything in full public view). Murph9000 (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Primefac (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to when the Daily Mail reported on the banning of DM as a RS (which outed an editor and threw various labels at them), this is very sane and reasonable. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and kudos to Jytdog.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a happy thing, on any level. But it was necessary that we take action, unfortunately. Am unhappy with the Breitbart piece for framing this as a "trend" and claiming I commented on the trend, per se. Whatever - the blogosphere will bloviate and spin, as it will.Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the author understands what Wikipedia is about, and refrained from sensationalism; nice to see. Added a {{press}} mention to the relevant pages, except Jytdog's private space. — JFG ^talk 10:13, 11 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[112], 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 [113] 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]

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 [114]). 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]