---

Let me start by stating that although Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs) and I have a tempestuous history, as seen here, here and here, and she began editing medical and anatomy articles because of me (as that history shows), this report is not about that. This report is about about our health articles being some of our most important articles and Barbara (WVS) having repeatedly been a detriment to these articles. The fact that she is a part of WP:Visiting Scholar (although she's not a scholar) makes it even more essential that she not be a detriment to our health articles or topics (some of which she creates) because students are sometimes referred to her or look to her edits to learn. We cannot have editors learning and taking on this style of irresponsible and error-proned editing. Below are examples of Barbara (WVS)'s editing, from most serious to least serious, that really do show that more competence is required to edit in these areas. It also shows that even when challenged on errors, it is common for Barbara (WVS) to stick to her guns and insist that she is correct. Also keep in mind that our anatomy articles fall under "medical" as well.

Now I understand that people make mistakes, but the mistakes by Barbara (WVS) are too often and sometimes too serious to reasonably allow her to continue to edit medical and anatomy articles. The above are just examples. There is also the fact that Barbara (WVS) has a tendency to defend her mistakes as correct. Again, these our health articles. So I ask that the community consider restricting editing her of these topics indefinitely. I am asking for an indefinite topic ban, broadly construed. She has recently banned herself from editing the Vagina article, but this is not enough since that is just one article and (as stated there) she does not see a pattern in her problematic editing and has plans to return to that article after six months. The same issues will be happening with other articles, and with that article once she returns to it. We should not continue to allow an editor with issues such as these to continue to edit in these fields simply because she is with the Visiting Scholar program and creates a lot of medical articles. How many of these articles have serious issues? Pinging Jytdog, Rivertorch, SilkTork, Tom (LT), Johnuniq and SandyGeorgia, who have all expressed concerns about Barbara (WVS) editing these areas. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Doc_James, as he might want to say something as well. Classicwiki (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Gandydancer who edits in similar areas. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I manage the Visiting Scholars program for Wiki Education. As such, I have a COI with regards to Barbara's edits as a Visiting Scholar. Here are a few clarifying comments you can take as you will:

• The Visiting Scholars program aims to support Wikipedians by providing access to academic resources through a university library. The comment that "she's not a scholar," presumably a comparison to the academic definition of 'scholar', misunderstands the purpose of the program. Participation in the program shouldn't affect editing habits except to equip editors with more research resources.
• Regarding the last bulletpoint (use of paywalled sources), which refers to something I said: When the Visiting Scholars program began, many of the goals/responsibilities of the Scholars were left up to the institutional sponsors to decide. We had not yet developed our current best practices. Back then, part of the way the program was presented to sponsors was to talk about how it could increase traffic to their collections. That doesn't happen anymore. We changed the way we engage with sponsors around the same time Barbara was getting involved. Since then, this is the program in a nutshell: "a Wikipedian who wants to contribute to a particular topic area receives a university login and keeps track of the articles they improve along the way." I.e. editing as normal, with access to better sources, and no responsibility to use them or link to them in any particular way. So I would believe it if Barbara felt like she was supposed to do just that, and I apologize to her and to the community for not doing more to ensure the expectations of early program participants complied with community expectations and standards.
• Regarding "students are sometimes referred to her" - This is untrue. We do not refer students to Visiting Scholars, as we have Wikipedians on staff who support students. Recently, I did connect a Wikipedia Fellow (an academic, not a student) interested in women's health topics to Barbara, but that is the only instance.
• Moving on to more general comments about this proposal: First, pinging only people likely to agree with you in an ANI report strikes me as problematic. Given this the topic of this thread is about a topic ban rather than user conduct issues, it seems more appropriate to ping all editors active on those pages and/or WikiProject Women's Health.
• Most to the point: The list above indeed includes some examples of when Barbara has been wrong. It gives an example like list of vaginal tumors, pointing to Barbara's overuse of a problematic reference. But anyone who doesn't click through to the page before judging on a topic ban wouldn't see that it was Barbara that created the page, with 33 references. The same is true for some others. Barbara has created and improved a huge number of medical articles. I would encourage any editor who intends to opine here to take a look through an Xtools report of her most edited articles to evaluate her general ability to contribute to the topic area in addition to looking at the list above. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Ryan suggested, I am pinging members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Health. Doc James (already done), CFCF, Clayoquot, D.c.camero, FloNight, Fluffernutter, Foxtreetop, Hmlarson, Kaldari, Keilana, Little_pob, Michael_Goodyear, Mvolz, Netha Hussain, Thsmi002, and Whispyhistory. Classicwiki (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have only had minimal interactions with this editor. She offered to help with Women's health but stated she did not understand the citation style. I offered to help her, but heard nothing more. A blanket ban seems a bit drastic. Do we know what her qualifications are? Is there a role for mentoring? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan (Wiki Ed), the reason that I noted that Barbara (WVS) is not a scholar is so that editors here would know that she is not one. It was not about confusion on my part. I pinged editors who know of Barbara (WVS)'s problematic editing. Her problematic editing is what is under scrutiny here. Most of the editors I pinged have worked with her and/or tried to work with her. Tom (LT) in particular, who is our top anatomy editor, was indifferent to her until assessing a proposal she made at Talk:Vagina. If I was aware of all of the editors who see Barbara (WVS)'s editing as a net positive, I would have pinged them. But I am not aware of many or even a few who do, except for you. Furthermore, here at WP:ANI, pinging every editor of WikiProject Women's Health and/or WP:Med is not required. It also skews the matter because what one can wind up with is editors opposing to restrict Barbara (WVS)'s editing simply because they think she's nice, like her, and/or because she edits a lot of medical topics. It's well known that Barbara (WVS) is often polite. But politeness and editing/creating a lot of medical articles does not equate to competence. Plus, there are people who are a part of WikiProjects who are not on an official WikiProject list. I am a part of WP:Med, but I am not on a list there. Like SilkTork, who was also indifferent to Barbara (WVS) until assessing her problematic editing, I do not see that whatever benefits exist regarding Barbara (WVS)'s editing outweigh the negatives. SandyGeorgia was also indifferent to Barbara (WVS)'s editing until seeing her in action after she (SandyGeorgia) posted this section at WP:Med. And I made it very clear that Barbara (WVS) churning out medical article after medical article (a number of which are not needed and end up merged and/or should be merged) does not mean that she should continue to be allowed to edit in, and create articles for, these areas. If you are willing to put the Wiki Education Foundation above the accuracy and quality of our health articles, then I must disagree with you. I would rather have no article than an article potentially full of errors and sloppy editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn Can you succinctly provide a list of 1-5 links that you are labelling problematic editing? Hmlarson (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC) I've gone through the edits provided - and I'm not seeing many diffs - just your repeated talk page interactions with this editor, which seem fine and allow other editors to provide input to garner WP:CONCENSUS. Without knowing every detail of your previous interactions, I will say my first impressions with the way this is presented reads more like a smear campaign to me with very little stickiness. I agree with Michael Goodyear that a blanket ban is drastic. I also agree more attention needs to be paid to the fact that "Barbara has created and improved a huge number of medical articles" per Ryan (Wiki Ed). Hmlarson (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmlarson, is the list in the collapse box not enough? Do you think any of what I listed there is not problematic? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmlarson, no, not a smear campaign. Jytdog, Doc James and I have had to fix Barbara's errors and/or otherwise clean up after her a number of times. One article where Doc James has consistently corrected her is Cystocele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doc is more content than some of us when it comes to fixing Barbara's content. Barbara edits some of the same areas that I edit in, and began editing these articles after interacting with me. Any diff and/or linked discussion involving me is merely because of that. But enough of the issues I linked to do show egregious errors and editors (sometimes me included) trying to explain to her that these are errors. The diffs are there in the talk page discussions. I'm sure that others can provide more diffs showing issues. Often, Barbara's initial response is to be defensive rather than listen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be helpful to clarify that some of the problematic edits were made with Barbara's personal account (User:Bfpage), not her WVS account (User:Barbara (WVS)). Since part of the complaint is that she has set a bad example to those following her semi-official(?) work, it would be helpful to show diffs from mistakes made while using her WVS account, or explain why it does not make a difference which account she uses. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the examples definitely involve her Barbara (WVS) account. On her Barbara (WVS) user page, she notes the difference between the accounts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. I will weigh in with my own observations:

1. Prior to this issue being raised, I had independently noticed some edits made to women's health articles by B that were of low quality, and this surprised me, enough so that I did briefly investigate B's user page and editing history because of this.
2. I was also surprised to see "scholar" there, so the point about it being slightly misleading I also agree with. I'm not sure if there are any practical concerns with this however.
3. Prior to this issue being raised, I had also independently noticed one of the initially pinged users egregiously attacking B for really no good reason at all in a talk page and found it a bit shocking.
4. Pursuant to #3, I observed that B did not back down. In my opinion, because in this issue they were correct, I had considered this a good quality. However, in reading what you posted above, it appears that this is common behaviour and is done every time regardless of whether B is in the wrong.
5. I concur with Ryan (Wiki Ed)'s observation that the addition of volumes of material is overall of a beneficial nature, because we have plenty of missing content in this project.

Although I agree that B sometimes demonstrates a lower level of competence in these areas than I would ideally like, on the other hand I believe that the community is still able to improve upon these new articles and that the addition of this content is overall, a benefit to our coverage. The key point is that these articles are fixable, and that they wouldn't exist without B. This would not be the case if the articles were not salvageable or if the articles' existence wasn't useful. Damaging articles that are already of high quality however is more worrisome, however, it seems like in these cases mentioned the issue was satisfactorily resolved (although this may be selection bias), albeit perhaps with more conflict than was necessary.

Since being notified of this, I have also looked at User:Barbara_(WVS)/articles_created and I was very excited to see what B had accomplished in a short amount of time. I especially liked seeing Template:Breastfeeding and Breastfeeding and medications as I had actually noticed that content in this area was not great a few years ago and never got around to doing it myself. I would be sad to see one of the very few editors adding needed content in these neglected areas be topic banned.

I agree that there are definitely some issues here, but I think a topic ban (on both accounts) is far too aggressive at this point in time. I fine with it if it was decided that B should edit with the Bfpage account on women's health topics instead of the Barabara (WVS) account. Mvolz (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mvolz, in this discussion, it seems that some editors may be underestimating the effort and strain it puts on others to fix these kinds of errors, or to review Barabara (WVS)'s edits because of the errors they are likely to contain and to then have to fix and/or to discuss the matter unless we are to leave the errors in. If you have not yet done so, see what Tom (LT) and SilkTork recently stated. Part of the strain comes from Barabara (WVS) refusing to acknowledge that she is wrong. With Tom (LT), she recently acknowledged some faults, but that is not standard for her. As for creating new articles, there is no deadline. We don't need Barabara (WVS) to create all of these articles. And why should we allow errors to remain in an article even for a day? Are we saying that it's okay for Barabara (WVS) to edit with the lack of care she so often exhibits because the article will eventually be fixed? Errors can stay in articles for years. And as noted before, a lot of articles Barabara (WVS) creates are not needed and can fit in existing articles or be merged with them. See this discussion, where she notes that a number of her articles have been merged and that she "usually [...] can turn four sentences into a brand new article that has enough references to stand on its own." Thing is...she never takes WP:No page into consideration. I don't understand this "quantity over quality" viewpoint I am seeing right now. I could create a whole bunch of articles as well, but I actually care about the content I put out there. I'm not going to sloppily throw together an article with possible errors in them and hope that others fix/clean up the content for me. When I see Barbara (WVS) churning out these articles, I don't see that she actually cares about what she is adding. If she did, she would take the time to proofread all of it and ensure the accuracy of it. All I see is an editor more concerned about her article count (in order to look more prolific than she is) than someone who is actually passionate about any of this. How can an editor reasonably be passionate about content and not do their best to ensure the accuracy of the content? There's a reason that SilkTork, one of our most prolific reviewers, has been clear that although he is interested in working with Barbara (WVS), he does not want to work with her on a medical article because he does not trust her editing medical articles.

Also, regarding "noticed one of the initially pinged users egregiously attacking B for really no good reason at all in a talk page and found it a bit shocking," do you mean Jytdog? I ask because he is the only editor I pinged that has had a tempestuous history with Barbara (WVS). I haven't seen him attack her for no reason, though. If you mean me, I haven't attacked her for no reason either. Also, I would classify my interactions with her more as concerns than attacks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be brief, the more I look into Barbara's edits, the more concerned I am. I am concerned that

• Barbara has a lot of issues with verifiability, one of our core principles.
• Barbara uses close paraphrasing, and in an attempt to avoid this, alters facts
• A not insignificant portion of Barbara's edits are incorrect
• A number of other editors share these views.
• The time required to track and discuss Barbara's edits is great

Content addition is not an excuse, our information is reposted throughout the internet and our core mission is to be an encyclopedia, ie. give readers accurate an encyclopedic content that is verified. An editor that contributes lots of content has a higher burden to make sure that content is accurate. If it is not, it is just taking away the time of another content editor to track and fix said edits, or worse, disseminating wrong information. I would like to see:

1. A mentor appointed, to help Barbara and also to have someone supervise and monitor her edits
2. Barbara follow through with her commitment to check edits she has made over the last 6 months
3. A commitment to slower editing of articles, with the understanding that mainspace is for finalised content additions --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addit.

• As an example, see the lead of List of vaginal tumors. This still contains close paraphrasing, and is so grossly incorrect that I think speaks to the gravity of this situation. "The terms mass and nodule are synonymous with tumor". "Vaginal cancers are malignant neoplasms that originate from vaginal epithelium,"; "Cancer that has spread from the colon, bladder, and stomach is far more common than cancer that originates in the vagina itself" (probably correct, included twice; but - not found in source??)
• Vaginal epithelium: For the sake of demonstration,

1. " Hafez ES, Kenemans P (2012-12-06). Atlas of Human Reproduction: By Scanning Electron Microscopy. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 1–6. ISBN 9789401181402." not on page 1-6.
2. USMLE Lecture notes is not a reliable source.
3. "The cells of the vaginal epithelium retain an usually high level of glycogen compared to other epithelial tissue in the body" is not present on p154 of stated reference
4. Where is anything related to "Vaginal epithelium forms transverse ridges or rugae that are most prominent in the lower third of the vagina. This structure of the epithelium results in an increased surface area that allows for stretching" in its supporting three references
5. Where is the claim to uniqueness or permeability in the two references for "This layer of epithelium is protective and its uppermost "?
6. Three references for "stratum spinosum is part of the parabasal layer". I can't find this in the first two references I can access?
7. Where is this claim "Intermediate cells make abundant glycogen and store it" in this source: "5 minute clinical consult"?
8. "Estrogen induces the intermediate and superficial cells to fill with glycogen" where is this in the sources? source 2 doesn't mention intermediate or superficial cells. Source 1 says estorgen stimulates cells to mature, which is characterised by filling with estrogen

I would like to ask some other medical editors to contribute here. These authoritative-looking sourced edits are not uncommonly both incorrect and incorrectly sourced. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC):::I would like to begin to respond to Tom (LT)[reply]

• Much of the content you use to demonstrate my problematic edits as being examples of close paraphrasing in the lead of the article List of vaginal tumors is in the public domain and published by the US govt with no copyright restrictions except for attribution.
• The content is not grossly incorrect. The terms mass, tumor, neoplasm, and nodule are synonyms or at least have significant overlap according to the National Cancer Institute:

“Tumor - An abnormal mass of tissue that results when cells divide more than they should or do not die when they should. Tumors may be benign (not cancer), or malignant (cancer). Also called neoplasm.” National Cancer Institute public domain content, no need to paraphrase.

“Mass - In medicine, a lump in the body. It may be caused by the abnormal growth of cells, a cyst, hormonal changes, or an immune reaction. A mass may be benign (not cancer) or malignant (cancer).” National Cancer Institute public domain content, no need to paraphrase.

“Nodule - A growth or lump that may be malignant (cancer) or benign (not cancer).” National Cancer Institute public domain content, no need to paraphrase

“Neoplasm - An abnormal mass of tissue that results when cells divide more than they should or do not die when they should. Neoplasms may be benign (not cancer), or malignant (cancer). Also called tumor.” National Cancer Institute, public domain content, no need to paraphrase.

• Vaginal cancers are malignant neoplasms that originate from vaginal epithelium.

“Carcinomas start in epithelial tissues.” Cancer Research UK

“About 70 of every 100 cases of vaginal cancer are squamous cell carcinomas. These cancers begin in the squamous cells that make up the epithelial lining of the vagina.” From the American Cancer Society

“Melanomas are tumors that arise from melanocytes or the pigment cells. A common form of melanoma [is foundin the]…lining of the urogenital tract, respiratory tract and the gastrointestinal tract. In 3% of healthy women, melanocytes can be found in the basal portion of the vaginal epidermis…”Primary Vaginal Melanoma, A Rare and Aggressive Entity. A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Barbara ✐  ✉ 11:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After informing the editors on the talk page of the Vagina article that I was in the midst of some serious family and personal issues, which I would have preferred to communicate via email but was informed that was unacceptable, it may have been seen as an opportune time to appear here on ANI to level these 'charges'. This effectively removes me from significant participation in this discussion as the editors monitoring the talk page of the Vagina article have noted. I understand the reasoning behind initiating this discussion but question the timing. I'm not sure this figures into this discussion at all, but it might be possible to delay the closure of this discussion to accommodate the difficulties I am experiencing right not. If an administrator would like to contact me by email I would be happy to discuss this. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your real-life circumstances were not taken into account because this is something that needed addressing now instead of months from now, when the recent stuff regarding the Vagina article and other stuff would be considered old news. It's not something that should simply have been restricted to the Vagina talk page. I don't see that we needed to hold off on this because you said you've had a death in the family. We don't know what is going on in your personal life. And I'm not stating that you are being dishonest, but this wouldn't be the first time that an editor has said that they are dealing with personal issues (including a death in the family) after their editing has been highlighted as problematic. I am dealing with significant health issues. It's yet another reason that I've wanted to work with SilkTork again and go ahead and get the Vagina article where it needs to be. But I don't want sympathy, and so I keep my real-life issues to myself. I didn't even express this to him. I understand that telling fellow editors can simply be about ensuring that they are more understanding of what is going on with an editor, but it's still something I usually keep to myself. As you know, SandyGeorgia is also going through health issues regarding her husband, but she still took the time to weigh in here. And the reason we know about her husband's health issues is, in part, because she cares about what we put into our medical articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences, Barbara. You only disclosed this information after emailing users involved and after I had expressed my concerns. In addition you are still making large amounts of edits. If this is a difficult time, it may be best to take a short wikibreak so that the stress of Wikipedia isn't contributing to what must already be a difficult period. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I share many of the concerns raised by Flyer22 Reborn, Tom (LT), and others. My experience with Barbara (WVS) stems entirely from my recent work to help prepare Vagina for GA review. I have noticed what appear to be competency issues, as well as behavioral issues, with her participation there. I am anything but an expert on the topic, so I don't feel comfortable commenting on the basic merit of her contributions, but I will say that more than a few of her edits have been hasty and poorly executed. If this happened only rarely, I'd be inclined to dismiss it as an aberration—everyone has off days, after all—but it has happened multiple times in the several weeks that I've been actively involved with the article.

When the problem edits have been brought to her attention, her responses have been less than ideal. While invariably remaining perfectly civil and often even friendly (for instance, she left an award on my talk page—a kind gesture), she tends to get quite defensive, insisting that she is acting in good faith even when no one has suggested anything to the contrary. She has also demonstrated a propensity for endorsing a consensus reached on the talk page but then making edits contrary to that consensus. And she has repeatedly alluded to more work needing to be done on the article and suggested that it will be a lengthy process, an approach which effectively puts any ideas of moving forward with the GA review in limbo; this seems quite unfair to editors such as Flyer who have shown enormous diligence in their work to improve the article and would clearly like to see it promoted and move on. Taken as a whole, such behaviors have caused considerable consternation among other editors and contributed to what has become an atmosphere on the talk page that for all its civility is best described as toxic. This needs to stop.

Most recently, at Talk:Vagina, Barbara (WVS) laid out two hypothetical scenarios about editors making errors. I'm not entirely sure what her point was, but I have to say that either scenario would indicate a major problem: whether an editor is making ten errors per month or only three, it's way too many, at least if we're talking about important articles about anatomical or medical topics. Such articles demand extra care, and on Vagina at least, Barbara hasn't shown that. Nobody expects perfection, but if one is repeatedly showing an inability or unwillingness to slow down and take great care before clicking on "Publish changes", then it would be better to avoid editing such articles entirely. I understand that she adds a lot of content on topics where our coverage may be skimpy, but I don't buy the argument that that somehow compensates for making careless mistakes; the seriousness of an error isn't mitigated by its relative infrequency or by any number of unproblematic edits made elsewhere. (Maybe the situation was different ten years ago, when WP was still something of a novelty and desperately lacking content, but now that we're invariably at the top of the search results and millions of readers are depending on us, accuracy must be prioritized over comprehensiveness.) Personally, if it were demonstrated that I was making repeated content or sourcing errors in a particular topic area—or indeed doing anything to needlessly cause serious concern among several of my fellow editors—I'd be inclined to back off and go do something else. I think it would be most helpful at this point if Barbara were to agree to desist from editing articles on medicine or anatomy. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 11:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara pinged me about this discussion a few hours ago and I've just noticed it. I've been on a wikibreak for a little over a year but have now decided to step back into editing. I've never worked on content with Barbara but we do get on well and I'd be happy to take on mentorship if that would suit her and those above expressing concerns about her work. I'm well across Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines and have a lot of experience in medical content. I was a founding board member of WikiProject Med Foundation, and I'm probably more concerned about the accuracy of our medical content than most. (I'm signing off for the night now and should be back online in about ten hours.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anthony. When I proposed my mentorship on the talk page of the Vagina article I was hoping you would be agreeable. Thank you for your help. I certainly agree that I will be able to better see my errors, admit my mistakes and move forward with your sound advice. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 23:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Anothonyhcole, a knowledgeable editor, has offered to mentor Barbara and because it does seem Barbara does produce good content alongside some bad judgements, I feel a topic ban is probably premature. I support mentorship under anthonyhcole and oppose, at this stage, a topic ban. If the mentorship does not resolve the problem then a topic ban could be revisited.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast! No one pinged Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Health ... oops, never mind.

I was actually brought into this when this unnecessary and out-of-the-blue meanness occurred on my talk page. Seeing no context for that kind of post, it raised red flags, and I thought maybe it was being suggested that I needed to do some sock checking for You Know Who. After reviewing considerable edits from both of Barbara's accounts, the conclusion was no need for an SPI. There are behavioral and personality similarities, mostly that both are very thin-skinned and when they get defensive, talk discussion is derailed, but there are significant differences in editing style and competence.

I have been at a loss about what to do about this situation, because mentoring of the similar account never worked. I am also concerned about a double standard in restricting one medical editor, when equally dangerous and egregious editing has occurred in the last month on the prostate suite of articles by three male medical editors, who are generally held in high regard, and have not been called to task for a pattern of much-too-hurried and at times inaccurate editing. One editor reinstated outdated medical info after I replaced it with current information, with no explanation or discussion. I have pointed out these edits on article talk and my talk, and notice that we haven't heard from those editors in this discussion. I hope they are realizing that another medical editor is being called to task for exactly what they have done. Yes, Barbara deleted accurate text from prostate articles rather than tag text that needed better sourcing, but other editors have added worse text, outdated text, and left the articles with grammatical errors-- errors of the type that lead to more egregious inaccuracies in the articles than what Barbara did. Nonetheless, four wrongs don't make a right, and this situation needs a solution on its own merits.

I think Anthonyhcole would be an excellent mentor, and believe that to be a good route to go, but because we have been down the mentoring path (unsuccessfully) before with a similar editor, I suggest we impose a couple of conditions before jumping to a conclusion:

1. Something outlining when the Bfpage vs the Barbara account is to be used.
2. History of mentoring an editor with a similar behavioral profile shows that mentorship won't work without an acknowledgement from Barbara that her editing is a problem-- no excuses, no thin-skinned defense. She has to acknowledge the problem, and agree to go along with Anthonyhcole's mentorship.
3. Something about how to allow Flyer (who edits with competence) to pursue GA or FA without interference from these accounts.
4. Some way to address the unnecessary meanness aimed at Barbara I mentioned above should it occur agaiin-- that sort of behavior is spread all over medical editing, and Anthonyhcole is not an admin, so how will he be able to deal with that if it occurs?

With some conditions in place, I believe we can avoid losing an editor in an area where we have too few, and hopefully help Barbara edit well within her competency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, because @SilkTork: was a mentor to the other editor I mention, I defer to his judgment and suggestions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here directly to Sandy's comments above. Mentoring Mattisse was very demanding, and there were several of us doing it. Mentoring in this case would work better if Barbara herself wanted it rather than merely accepted it as a condition to allow her to continue editing medical articles. I would be happy to work with Barbara on non-medical articles, but only if she gave up editing on medical articles voluntarily. I think Barbara is already an asset to the project, and would be an even greater one if she applied herself positively to areas where she can work without conflict. If she continued to edit medical articles, with or without a mentor, I fear there would be continuing strife and non-productive problem solving, and the de-motivation of at least one of our known good medical contributors. SilkTork (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I thought you meant that it was Barbara who made the grammatical mistakes. That's another aspect of her editing. Either way, I agree that Anthonyhcole, who I'm familiar with, could be a great mentor. I'm unconvinced that mentoring would work in this case since Barbara's behavior and style of editing is her own and is something unlikely to change. It's not just verifiability we are concerned about, after all. But if that is what editors want to give a shot first instead of a topic ban or some other type of editing restriction, there isn't anything I can do about that. I was going to leave the idea for what type of an editing restriction to go with for someone else to suggest. For example, a temporary editing restriction with conditions. I wondered if requesting an indefinite topic ban might seem heavy-handed to some, but I was/am that concerned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were so many grammatical errors left on the prostate articles, that I stopped trying to figure out which of the editors had introduced which errors, although I am fairly certain it was not only Barbara. I posted about just a few on talk, asking other (not Barbara) editors to please slow down and take more care with their edits. Yes, I see the problems with Barbara relative to Verifiability, and I saw that she deleted accurate content that only needed better sourcing. I wish I could say she was the only editor who was not demonstrating sufficient care with a topic (prostate cancer and screening) that will affect one in six men, but unfortunately, I have seen at least four medical editors making serious errors in that suite of articles. Who knew that women's health issues were more important on Wikipedia than men's? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a subtle and delicate situation. When Flyer asked me if I was interested in doing a GA review of Vagina she alerted me to the tension on that article between herself and Barbara. My response was that I welcomed editing tension between two strong editors on such a complex article, as it generally encourages robust editing when editors have to argue for and justify their edits, so I wasn't concerned. I was a little unclear on Barbara's use of two accounts, and the use of WVS in the name of her Barbara account; however, the usage is for record keeping, as explained here.

I kept at a distance, then Barbara asked me to take a look. I didn't like what I saw from either Flyer or Barbara, as edit warring had occurred. We prefer talked through solutions to editing disagreements, especially between experienced editors. However, in this instance it was clear that Barbara had initiated the conflict by inserting substantial text against the consensus arrived at on the article talkpage. It was a surprisingly unwise move to make in the circumstances. I glanced at some of Barbara's recent edits, and noted this and this, which didn't strike me as helpful, and seemed to be oddly "pointy" in that it seemed as though Barbara was keen to discover errors in the article - yet in doing so, she was altering acceptable content and either replacing it with dubious content, or none at all. In short, it appeared that she was making mistakes, and making mistakes based not on attempting to improve the article, but on attempting to score points (as suggested by her edit summaries). It seemed to me that she was editing on the Vagina article just a little beyond her skill set, and was not behaving collegiately.

I asked a few medical editors to look into her contributions, and everyone had the same conclusion. Barbara is an enthusiastic and hard working editor who has access to sources, and who can be an asset to Wikipedia, but she doesn't always understand the sources she reads, and is often unable to put what she reads into a wider context. It was proposed during discussions that the matter be brought here, but I advised against that as she is not doing anything against Wikipedia policy, and her editing and behaviour problems are low key, and can be corrected, and she was engaging in discussions. My feeling was that any approach made here would be met with: "she wants to help, she can help, she just needs to be guided: give her time and see how it works out - perhaps try mentoring". The name Mattisse came to mind. Not that I thought Barbara and Mattisse are the same person, but more that they share the same behaviour pattern, and cause the same problems. Both were enthusiastic and hard-working contributors who could offer so much to the project; but both created a lot of stress and time-consumption for other editors. I am very familiar with the Mattisse connection as I was one of Mattisse's mentors and I have the same empathy for Barbara as I did for Mattisse.

I pondered if asking Barbara to stop editing on Vagina, and offering to help her edit elsewhere would solve the issue. She has created some decent articles which could be brought to GA standard. But I decided not to interfere so strongly, hoping instead that matters would be resolved on Vagina, especially after another talkpage consensus on how to edit the article seemed to have everyone's agreement. But then she did this (removed sourced content with another pointy comment that needed substantiating), and I began to wonder if it was time to tempt her away. So I made my offer, which she refused. I still hold out hope that she will see sense herself, and stop editing in an area where she creates stress for herself and others. I am concerned that, like Mattisse, Barbara brings unnecessary toxicity to Wikipedia, and wears out editors who are doing good work. I have huge respect for Flyer, and I know she suffers under such editing conditions. I am unclear through all the months of struggle what positive contributions Barbara has brought to the Vagina article, but they have come at a disproportionate cost, and I fear we are wearing out a very good contributor in Flyer. My preference would be for Barbara to accept that she is creating more problems than solutions at Vagina, and quite possibly at other medical articles, and to edit in other areas where there is no conflict, and where she can do some good. SilkTork (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is all highly unfortunate for all. Anatomy should not really be that controversial. I approached this from a neutral point of view, and as one with training in conflict management. I took a look at the lead on List of vaginal tumors and was dismayed at the standard. I spent the morning trying to clean it up, but it requires far more than I have time for just now. So if that is representative, there is a problem. I still support mentoring but with feedback to the group as to whether it is showing any progress. Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio problems

In at least 5 times, spaced over a year, editors have picked up and reported to Barbara re. either copying or close paraphrasing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Diannaa in March 2017 (response: "I will be more careful") here.
• Doc James in December 2017 (response: "Yikes! I will remember that"). link
• Shalor (Wiki Ed) in February 2018 (response: "I will... figure out what I did wrong"). User_talk:Barbara_(WVS)#Vaginal_support_structures
• Diannaa again in February 2018, same link as above
• Me in March 2018 at Talk:Vagina proposed and copied without attribution from List of vaginal tumors which is close paraphrasing from source page [1], Talk:Vagina#Concerns

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom (LT) (talk • contribs) 00:15, March 18, 2018 (UTC)

More data points

I have never had a direct conflict with Barbara, and I see a lot of goodness in what she does for Wikipedia. I think she really wants to improve articles on women’s health. However, and with sadness, I have to agree with the above sentiments that it would be better for her to direct her efforts elsewhere.

A few months ago while reading the Breastfeeding article, I came across a passage that contained significant errors. As this is a Featured Article former Featured Article, I wondered if the passage had been recently vandalized, so I searched through the article history to see when it had changed. I discovered that the errors were introduced in this edit by Barbara (she copied the passage from another article that she had written).

The errors in this edit include:

• "About 2 to 3 days (72 to 96 hours) before the birth the breasts begin to produce the fore milk or colostrum.” This happens at mid-pregnancy, not 2-3 days before birth. Also, foremilk is not colostrum. Foremilk is the milk released in the beginning of every feed. Colostrum is the milk produced in the first days of breastfeeding.

• “...This sometimes described as "the milk coming in”.” No. The term “milk coming in” refers to the increase in milk production that occurs after delivery, not before delivery.

• "In about three days to five days the normal and expected milk forms.” The milk that is produced at days 0, 1, and 2, i.e. colostrum, is also perfectly normal and expected. This wording is not harmless — one of the reasons for low breastfeeding rates in some communities is the erroneous belief that colostrum is inadequate or bad food for babies.[2]

• "Engorgement of the breast is a normal development at this time. The breast changes and can become red.” Redness is not a normal feature of engorgement. Redness is a possible sign of infection (mastitis) in the breast.

Barbara's edit summary said that the content she was replacing was “outdated”. OK, the refs in the older content were from 2005, but I can see nothing outdated in the facts in it. It was a well-written, factually accurate passage that she replaced by a passage with a lot of problems.

Yesterday, after being pinged into this thread, I spot-checked Barbara’s other edits to Breastfeeding and found another significantly problematic edit. In this edit, she removed good content that describes the process of latching on, and also removed the important fact that a good latch is needed for the baby to get enough milk. Overall her edit also made the section less clear, in my opinion.

Looking at the pattern that’s emerging, my fear is that Barbara’s past contributions to medical topics will need to be systematically re-verified by other editors who have expertise in these topics and access to her sources. I think we are all in agreement that Wikipedia is short of editors on women’s health topics. If we don’t have enough people volunteering to edit in this area, where are we going to find the people to check and fix Barbara’s work?

Barbara, I hope you will continue to be active in the Wikipedia community. I love your sense of humour and your dedication. Nobody is good at everything, and that’s OK. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot:, just noting that breastfeeding is not a featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. It's a former featured article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship

I've followed all the links above, I think, and am seeing problems with

• instances of poor prose - unclear expression, typo's, inadvertant repetition of ideas or text, etc. - all of which speak to a failure to double-check work before moving on;
• insufficient care with verifiability - such as attributing claims to sources that do not make those claims;
• some misreading;
• some close paraphrasing;
• some resistance when being challenged or corrected.

If I've missed some important areas of concern in my bullet list, please let me know.

Some of the examples cited in the evidence above are errors that all active medical editors make from time to time, and her talk page demeanour is better than that of several of Wikipedia's most active and appreciated medical editors. That said, however, I think an intervention is needed. I'd like to see Barbara taking more time with her editing, with particular focus on the above points: producing less text, perhaps, but producing much more polished and rigorous work.

What I'd like to do, if she's amenable, and others are agreeable, is actively mentor her: daily critiquing her performance in article- and talk-space. I'll be particularly checking that her sources support her interpretation (as well as a non-specialist can), but will also oversee expression, paraphrasing and talk page performance. We're 12 hours apart so she can ping me at the end of her day and I can review her work while she sleeps and have a critique ready for her when she's back online. I'd like to come back here with a progress report after a month and we can decide then if it's working and whether or not to continue.

If you can think of another, better approach, I'm all ears. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that Anthony; I think that is a good offer. I think it is agreed that Barbara has much to offer Wikipedia in general, but that there are some problems with Barbara's editing of medical articles, and with her reluctance to accept advice, so your assistance might hopefully guide her towards improvement in those areas. Could I suggest that until the community sees that improvement that Barbara restricts herself to non-medical articles? Allow Barbara to build up her confidence and skills, and allow the community to regain some trust in her editing. If she continued to edit medical articles, even under your guidance, before she was ready, and she made a mistake, it would likely be picked up quite quickly, and an incident made out of it, which might bring us back here for another discussion. Of course this all depends on Barbara herself. Unless Barbara willingly accepts you as mentor, and listens carefully to you, there will be no improvement. So my feeling is that the mentoring solution needs Barbara's own willingness and commitment, and would need a period of say six months of (non-problematic) non-medical editing to ensure we don't rapidly return to ANI for minor mistakes. SilkTork (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, I agree Barbara should not be editing biology or medicine articles for the time being. Once I'm confident she's ready, I'll ask her to begin editing medical content in user- or draft-space and, only when I'm confident she's mastered the bullet-list issues in that very difficult and complex topic, I'll propose a lifting of the restriction here. I'd rather not impose an arbitrary time limit, and promise not to waste the community's time by bringing her back here prematurely. It's just that, if she's clearly mastered those bullet points, above, in a shorter timeframe than 6 months, arbitrarily extending it to the 6 months would seem punitive to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I agree. I also think that this should be dependent on Barbara herself, and that it would be better if we are not imposing formal limitations or conditions on her. This should be entirely at her choice, and on the understanding that this is being done to enable us to assist her in editing Wikipedia without stress and conflict so that we can continue benefiting from her enthusiasm and hard work. SilkTork (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just rang Barbara. She's got a lot on this morning but will respond later today or this evening. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should add she reached out to me for help with her work, yesterday, specifically citation style. I was amenable to this.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposed restrictions on my editing, and actually consider them valid and believe it or not I thank everyone for taking the time to respond. Some of this was hard to hear, admittedly. If it is okay, I would like to continue working on microbiology articles. There are gaps that I found that I can fill in with little 'trouble' or controversy.The only other thing I would like to do is have the opportunity to go back and correct the errors that where described in this ANI discussion. If I can do this, I will be able to clean up my 'messes' and make the content more accurate. I started doing this about two days ago, anyway and I am eager to keep doing it. I will add the phrase in my edit summary: "corrected previous error" and if Anthony doesn't think it was valid, it can be reverted by him (or anyone, really). Thank you to Michael Goodyear for helping with referencing. Thank you to Anthony for taking on this burden (!!) (While looking for references, I deleted this piece of vandalism in a medical article, this was not meant to 'test' my restrictions but is reflexive on my part. apologies) Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 18:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonyhcole, per what SandyGeorgia, Clayoquot and I have stated above, there is also an issue of misunderstanding WP:MEDDATE (or viewing it differently) and neglecting WP:Preserve. In the collapse box, I already linked to this example. Here is an example of me trying to explain WP:MEDDATE. Similar about WP:MEDDATE was stated to an editor during the Cervix GA nomination. Anatomy or other medical material being supported by sources older than five years, or even significantly older than five years, does not mean that the material is outdated.

Thanks for taking this on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Flyer. I shall discuss MEDDATE and PRESERVE with Barbara until I'm comfortable she's got it, and until I see PRESERVE routinely demonstrated in non-med topics. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed to Barbara that she drop translation, and avoid all health-related articles (psychology, medicine and biology, including microbiology.) We agree her rigor needs perfecting and she won't be coming back to medicine until her prose, formatting and grasp of her material are perfect. Barbara will immediately begin exercising rigor and AGF in any other knowledge domains she feels like embracing . She will work on article drafts covering any topic she chooses, including medicine. Can I get back to you when she and I think she's ready for medicine? I have no idea how long that will take. We haven't spoken about an interaction ban, but I support it and expect she will, too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just spoken to Barbara and, yes, she's fine with a one-way interaction ban. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that Anthony. Given the sensitive nature of the health, sexuality and anatomy topic areas, and the evidence put forward in this discussion regarding Barbara's poor level of competence in those areas, combined with her long-term reluctance to accept that there was a problem, I would think it unlikely that the community would lift a topic ban without some extended and convincing evidence of improved competence. With your help she might be able to achieve that; though another option, and one that I think Barbara should give serious consideration to, is that Barbara decides that editing in health, sexuality and anatomy is too problematic for her and the project as a whole, and concentrates her energies on helping out on Wikipedia in other topic areas. I think Snowy Owl (Audubon), and Darlington Collection, show what she can do, and she helped out on referencing in Whiskey Rebellion during its successful GA review. There is so much positive she can do without venturing back into a area of known stress and difficulty. SilkTork (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am not one of the involved editors here, but I will say that I thank User:Anthonyhcole for anything that can be done to improve this situation. I personally do not think that mentorship is promising for an experienced editor who doesn't seem to learn from her experience, but I would prefer to see efforts at solutions that minimize penalties. If not, not. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some more data points

I have held off from commenting thus far, to ensure that the original semi-canvassing ping to me was well balanced by pinging others, and it has been. The problem of Barbara is a hard one. She has apparently been a very productive contributor to the translation task force. I cannot speak to how good her edits have been in Creole, but I have seen her praised for her work there. And she seems in some ways to be well-intentioned. She also has an ugly side, and when she lets that take her, she does disruptive and POINTy things.

• Obstinate, sometimes vindictive behavior This is the most troubling behavioral thing. Her original conflict with Flyer back in 2015 came from Barbara editing in an anti-feminist and pro-men's rights fashion, and led Barbara to start HOUNDING Flyer and led Barbara give barnstars to editors who were wishing nasty things on Flyer - people who come here to promote men's rights or denigrate women or write creepy stuff about sex. She got a 6 month block that was later reduced. (see this ANI and this one. That behavior was just ugly as hell, and Barbara never acknowledged it. She was unblocked only because she promised to steer clear of Flyer in certain ways and for a limited time per these conditions); she never acknowledged following or the ugly barnstarring. (unblock request, discussion, and unblock)

This is the kind of ugly behavior that has cropped up from time to time. I tried to let Barbara know that this was not OK, and that led to her filing this ANI asking for an IBAN with me. Which got no traction. If you look at the diffs that she provided (!) you will see the kind of behaviors in which she was engaging, that I was trying to warn her away from. This sort of behavior has continued. We had an academic spam article created at Culinary coaching which we deleted via an AfD. Barbara decided this was a "women's issues" thing (which is pretty sexist but whatever) and she tried like crazy to save it as admins can see from the history of that page, using poor quality refs and academic spam refs. When she realized that the AfD remained solidly against her, she went and created Sexism in medicine (creating diff - this was very clear in her contribs from that time, but the diffs at "Culinary coaching" are gone due its being deleted, so it is not clear now to non-admins). Sexism in medicine is a fine article to have btw, but its creation was POINTY and...bizarre as there is nothing particularly "women's issues" about teaching people to cook food that is good for them. This sort of thing.

Barbara and I got into a conflict at Ketorolac in March 2017 where she was trying to force in content that violated WP:NOTHOWTO, which MEDMOS also specifically warns against. She was just not hearing it at the talk page, and I ended up filing at EWN case. Her response to the whole thing, btw, was ~apparently~ this, including the image posted here. This is the kind of thing I mean above about behavior. That is just ...twisted and actually disdainful. Kind of funny, yes. But disdainful.

Kind of related to that disdainful humor thing, see this mockery of the DS notice that she created in December 2016 after I gave her a real one. Please see the comments from guy just below the mock-DS notice.

(and this, User:SandyGeorgia, is what my remark at your talk page was about - Barbara is attracted to behavior like your hollering bias on the prostate stuff as "harming men" -- it brings out the worst in her and she encourages people in bad ways, like when she barnstarred Flyers' hounders).

• Content and sourcing In terms of content, this is the most troubling thing. For some reason, Barbara has refused to engage with MEDRS (this is getting better but is not there yet), and keeps adding content about health based on non-MEDRS sources. The earliest direct discussion I could find with her about this was back in the summer of 2015, in this section and the one below it, where Doc James was trying to teach her. I had a clash with her on some microbiome stuff that i posted about here in June 2016. She claims it is "confusing" but after two years of people trying to teach her, this is either simply obstinate or incompetence. That is a blunt thing to say, I know.
  • See Pain management in children as it stood when she built it up in August 2017. One of the most cited sources is this page from Stanford. We have said over and over that university/hospital websites are not OK per MEDRS. But there it is cited 9 times. A ref from 1989, another from 1998, 2 refs from 2001, others from 2003, 2004, 2007... this is just hard to watch - new articles being built up with already-outdated sources.

See this mess from the PTSD article in October 2017, where Barbara was edit warring in content based on press releases and a university/hospital website.

• COPYVIO - others have mentioned this, and this continues. this diff from 2 weeks ago, is a copy/paste from here, with the original inline citations left in place. That was at one of the prostate articles, which she ran right on over to in response to SandyGeorgia.

• Other stuff. Last fall Barbara was working on miscarriage-related topics and created Miscarriage and grief and Miscarriage and mental illness (which remain a bit of a mess in relation to each other, and with respect to each one's sourcing, content, and structure) and in the course of that, was really working the line that abortion (induced miscarriage) causes PTSD, which is straight up anti-abortion activist crap, which in light of her original mens rights activism/anti-feminism editing when she first got here, was disturbing. I opened a section about the sourcing she was using at WT:MED here which Barbara brought up again here. (that was part of the conflict at PTSD I mentioned above, as she wanted add it there as well)

Old issue now not continuing, but the traces remain: For a while she was adding a tag to refs that she got through her relationship with Pitt, as in this diff, where she was including "Access provided by the University of Pittsburgh" to citations she added. This was very inappropriate in my view (relevant to her initial access, but not to anyone else's subsequently, and promotional for Pitt). She stopped doing it but there are still about 70 pages with that tag still present.

She does have a sense of humor which I am sure many people appreciate, like the "revert me why" thing above. She made an article about Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism (which was inappropriate humor in mainspace and was renamed and very much revised after an AfD... but was funny!) and she has been contributing humor to Signpost for a while now. But that humor can be ugly/disdainful and misplaced.

This is a hard thing. She can be a good contributor, but there is this obstinate and even nasty side of her as well. I see above the proposal to mentor, and I hope that goes well. To be honest when her name comes up on my watch list I groan, as the content is likely to be badly sourced and not accurately summarizing the sources, and I would have to deal with the obstinate stuff trying to get it fixed. Most times I just ignore it as I try to avoid her. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC) (tweaked a bit Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you, @Jytdog:, for the context; it is helpful to be made aware of this, and if it is gender-based activism bologna, I am sorry I added to and furthered that behavior with my concern about a men's health topic that is affecting my life right now.

So, I now have three new concerns:

• Creole translation. Since I speak fluent Spanish and often check DYKs, GAs and FAs for translation, I know that translation is almost always problematic even in the best of circumstances, as well as being a frequent source of copyvio. DYKs, GAs and FAs are often sailing through until I come in and can read the sources, and say ... whoa, there! Not in the sources, not what the sources say, not a reliable source, or copyvio via direct translation. So, here we have an editor who has already demonstrated weak knowledge of copyvio and close paraphrasing, along with a problem in competency in interpreting sources, along with difficulty in understanding the medical concepts she is writing about, and YET we have her translating medical content to a language that perhaps no one else is fluent in or can double-check? If we are concerned about her work in English, we should be triply concerned about having her translating medical content then. I believe she should not be translating. If we have bad editing, why should we allow bad editing in a language few can check? (This is a problem throughout translations on Wikipedia, and why I am against the headlong rush into it ... we have poor medical content across the English project, and we are going to use the precious few resources we have to spread our poor content to other languages, making it possibly even poorer in the process? <scratching my head>
• Jytdog said: "She was unblocked only because she promised to steer clear of Flyer; she never acknowledged following or the ugly barnstarring. (unblock request, discussion, and unblock)". (emphasis mine) That is a long discussion; could one of you (Flyer or Jytdog) point out a specific diff where she "promised to steer clear of Flyer"? Because if we have that, and Barbara has indeed already gone back on that promise in her interaction with Flyer in this ANI, we have a good indication already that mentoring is not going to work. This is reading more and more like Mattisse Mentoring 101, and by allowing the Mattisse situation to go on for years, we just got more and more conflict, taking more and more time from good-faith editors who only wanted to help. If she has already broken a promise, we should see the diff (if possible), and call the game now.
• COPYVIO. We see a DIDNTHEARTHAT problem with understanding of copyright. It seems that various editors have told Barbara over and over what she can and cannot do vis-a-vis copyright, yet she indicates above that she still thinks it's OK to just plop public domain text into articles. Again, this is sounding too familiar.

Seeing the whole picture now from multiple editors, I am quite concerned we are heading down the same path that did not work with Mattisse. We did it there for the same reason here-- we wanted to retain the value of sometimes good edits. It didn't work. Again, though, I defer to @SilkTork:-- he was the one who did the hard mentoring work. I'm remembering we also clobbered @Deathphoenix: by putting him into a difficult mentoring situation in 2007. If it is still decided to go with mentoring, much tighter parameters could be called for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SandyGeorgia the unblock conditions were more nuanced than what I wrote above, sorry. (have redacted). The unblock conditions were here and expired Dec 2015, I believe. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, struck my second point, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Visiting Corn Flakes Eater issue

Allowing an editor who is not a scholar to use an account named user:Barbara (WVS), i.e. Wikipedia Visiting Scholar is a shame by itself. The result is to give an undue weight to someone without a reasonable screening process... and to extend this undue weight to what could be written by this person. Now, some problems have appeared and we are searching for remedies. Since WE are at fault, WE should try the following remedy, called Rectification of names: the said user should use an account named user:Barbara (WVCFE) i.e. Wikipedia Visiting Corn Flakes Eater. With such a reminder of her duties, perhaps this user will find her way back to modesty and efficiency. Pldx1 (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban / IBAN

Is It Time for a Close?

Is it time to close this thread with a conclusion, or should alternate proposals be considered? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When closing, both of Barbara's accounts should be mentioned: User:Bfpage and User:Barbara (WVS). SilkTork (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made a mentorship proposal, above, and would appreciate feedback from those involved before this thread is closed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think mentorship is likely to solve the problem in this case. It's not that she doesn't know that she's doing something wrong. She's been informed many, many times. Natureium (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really believe that she doesn't know that she is doing anything wrong. If someone has been informed as many times as she has, and doesn't change their behavior, then she really isn't receiving the message. It isn't a case of I didn't hear that; she really didn't hear that. I think that she has a different thought process than some of us do, or a different perceptual mode, and really can't process negative feedback. However, it is worth trying if it is understood that it might not work. My own guess is that it won't, and we will have to decide whether she is a net negative. There are a few editors where everyone really hopes they will change their conduct because they make significant positive contributions, but also make significant negative contributions, and sometimes there is no sorting the two out. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's very good of Anthony to offer mentorship. The arrangement that he and Barbara have worked out is as good as I can imagine. I too have doubts about the degree to which it will change things but it can't see how it would hurt. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought for the close: It might be best to explicitly say that anatomy content is included in the topic ban from medical articles. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented above on the mentorship offer. In summary, my thoughts are that it's worth trying, though it might be more beneficial for Barbara to concentrate on working in other areas of Wikipedia than on attempting to return to an area of known stress, conflict and difficulty, which the community might be unwilling to let her back into, even with some evidence of good work in the sandbox. @ Clayoquot - I think sexuality would also need to be included. Health, medicine, anatomy, and sexuality seem to be the areas of concern. Would Category:Health cover all those aspects? SilkTork (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have faith in Anthonyhcole and believe it to be worth a try, but in the event mentorship fails, I hope we do not let this turn into a years-long protracted mess as did the Mattisse situation. Hope for success, but call it fast if it doesn't work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Health actually covers very few of these things at the moment. I think your list, i.e. health, medicine, anatomy, and sexuality, better captures the scope we're looking for. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that the word "sexuality" be included in any editing restriction. Flyer22 is, in my opinion, our best and most consistent long term editor in the essential topic area of sexuality. Barbara's problematic behavior is often related to articles about sexuality. I hope that the closing administrator will bring this particular disruption to an end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Proposal for clarification of scope of topic ban

Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of the topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt we need to add further wording. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN).

• Support SilkTork (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Swarm ♠ 09:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Bishonen | talk 10:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Support Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, appears to address the concerns above better. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Natureium (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Iztwoz (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant support. I indicated in the discussion above that I deferred to SilkTork and Anthonyhcole on this matter. Bfpage was very helpful to me on the systemic problems I had with the Education Project (or whatever that particular debacle is calling itself these days), so I was reluctant to support the ban, even though I see the problems. I now lodge a reluctant support because of the incomplete closing of the discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support –Davey2010^Talk 16:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support . Gandydancer (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - clarifies well. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support/tugni lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q for clarification

I believe I understand the process and the request for this topic-ban. What is unclear to me at this point is if there a ban on contributing to the WikiProject Medicine talk page and the talk pages of medical, health and anatomy articles. For an example, I often post possible sources that help other editors on the talk page of articles, especially if they are new. Here are other example of my talk page posts:here and here, here That's all I need to know. Complying with the rest of the restrictions is acceptable at this time. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 13:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic banned from topics, not just articles/pages, means don't post on the topic anywhere, including suggesting sources to other editors. If someone asks you for help, you'll have to say "I'm sorry, but I'm restricted from participating in that area", or something like that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) User:Barbara (WVS), please do read WP:TBAN. If you do, you will see that what you are proposing is not OK. You should probably read WP:IBAN as well with regard to Flyer. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

I've not edited Wikipedia in... three or four years? Something like that. But today I started adding some content to the current events portal and, for my efforts, have had my edits summarily removed without explanation and received a threatening talk page message telling me "Please, consider making good faith edits before you indulge in vandalism. I wouldn't vandalize Wikipedia if I were you." If this is the welcome editors expect now, then WP:AGF and WP:BITE must have fallen by the wayside. 2.28.13.202 (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide diffs of what you added and what was subsequently removed? 2601:401:500:5D25:F8EE:FAB1:7C4D:FBA2 (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. addition, revert without explanation, readdition, next item added, summary revert, and then an accusation of vandalism and the additional threat "I had to revert two of your edits (I would've reverted a third, but that was impossible)". I assume the third was the readdition of the previously removed material. 2.28.13.202 (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are dangerously close to violating 3RR 2601:401:500:5D25:F8EE:FAB1:7C4D:FBA2 (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've been keeping count. In any event I don't intend any additional reverts now there are uninvolved eyes involved. Would much rather leave it up to experienced editors now to do (or not do) whatever they deem correct. 2.28.13.202 (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Call me when you get the chance is, however, quite out of bounds making unfounded accusations of vandalism for what appear to be clearly good faith additions. Jbh ^Talk 02:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it won't happen again. Call me when you get the chance (We need to talk) 02:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Few things irritate me (and many others) more than the unexplained reverts of IP edits and the subsequent warnings. And 2601:401:500:5D25:F8EE:FAB1:7C4D:FBA2, please don't fetishize 3R. If anyone was going to get blocked there, it wouldn't have been the IP--assuming the admin on call knew what they were doing. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was so weird, and so obviously not vandalism, that I've started looking over this user's contributions and I've found this exchange which is troubling: "Your "trying to help out" was not what it seems. Please reconsider passing off vandalism as "un-vandalizing." If you wish to make more useful contributions, you should create an account. I think one account is enough for you as it is for me. Maybe you can come up with a catchy name instead of impersonating other Wikipedians[...] Now, please, stop trying to fake innocence when you are vandalizing the wiki, which could get you blocked for doing so, ya hear?" That was also targetted at an IP making good faith edits to the article. 2.28.13.202 (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And a(n admittedly weak) personal attack here. 2.28.13.202 (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And a weak PA here too. I'm gonna leave it there as I don't want the user to feel harassed and they obviously have passion. 2.28.13.202 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) x2 They are a relatively new editor and I have not noticed that this issue has been addressed with them before. I have 'counseled' them on their talk page. If they go after an IP again I would support admin intervention (and I have no doubt Drmies would come down on them like a ton of bricks if they do it again) but, as things stand, they have apologized which is more than many do when they screw up. Jbh ^Talk 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just read your note and it seems very fair and reasonable. Like you said, 'fessing up to one's mistakes is a very positive character trait. 2.28.13.202 (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is now happening again. Is it now considered normal to wholesale delete contributions by newcomers without explanation? 2.28.13.202 (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you provide a WP:Diff to the specific edit(s) you're talking about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an unexplained wholesale deetion of sourced content here, another here, and a third here. I'm going to restore them all citing this thread. 92.10.184.187 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Those were all good deletions, all trivial events. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Our ethos and guidelines are that unregistered editors are treated the same. The reality is they are not. As an IP editor you have restricted use of the site, and certain personal details about you are revealed through your IP address (there should be more warning about this in the software, but there isn't). In addition, because the bulk of inappropriate edits are made by unregistered accounts, some users tend to be more dubious about contributions by IP editors than by registered users. See Wikipedia:Tutorial/Registration for more information; and for a smoother experience when editing Wikipedia, give some consideration to registering. SilkTork (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A nice idea in theory; however years of experience have told me that IPs are sometimes editors who have retired and just want to dip their toe back into the place while also having their edits judged purely on their own merits (which I believe is the case here), or editors who left after harassment and don't want to be treated like crap (not that IPs don't get treated like crap already, as I can testify from personal experience). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an IP has edited on Wikipedia before, as a registered account. Then he/she should reveal that old account or create a new account. I'm not a fan of mysteries. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That flies in the face of policy and ethos on this site, surely? Can you please link me a policy to support your demands? 92.10.184.187 (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the IP is not editing in violation of WP:BADSOCK there is no requirement for an IP, or any account, to disclose. An IP user whose IP address changes should make it clear they are not different people ie there needs to be continuity of identity in situations where confusion could occur. SOCK does not quite go this far but rather says "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors" ^{(emp mine)} Jbh ^Talk 16:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a textbook example of how an ANI works. IP editor comes with valid complaint and proof. That gets warped into claims that they are socks or bad actors. Is Drmies the only rational editor here?104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Drmies is the only rational editor here ... except for all the others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• But, actually, your explication of how AN/I works is missing some steps: IP editor comes with valid complaint, complaint is dealt with, IP editor continues to complain, IP's story starts to show inconsistencies, mention is made of socks and bad actors, IP is determined to be sock of blocked editor. That happens more times then would be expected by randomness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, exactly who are you accusing me of being a sock of? The last three days, on the IPs listed here, are my only contributions in years. So go ahead, show me your evidence I'm a "bad actor". 92.10.188.218 (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe you should lose the chip on your shoulder, and ratchet up your reading comprehension a bit: no accusation was made against you, just a general statement about a scenario which happens at AN/I quite frequently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. Why can't you be nice, like everyone else here? User:Jbhunley, User:Drmies, User:Ritchie333, and even user:Call me when you get the chance have all posted here respectfully and worked towards quietly getting this sorted. I don't understand how this discussion has morphed or even what it has become. Maybe it would be best just to close it? 89.240.132.177 (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If your IP didn't keep jumping around, I think contributors would be more charitable. The initial reverts were questionable, but not to the point that I support administrative action; and the OP's additions appear to all be included on Portal:Current events/2018 March 20 at this time. I do suggest you register an account if you don't want further complaints to be ignored through bureaucratic inefficiency. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, how do I stop my IP from changing? It's not like I ask it to. I wake up and it's different each day. 92.10.177.190 (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is not much you can do to stop it. DHCP, a method of provisioning IP addresses, has a 'lease' time. If you are connected when it expires you will usually get the same IP back but if you are not someone else often will have been assigned the one you had and you will get another address. One thing I have seen other long term IP editors do is add something like --IP9210, --BobTheIP, or something similar before signing with ~~~~. Not as convenient as having an account but it gives some continuity of identity and many would see it as a nice gesture. Jbh ^Talk 16:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

My apologies for the complexity of this. In December, I started an RfC about using the Oxford English Dictionary at the Useful idiot article, the quotation in question being "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union". As you can see, SPECIFICO immediately said that the RfC might not resolve the issue. The RfC ensued. Apparently getting approval for my proposed sentence, I inserted it in the article. My very best wishes promptly removed it. After being requested by me, the closer Fish and karate clarified the closure. As you can see, SPECIFICO complained about the clarification and "My very best wishes" disputed the meaning of the closing statement. "My very best wishes" then moved the sentence in contention away from the section dealing with etymology and edited it to say that the OED "erroneously tells..." I subsequently moved it back to the appropriate paragraph. Some time later, "My very best wishes" removed it again. Thucydides411 restored it, while SPECIFICO undid his revision, with the edit summary "Remove edit-war against consensus". An edit war ensued, leading to the intervention of Drmies, with the apparent perverse result that we are blocked from carrying out the consensus of the RfC. The whole point of the RfC was to resolve edit warring and endless argument. Meanwhile, SPECIFICO has started a new section on the Talk page, Screw Saffire, suggesting that William Safire is not a reliable source. The cycle seems to be repeating. If I start an RfC, will I eventually be blocked for carrying out the consensus of the RfC???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? I warned General Goldwater about edit warring, so I don't know what I did to you. The reverts you linked to, the earlier ones, are clearly in line with the RfC. The Goldwater reverts are much broader than the RfC, and their behavior was clearly that of an edit warrior: there are no explanations and no contributions to the talk page, so I have no idea what you're complaining about. As for "perverse"--the only perversion here, besides this twisted complaint, is that ridiculously long talk page. Drmies (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OK so I'm trying to catch up here. Drmies correctly reversed the edit-warrior Goldwater. Then Darouet came in and reverted Drmies and Darouet claims that Drmies said his intervention applies only when Goldwater makes the edit? Darouet's edit seems like a problem. SPECIFICO talk 00:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Christ, is the content on this page still in dispute? Is this a really contentious and disputed topic, or is there some time-wasting going on? talk to !dave 19:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@My name is not dave: "Content dispute" would be a very charitable description. The phrase is demonstrated in academic sources to be another famous misquotation, but this runs against powerfully entrenched ideological prejudices. So most of the talk page is an effort to ignore real content and make it up with WP:OR. -Darouet (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The latter: wasting time of other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not about Drmies's intervention, but about the editors who keep overriding the RfC. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I was not edit warring and I don't want to be edit warring. I just want the RfC to stand. I don't really understand the eruption of passion on the page, which has been quiet for years. However, at an attempt at DRN last year SPECIFICO and "My very best wishes" argued the issue was not about Communism, even though they had been arguing about Lenin for weeks. From the evidence on the Talk page, it seems they think the issue is about Donald Trump. However, I don't see how attacking the OED helps the cause. From the Talk page, many people are very fond of the idea that Lenin coined the phrase "useful idiot", even though this seems to be just a common misconception. In any case, there is a clear agenda to eliminate sources that dispute the Lenin origin...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Issue" really means "outcome", and I'm not even at a beginning in this dispute, but that's by the by. Jack Upland, kindly stop pinging me; I got nothing to do with this business, not until there's some blocking to be done, in which case I will do what I can to get that $5 check for an EW block. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issue doesn't mean outcome according to the Oxford Dictionary!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of Lenin was simply about flawed and poorly-sourced article text -- tendentiously pushed by Jack, Thuc, and Darouet -- that claimed to declare in WP's voice that Lenin never used the term. It had nothing to do with communism any more than song lyrics by Lady Gaga have to do with feminism. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another cryptic comment by SPECIFICO purporting to explain a five month campaign against an innocuous sentence! Perhaps some limited enlightenment can be gained from the statement on SPECIFICO's talk page: The problem with "useful idiot" has nothing to do with the Soviet Union. In my opinion it's that a diverse bunch of current-day folks are determined to avoid being seen as "useful idiots" of Russia, domestic American political activists, and other perceived oligarchies. That's the dog in the closet. The problem with this is that I don't understand what this is about. I don't accept that the reputation of the OED should be trashed and that an American catchphrase should be wrongly attributed to Lenin just because of some editor's perception (or fantasy) of a shadowy contemporary war against mysterious bogeymen. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a blank canvas for eccentric imaginings. This is a dog that doesn't bark.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is easily solved by redirecting to Donald Trump. EEng 21:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that there's a linguistic battle between people who want to tie Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin and both to Soviet Russia, and people who want to avoid that tie at all costs. The actual etymology and historical usage of useful idiot (and also whataboutism) are merely a place for that argument. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. The ties are very much real and described in a lot of other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Many people have been called "useful idiots," and Trump is undeniably one of them. I'm not against him being labeled so there as long as that label is balanced by other historically pertinent examples. My objection OR that is being spewed into the article by My very best wishes that is meant to prove that various scholars around the world — who have shown "Useful idiot" to be a misquotation — are wrong. -Darouet (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Strong words to call someone a Trump supporter! I really could not give a damn whether the article calls Trump a useful idiot or not (or a useless idiot). My sole issue is that I think very bad logic is being employed by people who think there is evidence that the term originated in the Soviet Union rather than the west, rather than that it has been traditionally attributed to Lenin without any good evidence. My very best wishes seems to think that an example from a Russian exile in the 80s trumps many prior references that use the term in English well before that, and the OED which contradicts his claims and is a very reputable source for etymology. Further, any source saying that the term was attributed to Lenin is not logically a statement that it actually came from Lenin. Also MVBW seems to have a great deal of trouble understanding what "reflects" means in English despite it being explained many times. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's quite accurate. I agree that the problems on the page stem from people trying to use quotes (and their etymologies) politically, but I think it's more one-sided than you depict. As far as I can tell, no editors have argued for removing all mention of Donald Trump. For example, I have no problem with the inclusion of Madeleine Albright and Michael Hayden's statements about Donald Trump being a "useful idiot." I've only argued against the inclusion of Michael Morell's quote, because he doesn't even use the term "useful idiot." The "battle" is between people who want to tie Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin and Soviet Russia, and people who don't want the article being used for political purposes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God, you mean the page really does talk about Trump? I didn't even know. I guess great minds think alike. EEng 14:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the issue has never been about Trump and I don't see the relevance of Trump to the etymology issue. However, that does seem to be part of the motivation for some editors.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: with or without Trump, a lot of linguistic and historical research is spent correcting pervasive misquotations. Wikipedia's mission is not to undo that work on behalf of the latest political fad. -Darouet (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sure, yeah -- though I don't see what I said to prompt that particular principle being expounded at me. EEng 20:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I'm saying that while I enjoy your humor here [5][6] or elsewhere, the issue that Jack has raised here needs attention and has been annoying AF to deal with. -Darouet (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree, and as you'll see on the TP I've offered to obtain obscure sources if that's part of the problem. EEng 21:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Upland:You wrote For me, the issue has never been about Trump... This is odd. Because in the garbled DR last year, you said it was only about Trump and also you acknowledged that I said it's not about Communism. What has changed, Jack? SPECIFICO talk 13:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was only about Trump! In fact, I think Trump should be irrelevant. I don't understand your point on "communism", but it wasn't a very helpful contribution to dispute resolution, as far as I can see.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody want to explain why I and others didn't receive talk page notices of this mess? SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the justification for Darouet continuing to edit war this stuff after this ANI thread was opened? How could that possibly be constructive? And I went to @Drmies: and @My very best wishes: talk pages in stupefied disbelief at Darouet's revert -- not knowing about this thread. Looks like bad form to me. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Upland pinged you in their original post here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False. No ping. Try again. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

It's not false - you were pinged. Okay, you're unhappy that there wasn't a post left on your user talk page. Jack Upland will know to do that next time. Now you clearly know about the thread, so there's no problem. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the ping? Are you claiming a software malfunction? Cut and paste the ping. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[7]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) You've been on WP a long time. That's not a ping, it's a link to my user page. 2) Many editors do not enable pings. 3) The instructions for this page clearly state that a ping is not OK and that talk page is notification is required. Your responses are an appalling example of your willingness to deny and deflect without any effort to check facts or to listen to the concerns of your fellow editors. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got a ping - that's what that template does. The rest of your post is just unbelievably hostile. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That template is a link to User Page. Of course if you took my words seriously, you could easily have checked that by going to the documentation page Nice job ignoring points 2 and 3 and thanks for the personal smear in lieu of response. On a larger issue, you rushed back from your 3-month Russia TBAN to this Russia-related article with walls of POV and personal opinion on the talk page. The result is that all the progress the rest of us made in your absence has devolved into a multi-front edit war based on deflection and WP:IDHT. @My very best wishes: and others have done tons of careful research and clearly presented their results on the talk page. For the most part these findings have been accepted before you and your friend Darouet mushroomed the talk page into a WW1 battlefield. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the documentation you linked to: "This template is commonly used to ping a user to a discussion". Looking back at the original diff, it seems like Jack Upland misspelled your username, which is why you didn't get a ping. They corrected your username afterwards, but the template doesn't ping when you correct a username - it has to be correct on the first go. I'm sure Jack Upland will know next time (should there be a next time) to post on your user page, but since you know about the thread here now, everything should be okay. Again, I really don't understand your hostility towards me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time that's all deflection, Thucydides411, because Ping is not acceptable notification and no user is required to activate ping. You didn't think my concern was software-related, did you? SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I give up. I feel sorry for the people who will try to read through this sub-thread. Have a nice day. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not sure what state the article is in now concerning this subject, but in December 2017 I pointed out that The OED says "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union" and in the same entry quotes "described by the KGB as 'useful idiots'" -- a clear contradiction, one which is unexplained and unclarified, and thus confused and confusing. Moreover, the OED is not an authority on Russian or Russian usage or the USSR. It cannot be used as an authority on Wikipedia as such." [8] and We know for a fact that the term was used by the KGB (please consult the Shultz and Mitrokhin references I referred to earlier in this thread); the KGB was the main security agency for the Soviet Union from 1954 until its break-up in 1991; therefore the peculiar assertion that "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union" is incorrect. [9] I'm not sure why this is still an ongoing dispute. Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Softlavender, "reflects" involves something occurring before that which reflects. 1954 (earliest possible date for use by the KGB) is after the use in English. And there is no harm in mentioning what a usually reliable source on etymology says - we are not stating it as a plain fact, just attributing it. To repeat, for the use in English to reflect a use in the Soviet Union we must have evidence that there was use before the use in English. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, "reflect" is simply a synonym for "be" or "denote"; it means "embody or represent (something) in a faithful or appropriate way". The Soviet Union began in 1922. There are numerous well-researched volumes which are analyses of Soviet Chekist operations and terminology which identify the term (I've listed some on the talkpage). Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Reflect" is not a direct synonym for "mirror" or "correspond to". In the context of an etymology the question was where does the term originate. Reflects in this sense is equivalent to "comes from" or "originates in". The OED is not stating the term was never used in the Soviet Union. Maybe they could've chosen better wording but it seems clear to me what they intended to say - I could be wrong though. I have to this point not seen anyone provide evidence that it was definitely used in Russian before in English. I will look at your sources. But really are we here because some people are not honoring the results of an already closed RfC which said to include the OED quote. Even if it is false it is relevant to quote what the OED says. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • What dictionary are you using? Could you please provide a link to your definition of "reflect"? I quoted the dictionary verbatim. Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • What you quoted seems to be saying what I'm saying. You don't embody or represent something that only exists after the embodiment or representation. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Edited 23:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Soviet Union began in 1920. So whatever you are trying to say, the OED is saying that the English phrase "useful idiot" does not seem to correspond to any Russian expression used 1920–1991 (i.e., in the Soviet Union) -- which, according to Chekist experts, is incorrect. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I am sorry, the nuanced and logical meaning of "reflect" per the definition you quoted is not a synonym for correspond. If the use in English in the 1940s embodies or represents a use in the Soviet Union that must have occurred beforehand. Afterward is not relevant to the statement. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OED does not contradict itself at all. The OED gives a definition of the term, has a note about the etymology ("The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union"), and then gives example usages of the term, drawn from the literature. The quote, "described by the KGB as 'useful idiots'" is an example usage drawn from a 1985 Washington Post article. The OED does not endorse the veracity of that line from the Washington Post - it's simply an example usage. In fact, not even the Washington Post endorses the veracity of that line. I tracked down the reference, and it turns out that the WaPo is actually mockingly quoting someone who's claiming the KGB calls various people "useful idiots."

I explained this on the talk page: Talk:Useful idiot#OED contradicting itself?. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People are going out of their way to insist that the OED is infallible (a stance I find incomprehensible, since nothing is infallible, and the OED is frequently easily contradicted in the internet age and GoogleBooks), when the OED itself is tentative: it says "does not seem to reflect", not "is not", and provides a quote which contradicts itself. The OED is not an authority on Chekism and Chekist terminology. Only an authority on Chekism in my view would be the final authority on this, and I've listed several sources on the talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the OED is contradicted by other sources 1) The RfC was already concluded on this to include it 2) It is relevant and interesting to the reader that a usually very reliable source says something on the topic 3) It seems like a form of original research to conclude that another source seems to say something different so the OED is wrong - you would need a source that directly says the OED is wrong, not to draw that conclusion yourself. Analyzing or filtering reliable sources is not the place of Wikipedia editors. If the OED says "does not seem to" it is entirely relevant to quote what it says. The reader can draw their own conclusions whether the source is making a weak statement or if the other sources are more reliable. We are not stating what the OED says as a fact. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. If a source, even a venerable one, is provably wrong, we don't use the source, we use the reliable correct source that has more thorough and accurate and better-researched and better-cited information. Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"If a source, even a venerable one, is provably wrong" I don't see anything new on Talk:Useful idiot that proves the OED is wrong in saying the use in English is not predated by any verifiable use in the Soviet Union. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, please stop saying the OED is provably wrong. It's not. I explained this at Talk:Useful idiot#OED contradicting itself? -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and provides a quote which contradicts itself." No it does not. Please read what I wrote here: Talk:Useful idiot#OED contradicting itself?. You can't keep making this claim, after I've shown it to be false (complete with the relevant passage from the original Washington Post article that the OED got its snippet from). -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies to everyone for not notifying them on their talk pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for close / suggestions of a more appropriate forum

Nobody at ANI has time for this, and apart from the procedural bickering of whether people were notified correctly, this appears to be entirely a content dispute. I request that the thread here be closed and a discussion be opened at the correct forum; presumably WP:DRN or possibly WP:MEDCOM. Assistance from community members who haven't edited the page significantly may be needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was brought here because people are ignoring an RfC which was already recently decided in favor of including the OED quote. That's disruptive editing. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Unfortunately the point has quickly been lost. I think if this was closed, I (or someone else) would have to reintroduce it, and try to do it properly. I started the RfC to stop the endless arguments, but here and now the arguments are being rerun. We need to accept the decision and move on, not continue debating it.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to read the close of the RfC? It does not require the disputed reference to be used. It simply limits the claims that can be attributed to it. This is what @My very best wishes: and others have followed. Meanwhile the editors who have edit-warred to misuse the source are misrepresenting the RfC close. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: The RfC very much does require the OED to be cited. The RfC closer, Fish and Karate, clarified their closure of the RfC, making this explicit: "In closing, the consensus seemed to me to be that the reference to the OED should be included" ([10]). I know you're aware of this, because you expressed disappointment at Fish and Karate's clarification of the RfC closure: "But you had it right the first time..." ([11]).

This gets to the behavioral issue that Jack Upland and DIYeditor talk about above - the refusal to accept the outcome of the RfC. You've been claiming consensus favors your removal of the OED's statement on etymology ("Remove edit-war against consensus" - note that you remove the RfC-compliant OED statement), even though that removal goes against an RfC. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using the talk page to point out editors' overreaching the close of the RfC to go beyond what its statement does not seem like any sort of "behavioral issue" worth mentioning here. Anyway, I'm in awe of your telepathic abilities that enable you to inform the internet concerning my awareness. The fact is that everyone can read the rest of the thread from which you plucked my words and see where the conversation has stood over the month since then. [12] SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that because I stopped arguing in that thread on 15 February that you had the consensus??? The whole point of the RfC was to decide the debate, not to launch a fresh — or rather stale — round of arguments about the meaning of the RfC. Especially as there were multiple other threads running on the page. I think this is disruptive editing.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why no, I said nothing of the kind. Not sure where you're going with after the first sentence. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it simply. You are (apparently willfully) being obstinate and disruptive by ignoring a recently closed RfC. Please stop. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why I address a question to Upland Jack about his statement and I get a quick reply from DIYeditor? Pleased to meet you, anyway. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask a question, the reply was 2 hours later, to my knowledge anyone is free to chime in on Wikipedia, and it seems like you are being deliberately difficult. Abide by the RfC or start another one. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to Jack Upland's initial statement in this thread: It looks as if my initial assessment was correct. That RfC, (like this ANI btw) was poorly formed so that his vague and non-instrumental way of framing his question was unlikely to lead to the clear resolution he sought. And that's what happened. We have MVBW, whose view is apparently shared by 1/2 dozen editors, reading the close as supporting a certain article text. And then we have roughly the same number claiming that the RfC close does not support MVBW's way of framing the content. At any rate, you seem to be saying there are 1/2 dozen editors who share your view as to the meaning of the RfC close but wish to ignore or deny it to by inserting article text that contradicts it. But that's not the problem here. The problem is muddle-flagon language and upside-out narratives that are leading to two opposite versions of article text. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be honest I haven't been closely tracking the bickering, I only noticed the OED citation be deleted then restored. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a LOT of bickering. Thucydides introduced the OED citation back in 2 November. SPECIFICO and MVBW immediately started arguing the point. Then on 10 December I launched the RfC, which was closed on 7 February, with the closure clarified on 12 February. I don't think anyone who was in the debate from the start could have any confusion about what the issue was. The same points have been dealt with multiple times. Though there have been communication problems, there has been ample opportunity for discussion and clarification. Five months on one sentence is ridiculous. Now SPECIFICO appears to be trying to pick a fight with me on the talk page, parallel to this discussion. We all need to abide by the RfC and move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Upland, when you are asked for a diff to support your assertion on WP, it is not "picking a fight" -- Diffs are how we share information and keep things clear and try to sort out complicated issues. I asked you for the diff because, like others, I cannot figure out what this thread is about, why you came to ANI with content concerns, what you're asking for and who you think needs to be involved or to explain their views or behavior. To me, it looks like you're complaining about "edit-warring" when the culprit is an editor with whom you agree who resumed blind reverting. But then you have lots of aspersions about bad guys like me who happen to understand and accept MVBW's resoned and well-founded explaination of the text he wrote. So this thread, like your pointless vague RfC that remained unclear even after the close, is going nowhere. Too bad for you, I guess, but when you start making a mess and then blaming everyone else for it that's really no goodsky. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the RfC was very clear: the OED's statement on etymology should be referenced, with attribution, alongside other opinions. Fish and Karate clarified exactly what they meant: "I should have said 'WHEN the OED's discussion of the phrase is referenced within this article', not 'IF'" [13]. Throughout this thread, SPECIFICO has been denying the outcome of the RfC:

• "Did you bother to read the close of the RfC? It does not require the disputed reference to be used. It simply limits the claims that can be attributed to it." [14] - this is just wrong.
• I've pointed out this misrepresentation to SPECIFICO ([15]), but they continue to imply that the RfC came to a different conclusion than it did, as the next bullet point indicates.
• "We have MVBW, whose view is apparently shared by 1/2 dozen editors, reading the close as supporting a certain article text." [16] - the article text that SPECIFICO is referencing here actually removes the OED discussion ([17]). That's not a possible reading of the RfC close.

This denial of the outcome of the RfC result is a real problem. If an editor is arguing so vociferously that an RfC turned out in the complete opposite way to how it actually turned out, imagine how difficult it is to deal with more complex issues in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure why you guys started this thread in relation to the RfC. Is it a complaint about me? I can not tell for other contributors, but I do not mind including the reference to OED (as closing of the RfC suggest). I only think it should be in included in appropriate section, for example as I moved it in this edit. I event agree to soften the language [18]. If by any reason I temporarily removed this phrase later, along with other changes, that was unintentional. Sorry. Once again, I do not mind including this. There were other disagreements, but they were not related to the RfC.My very best wishes (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an complaint about any particular editor. It is about the fact that, more than a month after the RfC, arguments and edit warring have continued to rage. I don't understand how you could not be aware of the issue as you have been arguing continuously about it since 2 November. After the RfC closed, I tried to insert the OED's statement into the article. You immediately reverted it, saying RfC closing does not tell it must be used on the page. It tells: "IF it is referenced within this article" - I do not think it should be used/referenced at all - as explained on talk page. I don't think that's unintentional. After the closer clarified the closing statement, you continued to argue, saying I do not think there was a consensus on the RfC to include that phrase. As recently as 17 March, you removed the OED's statement again. As I said, this is not about one editor. It is about the fact that we have had five months' debate about one sentence and that some editors have refused to accept the RfC and move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a content dispute that nobody at ANI has time for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. It's about editors not abiding by an RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC about a content dispute. I appeal to the deafening silence of the void. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked at the Help Desk what to do if other editors didn't abide by an RfC and I was told to come here. Is that wrong? I thought RfCs were binding. We have already tried DRN and it failed dismally, so I don't think that's a particularly helpful suggestion.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Normally probably yes, but on a heated WP:ARBAPDS article no. You're best to either pray for the blessings of Divine Providence, contact a friendly admin directly, or attempt to invoke Discretionary Sanctions at WP:AE. Or, edit other parts of the project until the other editors lose interest (note: that will likely not happen while Donald Trump lives at the White House). This may also interest MEDCOM if it still functions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"When it is raining, you should wear galoshes" does not imply "it is raining" -- "When you use OED you should attribute its statement" does not mean "you should use OED". The cure for what ails you is to launch an RfC with a yes or no poll on explicit article text or other binary choice. You didn't get the close you were expecting or hoping for because the RfC (as I said at the outset) was malformed. Just like this ANI. Just like you didn't follow instructions on your notifications. It's rather extraordinary to post all this BS at ANI and basically nobody cares. Usually almost anything attracts a circular firing squad, marching band, and cavalry. figure out what your heart tells you is the appropriate article text and propose it on talk or in a new RfC. As MVBW says, that OED bit is the least of the problems. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: "'When you use OED you should attribute its statement' does not mean 'you should use OED'". It's getting extremely difficult to continue assuming good faith here. You know that Fish and Karate explicitly said that the RfC result was that the OED should be included. I've linked to Fish and Karate's statement two times above: "In closing, the consensus seemed to me to be that the reference to the OED should be included. I should have said 'WHEN the OED's discussion of the phrase is referenced within this article', not 'IF'" [19]. You're deliberately misrepresenting the outcome of the RfC. We really need an admin in here to direct SPECIFICO to accept the RfC result and stop misrepresenting it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be nice. You are not being polite. The RfC didn't even say what the article text should be. MVBW has explained all this many times. Start a clear well-formed RfC and settle the issue. ANI is not the place to sort out your confusion about whatever content you would like see somewhere or other in the article. SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC did present a "binary choice". Most people answered yes or no, including you. Please accept the RfC and move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• There was a disagreement over whether to include this.
• There was an RfC about it.
• The RfC said that it should be included but should also note that other sources disagree.
• Any confusion about what the RfC said was clarified on Feb 12. SPECIFICO disagreed with the reading of consensus.[20]
• After the clarification was provided, Jack Upland correctly reinserted the disputed content.[21]
• Neither SPECIFICO or MVBW removed it until March 16, when My very best wishes incorrectly removed it without explanation.
• The removed content was restored, but in the context of reverting unrelated content.
• A severe edit war broke out over unrelated content, and the small bit of content that was enacted via RfC was merely caught up in the revert-warring. No editor attempted to remove or reinstate Oxford outside of the unrelated edit war.
• No reason was given for the original removal, and it should have been uncontroversially reinstated, separate from the ongoing content dispute.
• Drmies intervention was obviously a check on the edit war over the unrelated content dispute. It only erroneously removed Oxford as a side effect, as all the other reverters had done, and cast no judgment on the RfC content.
• Jack Upland incorrectly interpreted and accused Drmies's edit as attempting to override the decision of the RfC.
• Jack Upland assigned a large deal of complexity to his report of this incident, when in reality it was merely caught up in unrelated conflict and could have been restored uncontroversially. This was never attempted. Every restoration of the content was done so in a controversial, edit warring manner.
• Darouet restored the RfC content via unrelated revert. The restoration of the RfC content is correct, the rest of the revert is neither "right" or "wrong".
• Regardless of how that dispute plays out, the RfC content should not be removed again short of a new formal consensus.
• Fundamentally, this complaint was simple and has been resolved, with the RfC content restored back to the article. Users who remove that content, even unintentionally, will be warned for disruptive removal of content and blocked if necessary. Is there any reason for this thread to remain open? Swarm ♠ 23:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to sort this out. I'm not sure that everything in this sequence is correct, but it's the best we have for now. My impression was that one source of confusion was that the putative RfC-ratified text was bundled with other POV text that needed to be removed and had not been decided by RfC. Also, isn't it the case that on your second-last bullet point above that Darouet not only reinstated the "RfC content" but also reinstated the controversial unrelated content that, as you say, should have been separated to avoid the trainwreck? SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: That is absolutely correct, and is indeed exactly what I meant by "unrelated revert" and "rest of the revert". I believe the fundamental points in my summary are correct, if heavily simplified. Swarm ♠ 01:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Swarm. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So to wrap this up, if MVBW now wishes to propose what he believes is improved article text and location, would it be OK to start a new RfC concerning that specific proposal? I presume that nothing short of a new RfC would work at this point. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly reject that summary as false and unfair, but that's irrelevant. If the RfC is upheld, that's what I came here for. Except that summary minimises the fact that there has been an ongoing debate about that sentence since 2 November. It was not removed unintentionally as part of an unrelated revert. SPECIFICO's comment above indicates the intention of launching a fresh debate about the same sentence, attempting to move it out of the etymology section, as has been done and discussed before. How many more months do we have to debate the one sentence? So, please close this thread, but keep the article locked down too. Give everyone time to cool off and focus on something else.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, any debate prior to February 12 can go out the window. The dispute was settled at that point, and was uncontested until the recent edit warring, which was unrelated. There was quite literally no reasoning given for reverting the RfC content with the rest of the edit war. Perhaps it was especially convenient for those who wanted removal, but neither side behaved any different. Also, I don't know why you're defensive, I'm just pointing out that this whole thing is unnecessary. You could have just reinserted it by itself the whole time. Anyone could have. You presented it as some complex issue here, when in reality no one even noticed it. Not even the admin who intervened. No one was actually trying to overrule the consensus (apart from the original removal, which never could have actually stood). C'mon. You have a formal RfC consensus supporting the closure. It was you yourself who played in to the legitimacy of the RfC being challenged. It's been settled. They can't overrule a formal consensus. I assumed this was an honest mistake on your part, apparently influenced by what you felt was admin intervention for the wrong side. Why you would fail to reinsert the content uncontroversially otherwise would seem questionable. Swarm ♠ 10:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: It's not so simple as that: it probably wouldn't have been possible to simply reinstate the OED content. In the above thread, SPECIFICO has repeatedly denied that the result of the RfC was to include the OED content (see my posts above, and this quote from SPECIFICO: "Did you bother to read the close of the RfC? It does not require the disputed reference to be used. It simply limits the claims that can be attributed to it."). This revert prominently removes the OED content, despite my note in the previous revert that "it was decided earlier to include OED." The OED content wasn't just being removed by accident as part of a larger content dispute. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly was no accident. No one who had debated the issue since 2 November and heavily participated in the RfC and subsequent discussions could have forgotten about it. Clearly SPECIFICO and "My very best wishes" did not accept the clarification of the RfC on 12 February. In fact MVBW removed the sentence on the same day [22]. Earlier this month, SPECIFICO repeatedly removed the RfC content, along with related material, claiming "consensus". If you make your edits in the name of "consensus", you are saying that you are bearing in mind previous discussions and the contributions of other editors. Clearly, you would have to be mindful of a recent RfC. As we know, SPECIFICO had not forgotten the RfC at all. He simply took a different view of what the consensus was and made this abundantly clear.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of my edit was to fix misinterpretation of the source by Safire - as explained in the edit summary. Leaving second phrase in place ("Similarly...") would then appear as a contradiction. It had to be replaced by "However...", or the phrase had to be moved elsewhere on the page, as I previously did this edit, [23]. Removing this phrase was a mistake on my part. It could be easily resolved by simply placing this specific phrase back to the page, instead of making edit war and reporting it on the ANI. Once again, I agree with including this phrase (in appropriate context!) - as follows from the closing of the RfC and my own previous edits on the page (diffs above). My very best wishes (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that MVBW has deeply researched understanding and careful adherence to WP policy and guidelines with respect to this article. I think he has proposed Verified and NPOV ways to cite the dicey OED source. As Swarm notes, this content dispute was settled prior to February, when Thucydides411's ANI/AE TBAN expired, and if he so chooses, MVBW can easily correct the article text once again. SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "correction" required regarding Safire's article - it's accurately summarized in the current version of the article. The "correction" that MVBW and you have been pushing is based on a very simple misinterpretation of Safire's article. This is explained very clearly here. Please don't take this AN/I as giving justification for another unilateral "correction" of the Safire content. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This thread had nothing to do with Safire. I've already stated "screw safire" on the article talk page. it's a pithy little vintage bit of nothing that, in WP terms, is WP:UNDUE. You may be able to push an OED-affiliated reference solely on the branding and pedigree of its publisher. Not so an daily press Op-Ed by Safire. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Soilentred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Soilentred is changing various software articles to indicate that a certain version of Windows is required, such as Windows 7, even for software that ran under other versions of Windows in earlier releases. I noticed this on Opera (web browser), and fixed it there, and proceeded to make the same revert for other software that I knew ran on earlier versions of Windows. Soilentred reverted me, with edit summaries such as Stop following me and reverting all my edits. I attempted to engage on their talkpage, but it wasn't very useful. So, what now? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO: (1) Soilentred seems to be making obviously incorrect changes. In the examples I looked at, when the product was released the claimed minimum required version of Windows was not even available ; (2) if an editor makes a bad edit, of course you check whether or not it was an isolated case. I have notified the editor of this discussion. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drat. Thanks very much for passing on the notification, I know I have to do that myself, and I thought about it while I was typing... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) If you notice a problem with another user's edits, it is a completely acceptable use of edit history to check if they've made the same mistake multiple times. See this statement by ArbCom, in particular DMM's additional comment. Moreover, if they tell you to "stop following them", that is an assumption of bad faith and is actually an inversion of the WP:HOUND policy, and Soilentred (talk · contribs) should be told unambiguously to (a) knock it off with the bad-faith hounding accusations and (b) stop making problematic content edits or risk a TBAN or block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Their snarkiness aside, but if a software article is stating that the current stable version is X.X.X which is only compatible from a particular version of Windows, or whatever OS, is that wrong? I think Soilentred has a point. In the Opera example, would the article really be correct in saying the current stable version, 51.0.2830.55, is compatible with pre-7 Windows? Blackmane (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it's intended to refer only to the current version, but I've raised the question at the Infobox Software talk page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that WP:NOTMANUAL, at the very least the earlier versions should be covered as well. Wikipedia is also supposed to have articles on fully defunct software that is no longer supported, some of which works on newer OSes by means of unofficial patches of questionable legality -- what would Soilentred's solution for those articles be? But it doesn't really matter, since even if Sarek was 100% wrong on the content, he clearly had reason to be wrong, so "Stop following me and reverting all my edits" was out-of-line.

It should also be noted that in the diffs about Soilentred appears to be directly admitting to engaging in OR by saying "I ran this software on several computers with different versions of Windows installed and found that Windows 7 or later worked"; Sarek did not misread that comment, as it looks exactly the same to me. If Soilent continues engaging in OR, they will need to be TBANned or blocked.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I see Soilent commented at WT:SOFTWARE and has not edited since. That's a good sign, perhaps. If he doesn't stick to discussion, though, "what now" is going to be a block. He's making contested edits, so he can either follow WP:BRD or accept some sort of editing restriction in exchange for a conditional unblock, IMO. Swarm ♠ 00:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

5.236.185.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

5.236.164.226 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

These IPs are repeatedly removing the maintenance tags (notability, need for third party sources, and BLP sourcing) as well as Category:Living people from Daniele Bonaviri. The article is referenced solely to the subject's website. I've reverted twice, so won't touch it again, but had left a message on Talk:Daniele Bonaviri about it. Could an admin look at this?

The article has a very murky contribution history to say the least. It was rev-deleted for blatant copyvio yesterday. It's original creator (Rashtooiy) re-added the copyvio today as well as removing the maintenance tags and Category:Living people. It's been rev-deleted again. Another user (Designcore) had repeatedly created the now-salted Draft:Daniele Bonaviri with the same copyvio. The copyvio material was also created in User:Designcore/sandbox (now deleted). Oddly, Designcore's only other contribution was to submit the rejected Draft:Joel Vicent Joseph for AfC review [27] despite not appearing anywhere else in the contribution history. Designcore also appears to have registered two accounts [28]. The second account is named Vinart.promo (now blocked for spam user name). Their only edit here (I think) was to paste the copyvio into the community sandbox [29]. Vinart Promo is the company that built and maintains Bonaviri's website. It's based in Iran as are the IPs. The IPs have taken over after Designcore and Rashtooiy received warnings about their behaviour. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to CambridgeBayWeather who has now semi-protected the article. Fast service! :) Voceditenore (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find any secondary sources by googling either. I've PRODded the article. It's not sticky PROD for BLPs, since there is a source, such as it is (the discography on the subjects own site), but ordinary PROD, so it will no doubt be removed as soon as the IP person gets autoconfirmed. (Cynical? Me?) Bishonen | talk 18:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The irony of all this, Bish, is that he performs a lot in Italy and does appear the news there. It night even be capable of saving with a lot of work, but I'm certainly not going to do it after the shenanigans. Voceditenore (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I call blocking them when it happens! :P Swarm ♠ 00:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Since late 2017, Spintendo has become the most frequent answerer of COI requests generated by the {{request edit}} template, by far. This is a process encouraged by the community and endorsed by the WP:COI guideline (for those unfamiliar, the requests themselves can be found via AnomieBOT/EDITREQTable and also Category:Requested edits). At first this seemed a blessing, as a serious backlog had developed over time; within weeks, Spintendo had reduced it nearly to zero. Since then, they have continued responding so quickly as to become, in effect, the only volunteer editor working the queue. For others aware of this fact, I have to assume they've been grateful that someone else is handling this sometimes thankless task.

But the question of whether Spintendo is actually doing the community a favor is worthy of closer examination. In recent months, I have seen how Spintendo's monopolization of edit requests, unhelpful and sometimes hostile attitude, and idiosyncratic interpretation of policies and guidelines have harmed the process. Before getting too far into this, I want to be clear about what I am not saying: I am not saying Spintendo is always wrong to reject requests; indeed not all are worthy. Nor am I saying Spintendo rejects them 100% of the time: in fact Spintendo has implemented requests that I have made. Initially I viewed these conflicts as content disputes, as the cautious reader might. However, Spintendo's judgment has been repeatedly called into question at WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:BLP/N, and via WP:RfC, and it is possible to demonstrate a pattern of conduct that I believe rises to the level of AN/I.

Regardless of one's opinion of paid editing or paid editors, I hope readers here would agree that the COI request process is an important one, a necessary supplement to the efforts at WP:AfC and WP:COI/N. My goal here is to make others aware of this issue, to bring some sanity to the COI request process, and perhaps even encourage other volunteers to pitch in more often. That said, in order to demonstrate that there is a problem, here are some recent examples of Spintendo's disagreeable reviewing style, citing matters both resolved and unresolved. I have limited my examples to those I have participated in or investigated and where I have confidence in the quality of the requests made:

• Michael J. Saylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently asked to include a noteworthy detail about Mr. Saylor's college education, cited to the Washington Post. Spintendo responded by casting doubt on the Post story, offering a puzzling rationale based on guesses about the college administration to justify this position. Soon, Drmies and Cullen328 joined the discussion to say the detail was germane and the source reliable, so Drmies made the edit, and Spintendo did not respond again.

• MicroStrategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have suggested replacing a poorly referenced awards section with one I believe is better sourced. Spintendo declined the request within two hours, arguing variously that the recognition was based on "subjective metrics" and the source publications had "deep connections" to the industry. I explained why I thought these criticisms were misapplied, but upon subsequent reply Spintendo offered a different set of grounds for objection, also not based on content guidelines. As of this writing, I consider the matter unresolved.

• Broadridge Financial Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A colleague, Danilo Two, has been offering suggested additions for this very short, multiply-tagged article, for several months now. In a discussion stretching back to late January, Spintendo has opposed the inclusion of a proposed "History" section, focusing exclusively on a single Forbes magazine article they claim is WP:OR. Due to the lack of input from other volunteers, and following Spintendo's suggestion, Danilo brought the matter to DRN, where it remains unresolved.

• Iteris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A very similar situation involves my colleague Inkian Jason proposing a "Products and services" section to this likewise underwritten article, where Spintendo has, since January, declined requests to add at least three different versions of seemingly uncomplicated and well-referenced information. After Jason made edits based on feedback, Spintendo would move the goalposts, sometimes agreeing to add the odd bullet point or two to the live article but offering inscrutable reasons to oppose the rest, meanwhile using an elaborate "reply quotebox" format which makes the conversation extremely difficult to follow. The matter is currently also at DRN, and so is unresolved.

• New York Life Insurance Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here, 16912 Rhiannon spent several months going back and forth with Spintendo, who insisted on including a section sourced only to a single report by a NJ state agency. (There are no other sources; it generated no news.) When she posted an RfC seeking others' input, Spintendo responded with a long and condescending "survey" that Rhiannon was expected to answer to demonstrate her understanding of "secondary" sources. After she withdrew and rephrased the RfC, Icewhiz showed up and removed the section, following which other editors commented in basic agreement. As of this writing, Spintendo has not responded.

My observations regarding patterns in Spintendo's interactions with COI editors; some of these examples necessarily make reference to content disagreements, but are focused on repetitions amounting to AN/I-worthy behavior:

• Closes requests too quickly, not allowing time for any other editors who may also be watching the request edit queue. This is apparent on the Broadridge talk page, where Spintendo three times declined separate requests within a couple of hours each, effectively discouraging follow-up questions. Moreover, by acting in such haste, Spintendo makes snap judgments which other editors have sometimes had to address later. (For example, this happened to Rhiannon in December on the talk page for HubSpot, where Kvng and Keithbob eventually got involved.)

• Repeatedly questions the validity of reliable secondary sources, and asks instead for primary sources contemporary with the events themselves. This is especially apparent on the Broadridge article where Spintendo rejected the Forbes piece while asking for "primary sources published at the time", and the Saylor article where they rejected the Washington Post and asked for substantiation by "someone in the registrars office" at MIT. See also Spintendo's extensive wikilawyering about what constitutes a "secondary source" in order to justify basing a whole section on a NJ state government report at New York Life.

• Otherwise misinterprets rules to stymie COI requests, for example asserting the essay WP:NUMBER1, which is very clearly about AfD and Notability, applies to the inclusion of information within articles. In another circumstance, claiming passages are "insufficiently paraphrased" and therefore WP:COPYVIO even where the proposed language contained details not in the identified source passage (look for "ListHub" in this discussion on the article for Move (company)). From a MOS perspective, Spintendo sometimes replaces or substitutes prose paragraphs with lists, especially in "History" sections, currently at MicroStrategy and formerly at Realtor.com (a situation later resolved by SMcCandlish), although Wikipedia conventions and MOS:LISTBASICS specifically discourage this practice.

• Opposes COI requests only until another volunteer editor takes action, and then disappears from the conversation, suggesting they care more about frustrating COI editors than the article content itself. See discussions abandoned at Michael J. Saylor, New York Life, and HubSpot once others intervened.

A case could be made that this amounts to targeted harassment of disclosed COI contributors and, for anyone who has experienced it, it certainly feels like gaslighting. But that judgment call need not be made to see there is a problem here. It's enough to observe that Spintendo has become a bottleneck for COI requests: this pattern of opposing well-intentioned and carefully-constructed content proposals with lengthy, confusing, argumentative objections based on novel interpretations of guidelines or expedient standards entirely of their own invention has become a major challenge for those of us who are trying to follow the rules and work through the {{request edit}} process. That is not just myself and my colleagues, but anyone following the advice to use this template as given at WP:COIEDIT.

Until such time as this changes, I cannot recommend to any company or organization that they use the {{request edit}} template. Meanwhile, I fear that the breakdown of this process will embolden others who would edit without disclosure. The queue needs other voices, and Spintendo must either follow the accepted guidelines in reviewing requests or cease doing so altogether. Community oversight, and some common sense, is badly needed here. Thanks for reading—I realize it's a lot to consider on a subject most are content to ignore—and I'll be happy to answer any questions that I can. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The box that you claim to be extensive wikilawyering is a fine example of defining primary, secondary, and tertiary sourcing, as you would learn in any historiography course. I've never heard of Spintendo before, and I've not checked any of your other links, but if this is his style, we need him to keep going. [Update] I have checked Saylor, and he's absolutely right: the Washington Post is relying on faulty information, because like all other newspapers, it's an expert at publishing new stuff, not an expert at scholarly-level research. This is not speculation: it's exactly what you're expected to do in evaluating sources, and if you think that we can trust a source when its sources are faulty, you need to go to your local college and speak with the reference librarian. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At New York Life, the source in dispute was a state government report, easily recognizable as a WP:PRIMARY source, later adjudicated to be so by editors participating in an RfC. Re: Saylor, the objection was entirely based on speculation. The Post is not in the habit of reporting things it believes to be false, and there was no reasonable cause to doubt it. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, actual college librarian here. We instruct students that the Washington Post and newspapers of similar caliber are generally considered reliable sources appropriate for their use in assignments, just as they are appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles. Of course scholarly peer-reviewed resources are preferable, but they are generally unnecessary for basic, non-controversial biographical facts. We teach students to think critically about sources, but we do not teach them to engage in belligerent groundless nitpicking nor do we encourage them to present others with condescending quizzes. There's nothing here that I would consider consistent with an appropriate approach to critically evaluating sources, these examples are instead consistent with the actions of an wikilawyering ideologue determined to get their way regardless of the content of those sources. It is disappointing that you do not distinguish between the two in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to comment on this when you basically took the words out of my mouth. There is no way I'm going to look at all of the links provided, nor read through all of the above complaint. (TLDR) However, looking at the talk page and seeing the chart in question, that is definitely not describing primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. It's like saying, "A pilot writes information about flying a plane (primary source). A writer turns that information into a draft of a flight manual (secondary source). A publisher turns that into an actual flight manual for the public to read (tertiary source)." No, the flight manual is still a primary source. A primary source is one which is directly related or involved with to the issue or item discussed, and does the original research themselves. A secondary source is a source unaffiliated with the original source, but uses the primary sources for research, is qualified to interpret them, and is under editorial (and often peer reviewed) oversight. (ie: journalism) A tertiary source is one that relies on secondary sources (like Wikipedia does), does no original research of its own, and does not offer interpretations of primary sources. The PDF WWB Too listed above needs a lawyer to interpret it and is definitely a primary source. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The community has done an excellent job of correcting me in the past where that has been needed, and I put my faith in that community now to do the same. The concerns which arise from this, most active group of COI editors is not too surprising, in that they submit a good amount of edit requests overall. And while the complaint about being served "too quickly" is perhaps a new one as far as COI edit requests go, it is nevertheless, understandable that declining these requests is something they find troubling. However, the belief that this is a targeted action of stonewalling or else incompetence, I don't agree with.

1. In the case of Michael J Saylor, Drmies was quite right in asking why a grown man would pay to see to it that this detail ends up in his bio. It's a good question, but Drmies thought better of going round after round arguing the triviality of the claim, and ultimately decided, based on policy, to approve the addition. Drmies is a peacemaker, and I completely respect that.
2. With respect to MicroStrategy, the inclusion of these awards which the editor desires to place there are examples of WP:PEACOCK. We all know that these awards, while indicating important aspects of the article's subject, are difficult to rank objectively,. Additionally these awards may be intended as information for the publication's audiences, and not Wikipedia's (my reasoning being that not everyone will know what it means to be ranked as overall number 1 in industry ontime accrual rating procedures.) My actions here declining these additions align with other editors actions and are not too revolutionary.
3. Broadridge concerns actions which another legal entity - ADP - was responsible for. Broadridge was incorporated in 2007, which raised concerns in my mind over who rightfully owns a company's past actions. I believe that these claims belong in the ADP article. Because of mine and the COI' editor's tardiness in replying at a mediated dispute forum, the COI editor's dispute request was closed. The COI editor was told their appeal could take months. It was my urging of the case to be reopened that it continues now. This would appear to be an instance where I helped them to continue an action against myself. Why? For me, it just felt like the closing was my fault, and that they deserved a full chance to be heard.
4. Iteris has been addressed at DRN. The words of Robert McClenon can speak for themselves in that case. 1., 2.
5. Finally there is New York Life Insurance company, where the editor would like to remove information regarding a market response report prepared by the NJ Department of Banking and Insurance. These market reports are fairly regular (in that many banks and insurance companies in that state undergo them). They are begun in response to complaints from consumers. The report on NYLIC is significant because it is the only one in recent history that NJ DOBI has had to do for that company. The COI editor was concerned with how the report looked in the article. I reworded it by highlighting the investigation as a net gain for the company, in that it heralded customer improvements (which was stated in the report's opening paragraphs) I also made sure page numbers were ascribed where necessary. In response to an edit request, I placed the claim in the main body of text, and not its own section. The COI editor understandably now would like all of it removed, but as I understood the rules, removing bad information because it was bad was not a good idea. That process is still ongoing. Spintendo      23:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For those wanting to know about the chart I got that from Wikipedia's party and person page located here, with slight modification as you can see, to the examples. The statement that "A secondary source is a source 1) unaffiliated with the original source, but 2) uses the primary sources for research, 3) is qualified to interpret them, and 4) is under editorial (and often peer reviewed) oversight." is just how I see it as well. I believe that NJDOBI falls under this rubric as:

1. The NJDOBI is professionally unaffiliated with NYLIC, in that one entity is a government regulator specializing in government regulations and enforcement while NYLIC specializes in offering insurance.
2. NJ DOBI made their examinations of primary source documents provided by NYLIC
3. As attorneys, the officials at NJ DOBI were qualified to examine the documents and to interpret them.
4. The editorial oversight of the NJ DOBI comes from the NJ State Legislature, which regulates ond oversees the DOBI

Spintendo      00:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've only looked at the Saylor saga, "Request to re-include mention graduation ranking". If I had been dealing with it (and everyone's lucky I didn't!) I wouldn't have gone anywhere near a discussion about whether the source was primary, or reliable, or erroneous, or anything else. I would have just have said, no, I don't feel like making this edit: it is not appropriate to a brief biography of someone's life and it does not improve the encyclopedia article. If anyone else had felt like making the edit I would have thought they were a bit misguided but I wouldn't have objected or reverted. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Chiming in as I was mentioned vis-a-vis New York Life. While I think it was correct to remove the section, and I BOLDly did so (and indeed there is consensus at the RfC presently to do so), I do not think it was unreasonable for Spintendo to object. In my view this is a situation that many editors would remove after examining (and even more would remove given a reasoned short UNDUE arguement based on a single primary source) - but Spintendo's rejection of the edit request was within the norm of Wikipedia editors and was reasonable.Icewhiz (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank you for acting BOLDly. The frustrating thing about that darned claim was that I could not locate anything else mentioning it wherever I looked. I had to tell myself that at the end of the day, if it's that routine where the only people talking about it are the ones doing the investigating, then it probably should have been removed eventually. And while I still believe it to be a very problematic secondary source, I'm satisfied with the outcome. Spintendo      12:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest That Policy Issue Be Taken to VPP

Well, well. This is really very much a case of biting the hand that feeds one. The request-edit queue is a means for paid editors to request that volunteer editors do them a service that they are not required to do. User:Spintendo is being reported here for not being a good enough clerk-typist in working off the queue of COI request edits. I have just responded to the two issues that are at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and in both cases it appears that the paid editor is requesting the services of a second volunteer editor because the first volunteer editor, Spintendo, isn't rewriting the articles as requested. My first thought is that if paid editors want Wikipedia articles rewritten to their specifications, they can rewrite the article themselves and host it on their corporate web site (either with full attribution, or with no attribution by completely rewriting it and putting it under corporate copyright).

I agree with the filing party, User:WWB Too, as to not recommending to companies that they use the request edit queue, but not as to blaming either Spintendo or the volunteer community.

I see a policy issue that needs to be addressed, which is that the request-edit queue has become an attractive nuisance and needs to be rethought.

However, this thread is a conduct complaint at WP:ANI. I certainly do not see any valid basis for a conduct complaint against User:Spintendo or any other volunteer editor. Can we close this and take it to Village pump? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Clearly the behavior of Spintendo is at issue here, not just the queue. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gamaliel - Yes, they have made it the issue here. It shouldn't be. My first argument is essentially that they have no right to make it into an issue, because Spintendo is providing a voluntary service, and they are complaining that the service isn't good enough. However, second, as a conduct issue, what do they want? The only remedy that we can provide here at WP:ANI would be to topic-ban Spintendo from working the queue. Is that what they want? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I would like to find a solution short of a topic ban, and it's no accident that I did not ask for one. A preferable outcome would be greater participation in this process, so that when Spintendo offers a response that does not comply with content guidelines—which, as I have demonstrated, is too frequent an occurrence to be ignored—that others may weigh in short of having to seek redress at 3O or DRN. Additionally, I'm surprised at your suggestion that {{request edit}} is the problem here. It's a flawed tool, difficult to use and harder to find, but seeking to have it closed down would only drive more COI activity underground. It serves a purpose, but it's not working well. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 03:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:WWB Too - First, I know that you aren't asking for a topic-ban, because I know that you know that if you have User:Spintendo topic-banned, no one else will be working the queue. Second, I am not sure how likely you are to get greater participation in the process when you have made participation in the process unpleasant for Spintendo, and have shown other editors who might consider helping out that what they will get is buffets and spitting. Third, I wasn't suggesting that the request-edit tool be shut down, only that it be rethought, but by dragging the editor who provides you with assistance here, you are making a case that perhaps the tool should be shut down. It's a flawed tool, and it's not working well, partly because you paid editors are just using the tool to pile on increasingly burdensome and complex edit requests to rewrite Wikipedia articles to your own specifications. If you want articles that meet your specifications, you have your own web sites. Spintendo is voluntarily providing you with a service that neither he nor Wikipedia is required to provide you with, and you are making things unpleasant. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, as I believe the diffs above verify, my colleagues and I have been unfailingly polite to Spintendo, and always aim to be concise and careful in our content proposals when using {{request edit}}. I never want to be at AN/I, but given the above I felt I had no other recourse. As Mary Gaulke states below, it is Spintendo who is frequently unpleasant, condescending, and resentful in tone. Likewise, as she observes, Spintendo's feedback is "dramatically different" from other volunteer respondents. This has been my experience, too.

Additionally: I am open to a re-imagining of the process; it so happens it's a topic I'd raised with Doc James, Harej, DGG, Smallbones, Fuzheado and others at Wikimania Montreal. I think a queue that is easier to read, with instructions for both requesting editors and moderators to make things easy to follow would be great. There's too much misunderstanding in this topic area, and I'd support anything that makes it run better. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to respond here, precisely because of the "biting the hand that feeds" point that Robert McClenon made. I'm very grateful for Spintendo's work reducing the edit request backlog, and I've told them as much. And while I'm a fairly infrequent user of the process (Wikipedia is a pretty minor part of my job), I must note that some of the feedback I've received from Spintendo is dramatically different from my experience with other editors and my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines. The ongoing discussions here are a fairly good representation of my two primary observations:

1. Spintendo requests primary sources for information that isn't particularly biased and is well documented in secondary sources (in this case, the identity of the subject's alma mater). This isn't particularly cumbersome, but is a little peculiar.
2. Spintendo seems to resent being asked, even implicitly, to address these requests at all. They do not appear to read very closely, and are dismissive of any moderately nuanced request. (In this case, I proposed moving some information from a very long lead into a new section in the body of the article for the sake of organization, and Spintendo interpreted this as adding completely new information. When I attempted to clarify, Spintendo replied with a somewhat condescending tone.) When Spintendo stopped replying to my clarifications, I proposed that I could re-open the edit request and give another editor a chance to review my requests, since it was clear they were tired of dealing with me. Spintendo interpreted this as me threatening to quit Wikipedia, a misreading which may or may not have been intentional. I'm grateful for all the volunteers who work on edit requests, and I understand that these requests are an imposition. But I'd rather wait out a longer edit request queue than bother someone who seems to dislike this work quite strongly.

I've been an active Wikipedia editor for about four years, but I'm aware I'm still not an expert on some of the finer points of the guidelines. It's possible none of this is unusual or out of bounds. But if nothing else I'd certainly appreciate clarification of where the goalposts are so I can make sure I'm providing straightforward, well-crafted edit requests. Mary Gaulke (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's unfortunate that Spintendo has ended up at the complaints board. Can someone check over Talk:Michael Izza to see if there are any wild interpretations of policy? Cheers. talk to !dave 07:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone is asking, I'll bite: the responses in Note 1 and Note 3 are good examples of how, when asked to make a simple factual change with a reliable secondary source to support it, Spintendo then asks for additional detail that isn't strictly necessary. As demonstrated in my first post above, this happened at Talk:Iteris, and each time the draft was updated, Spintendo subsequently offered new reasons to object.

That said, this is also a good example of two problems I noted in my comment just a few minutes ago: a) the COI contributor clearly knows little about Wikipedia conventions, and so has written a request that is poorly organized and asks too much of the volunteer reviewer, while b) Spintendo's reply is difficult to parse and made all the worse for the terrible "quotebox" format. As a result, they are talking past each other, and the tools aren't helping. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Mary's post, I honestly have no resentful feelings for Mary. She is constantly mentioned by other editors as being an exemplar for COI editing, - kind, concise, and not wasting of time. I can say that I've definately seen the first two. But I have to admit Mary, that the particular request you mentioned was not worded by you very well at all. It did not state overall, that what you wanted was merely to move one thing from one location to another. I am a visual learner, which is a big reason why I use quoteboxes. In that way I can explain actions using shortcuts like color and placement to indicate to the requesting editors my decisions more easily. If Mary had marked the text that she wanted moved in a bright color, say Blue, and underneath it placed a bolded statement that said something like Text to be moved, she and others would see instantly what it is she wanted done and which text she wanted it done to. When I hear people talking about the problems with COI edit requests, Im not thinking of the requests themselves as the problem, I believe the problem is communicating in a more standardized way, using scripts that make use of color and position, that would go a long way towards streamlining requests.

But back to Mary. Her request was very poorly worded, and left me confused about what she wanted. And I do appreciate Mary's candor here, but Mary — you've forgotten to mention how you gave me, in that same request, a 14 page document with the instructions similar to "You find the page. I'm busy. Just look it up on Google." .... Mary — you actually said that last part to me — that I could find the reference for myself on google. How do you expect a person who is doing your paid work for you to respond to that type of behavior. Those words and those actions are not using honey to catch flies Mary, they're using vinegar. So when you said that "perhaps we needed some new eyes on this" but didnt specify whose eyes needed replacing, I mentioned how you would be missed and that I wished you'd reconsider. While the first part was in jest, the second part was not. Mary, I remember one of the first interactions I had with you, back in the not soo long days ago of the 100+ COI edit request queue. I remember you being worried and discussing your plight with editors....what had happened is for whatever reason you were bumped from your place at number 15 I believe, bumped down to number 134. You were concerned about being forgotten, as all that time you had waited patiently to get to number 15 and now here you were all the way back at 134. Would anyone remember you were there waiting? I remember thinking "Dont worry Mary, we're not going to forget about you. I'm not going to forget about you. And I told you as much. I've made a point on occassions to come back to check on your requests to make sure everything was ok and that you weren't alone or forgotten That is the COI edit request reviewer I am deep down inside, and I know you are that same COI edit requester deep down inside as well. I hope that we can both continue to work on COI things together. I know that we can see eye to eye and work out any communication difficulties along the way. Spintendo      13:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Michael Izza request, those claims have Mr. Izza offering, lending, calling upon, encouraging, and being vocal about a great many things.... But not much doing of anything. Is it notable when one person encourages someone else? Is the simple fact of calling upon something now so importantly notable that it must be mentioned in every article where it occurs? I'm sorry, but this looks a lot like garden variety name-dropping to me. Spintendo      13:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have neither the time nor the energy to read over all this and respond in detail (and so I will try to refrain from generalizing about the two editors), but I urge editors not to be too quickly in dismissing WWB's complaints. Those of you who know me know I have little patience with those who abuse Wikipedia for financial purposes (witness my response to the edit request mentioned in this thread), but WWB, for a COI editor, seems to play it straight--though I will admit that my experience with them is somewhat limited. I was also a bit disappointed in some of Spintendo's remarks pertaining to those articles and found them, hmm, exaggeratedly pointed. Casting doubt on RS is fine and acceptable but there is a time and a place for those things--article talk pages should feature (hate that word) such discussions if there are practical, applicable concerns about specific articles and bits of information; general questions and grievances should be brought up elsewhere. I found WWB to be reasonable and an asset, certainly in comparison to other COI editors. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm in a hotel lobby where a Lawrence Welk-type orchestra (is it Herb Alpert?) is heard playing "Blue Moon" over the stereo, so you understand I gots to get up and dance. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More Thoughts and Questions

I have a few thoughts and questions.

First, I have a two-part question for User:Spintendo, or for any other volunteer editor who has been working the queue. The first part of the question is: Have some of the edit requests been lengthy or complex? The second part is: Have the edit requests tended to become more lengthy and complex in the past few months? My ulterior motive for asking this is that I wonder whether Spintendo, by addressing simple requests ably, is essentially setting up high expectations that they can work wonders in carrying out complex requests.

Second, I wonder whether there is a cognitive disconnect between what the paid editors and their corporate managers want and what they can get and ask in a volunteer organization. Demands that someone do their job better in various ways (more quickly, more pleasantly, more proficiently, etc.) make sense in an employee content, because the manager has the ultimate option, which they would prefer not to use, to fire the employee, so that the employee really has an incentive to heed the advice to do a better job. However, volunteers are working the edit-request queue, and the corporate managers don’t really have an alternative, other than to put the articles up on the corporate web site. It isn’t realistic to expect that the use of a complaint mechanism such as WP:ANI will result in better volunteer service. As I said yesterday, the only real question is whether the paid editors would prefer to rely entirely on other volunteers without Spintendo. (Also, the fact that the paid editors are rewarding a service with buffets and spitting is a reason why other volunteer editors may prefer not to work the queue.) I am wondering whether the paid editors are using a thought process that is more appropriate to employment than to receiving a voluntary service.

Third, there seems to be agreement that the tool is flawed and can use improvement. Can the paid editors, who are the beneficiaries of the tool, assist in improving the tool to serve them better?

Fourth, and this may be minor but is a persistent subtheme, the paid editors keep saying that they do not want to demand a lot of time, but they are demanding a lot of time. For instance, there have been several requests filed by paid editors at the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) recently. Most recently two of them asked for additional voices or additional volunteer input or review. They wanted a neutral editor to review their requests based on policies and guidelines, that is, one more volunteer after Spintendo, and more time. That is a request for yet more volunteer time after a volunteer has already provided their time in working the edit request queue. They say that they don’t want to demand a lot of time, but they are demanding a lot of time.

Fifth, perhaps the request edit queue needs to be rethought in either of two ways, because it is becoming an unlimited demand for the time of volunteer editors. The first way, the more radical, might be to do away with the request edit queue and instead to allow them to edit the articles, with their edits declared as COI in edit summaries, subject to 1RR, and to impose very strict limits on their use of dispute resolution mechanisms. The second way, the less radical, might be simply to impose very strict, probably zero, limits on their use of dispute resolution mechanisms. That is, since they are requesting a voluntary service from the volunteer editors, stop re-litigating the requests.

Sixth, I come back to where I started, with a question for the paid editors. It is unrealistic to expect that Spintendo will be a different editor than Spintendo is, and it seems that is what they are asking. This noticeboard isn’t meant to sound out vague policy complaints; it is meant to request administrative action. The only administrative action that can be provided is some restriction on Spintendo working the edit queue. Is that really what the paid editors want? If so, I suggest that Spintendo simply leave the request edit queue, proudly, knowing that he has done his job as well as he could, and got buffets and spitting. If not, maybe the paid editors should thank Spintendo rather than complaining. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 23:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah 50:6. Read on Palm Sunday, which in Gregorian Year 2018 CE is 25 March. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they've been getting longer, I've only been editing COI edit requests since last year, so I can't say for sure. One thing I do know is a particular group tends to submit requests which can be described as challenging, and they require a bit more attention than others I've seen. Those requests are from Beutler editors. I think one edit request in particular encapsulates a common thread with Beutler requests, the one where they wanted a claim added to the Saylor page that the subject graduated at the top of his class. This claim is an easy one to deconstruct, because it is what it purports to be: Mr Saylor telling the world that he is number one. There isn't any other interpretation for this type of request. It is bold, and it is brash. This request thrust the conversation over the merits of including these types of claims to the forefront. Some of these reasons for inclusion were unique, such as Drmies: ("He was a professor at MIT" — which left me wondering, if he had been a professor at Provo Community College, would Drmies have felt differently). In the end, these discussions were informative and appreciated. But unfortunately not by everyone. Beutler's reaction to discovering that the world might not learn that Mr. Saylor was number one sparked a reaction. There soon became a necessary evil which Beutler needed to vanquish, and I guess that evil became me. It goes without saying that Beutler dislikes all my editing — except in cases where he does like it, and even seeks it out. When my edits are useful to Beutler, there is no problem. Beutler is indignant because I didn't think that the world had to know that Mr. Saylor was number one. Now I know Beutler would beg to differ, but I'm pretty sure that was its essence. I stood here and said No to Beutler, something they may not hear very well. A few of their claims were eventually approved in the well-worn process of consensus building, and no harm was done. If anything, those discussions over whether certain claims warranted inclusion in certain articles, as I said before, strengthened those articles. But for Beutler, that path took longer than the normal path. You could even say that we're here now because their path to Yes wasn't short enough, cause it's curious that these problem edits of mine all seem to be Beutler related. These are 4 different editors: Jason Inkian, Danilo, Rheannon, and WWB — but these individuals are all informed by, and follow in the footsteps of, one editing philosophy — Beutlers. Perhaps the common thread here is the type of information which Beutler is trying to add to the articles, information which sometimes leans in the direction of trivial, and with a lesser quality — a point which I tried making with Beutler just over a month ago. What I'm hearing from them now is that they would like to receive responses from a variety of editors, and less challenging input from me. No one likes to be force fed anything, I agree — so I think its a reasonable request. I certainly don't want them feeling uncomfortable making requests, because at the end of the day that would affect their business, and it's important that I consider that, and I will. Spintendo      13:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be useful if they did feel uncomfortable in making requests. At least, maybe it would useful if they did feel uncomfortable about thinking that they have a right to be tendentious about making their requests and about forumshopping to get their requests approved. That is just my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to respond to all these questions above, and I have revised this reply to make it shorter… but alas it's still not short. One point to make first: I realize that bringing up this issue exposes me to criticism. No one ever wants to be at AN/I, me included. Still, I strongly dispute that this simply amounts to "buffets and spitting". I am trying to raise awareness of what I see as a real problem—for myself in the specifics, and for Wikipedia in general—so I consider it worth the negative feedback regardless. Anyway, the questions:

1. Have requests become more complex? I don't think so; I do acknowledge that "Beutler editor" requests are more involved than the outside editor, but there's a tradeoff to consider: is it better for the PR consultant to ask for a few changes with links to sources, as some do, or to present finished prose with formatted citations and a clear explanation of how the material is intended to benefit the reader? The latter is our approach, and I think it actually saves time for volunteers, if the volunteers are receptive. (Related: if Spintendo believes I am "seeking out" their feedback, this is not so; once they have involved themselves on a given article, I generally feel obligated to cooperate with them, if possible. We're here because eventually I decided it was not.)

1. Are there mismatched expectations from a corporate vs. volunteer perspective? Potentially yes, but it's not insurmountable. I spend a lot of time explaining Wikipedia's community expectations to people who work in corporate settings, because they both tend to have very different experiences. My efforts have always been about bridging this gap. In any case, Wikipedia is too important for brands to not care what is said about them here. But Wikipedia should also care about these articles being worthwhile overviews of companies deemed Notable for Wikipedia's own sake.

1. Can the {{request edit}} tool be improved? Absolutely. It's difficult to find and use, even from a volunteer perspective. And once one has discovered it, there is scant advice to volunteers on how to consider requests, and how to respond. I am sure even Spintendo would agree they are making it up as they go along; where we differ is that I think the results have been wildly mixed, and eventually too problematic to ignore. Obviously, I think it would be better if more editors were involved. It's something I'd be happy to work on, if there might be community support for the undertaking.

1. Are paid editors demanding too much time? Wikipedia guidelines instruct us to ask for volunteer time. We realize this is a precious resource, so in our edit requests we're careful in what we ask for and try to make it easy to agree with us. We also try not to present too much at once. All that any of us are asking for is fair adjudication; Danilo and Jason have asked for more volunteer time only because this has not happened. As demonstrated above, we believe Spintendo is making judgment calls based on personal preference that sometimes contravenes our understanding of accepted content guidelines.

1. How might the process be changed? Limiting COI contributors' access to dispute resolution is a terrible idea: to do otherwise is to grant too much power to the first person who happens to reply. In theory I am not opposed to allowing direct editing with close oversight, but there is not and likely never will be support for this from the community. It's funny, though: this is pretty much how all the other Wikipedia language editions work. English is the outlier in this way.

That was a two-part brainstorm, and was made partly because I see the demands of the COI editors, which were already burdensome to the editors working the edit-request queue, also becoming burdensome to the dispute resolution process. I may be in a minority, especially among editors who very strongly oppose COI editing, in thinking that COI editors should be allowed to edit directly, subject to draconian restrictions, rather than being allowed only to request edits, and then having unlimited second-shot and third-short opportunities to continue demanding that volunteer editors dance to their music. I was suggesting that if COI editors were allowed to make the edits themselves and be reverted and then go to dispute resolution, they wouldn't be clogging the after-queues of dispute resolution. Oh well, I am in a minority, and I am inclined to guess that one subsequent step in this process is that the COI editors, who say that limiting their access to dispute resolution is a terrible idea, will start dragging the dispute resolution volunteers to WP:ANI. I would prefer direct editing with 0RR, and one shot at DR, but that is only my opinion. What we currently have is a process in which the COI editors have multiple stages of begging and claiming, and re-wikilawyering. Maybe that is the inevitable result of prohibiting the COI editors from doing the dirty work of editing, and maybe we should just be their slaves. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. What am I really asking for? I am not asking for a topic-ban. I would however ask Spintendo not to close out requests without allowing for a discussion to take place, and perhaps even to leave alone requests from my team. We have made effective use of this queue for several years prior to Spintendo's arrival, and it can work again if Spintendo does not make it their mission to keep it at "request zero" all the time. The backlog was a problem, yes, but so are the rapid-fire closeouts and rejections we see now.

Finally, to Spintendo's problems being Beutler-related: it so happens the Beutler editors are sophisticated enough to use the dispute resolution processes, including this one here. Most COI accounts are not longtime community members like some of us are. In my initial post, I had included links to other examples that I think bear closer scrutiny. Here they are again: [30][31][32][33] This issue is larger than just us, and I'll gladly accept the backlash if it starts to change how Wikipedia looks at this problem. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again - Time to Close?

Again, since no one has suggested any sort of administrative action against Spintendo, and since the purpose of this noticeboard is for requests for administrative action, not for vague complaints with no real basis, and since, as Gamaliel said, this is about Spintendo, but there is no substantive conduct issue against Spintendo, I will suggest that it is time to close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If any sort of administrative action is proposed, I will probably oppose it. Otherwise, the filing paid editors have said more than enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be suggesting any specific administrative actions. As a trial balloon, I think it has largely served its purpose. However, I would be interested in Spintendo's willingness to consider modifying their interactions with the queue as suggested (see #6) in my longer reply just now. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:WWB Too - What are you asking about User:Spintendo's interactions? For them to be a better servant? For them to stop servicing the queue? I don't see what this "trial balloon" has accomplished, except to establish that when COI editors are given some inches, they complain because they didn't get a mile. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I feel the filing here was out of line. Spintendo has certainly been far more patient with the paid editors than most any editor I have ever met would have been, and I do not see any significant breach of Wikipedia policy. I would argue that the problem here is the COI editors; making an ANI request as a "trial balloon" feels dangerously WP:POINT-y to me. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What User:Icarosaurvus is saying is exactly what I said above. The filing here was, in my opinion, out of line. It appears to have been a "trial balloon" to see to what extent they could bully User:Spintendo and other editors. This "trial balloon" should be closed because any administrative action would be wrong and inappropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm the big thread closer here, but I don't see any reason to rush to close this thread in particular. This is a legitimate place to raise this kind of complaint, and the user is inviting discussion and seeking a resolution, even if they don't want admin intervention specifically. I know paid editors are unpopular but I would echo the above sentiment not to rush into hostile action. We can at least wait for Spintendo to respond to the most recent messages. Let's save the meta-commentary for now. Swarm ♠ 01:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respectfully may partly agree and partly disagree with User:Swarm, who says, "This is a legitimate place to raise this kind of complaint". I consider this particular complaint, as being about being inadequately servile on a category of request that is begging for assistance, to be inherently less than legitimate. I don't think that it is fair to drag a volunteer editor here because they did a satisfactory job as a volunteer rather than a perfect job as a slave. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The meta-commentary can also go here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Request-Edit_Queue_for_Paid_Editors_-_Policy_Issue Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, what I hear from Mr. Beutler is that he would like a more variegated response to his proposals, and I'm more than willing to agree to that. I will go one step further and offer to implement requests from any one of his accounts which I come across and review as being approvable. I offer this because on some occassions I may be the quickest one to respond, and I don't think Beutler would disapprove of my implementing those he wished implemented. If any one of the Beutler account's requests involve claims which I wouldn't approve, or else involve a multi-part request where only some parts of it I would approve, I will leave the entire request untouched on the queue. Spintendo 06:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spintendo, I appreciate your reply here and I am amenable to this. Thank you for participating here; while we may not always agree on the content guidelines, I respect your willingness to talk this through. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While you may be amenable to this that is not how this process should work... If a non-conflicted Wikipedia editor feels the material should not be in the article then the material should not be in the article. Think of the edit request as the first step in the WP:BRD cycle. If it is declined as an edit request take it to talk. If no one is interested in the discussion and the editor who turned down the request can not be convinced, after a brief discussion, then you must accept that the content will not be added.

We are not here to support your business. You, and all paid editors, have a financial incentive to keep pushing. We, volunteers, can counter that by stating that no means no. If that does not work, there is another essay out there for dealing with overly pushy editors, they are simply ignored. I am all for that tactic should a paid editor or groups of editors forget that we are here to build an encyclopedia not service their needs and help them profit off the time we donate to the project. Servicing edit requests is a courtesy and a favor, not a requirement or duty. I strongly suggest that this group of paid editors shift their perspective from being frustrated with the requests which are declined to being thankful for the requests which are implemented. Jbh ^Talk 19:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with User:Jbhunley - We are not here to support your business, and we are not here to be pushed and pulled because your concept of fairness is not neutral. You complained above that all that you wanted was fair adjudication, and that you were only here because you did not get it. No, no, no. You are here because your concept of fair adjudication is not the same as the concept of fair adjudication of neutral editors, and neutral point of view is non-negotiable. The non-negotiability of neutral point of view is, by the way, I am proposing strict limits on access to dispute resolution by paid editors. Unrestricted access by paid editors to dispute resolution allows you to overtax the volunteers in order to tire them into acquiescing into sacrificing neutrality. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand how you feel and I'm sorry we have to disagree here. As a longtime volunteer contributor myself, I am confident in my understanding of how Wikipedia should work. As a paid contributor, I spend a lot of time creating encyclopedic content that I believe is WP:NPOV, well-sourced, and even fairly conservative, so it's very frustrating when the answer is "no" even though Wikipedia's guidelines suggest the answer should be "yes". Hence my concern that all COI requests lately have been reviewed by just one editor, and I would be more concerned still if the guidelines were to state that any single editor's view must be taken as the final answer. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have worked in marketing and public relations, and, frankly, it feels like you are treating Spintendo as an employee doing an unsatisfactory job. I feel JBHunley's point is valid, and even strong. Spintendo is not your employee, and a financial incentive to push edits is completely against the idea of a free encyclopedia. Further, please note that one's interpretations of text may differ from someone else's. Indeed, I've had long, drawn out conversations with editors who, for example, interpreted the fact that something had been "Observed Twice" as meaning it had only "happened twice." Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WWB Too: The point you are missing is that you think the answer should be 'yes' based on your understanding and interpretation of policies and guidelines. Yet an editor without a financial incentive to publish the material feels it does not. If paid editors could be depended on not to read the guidelines in the best interest of accomplishing what they were paid for then we would not have WP:PAID and the ToU would not specifically require paid editors to disclose their edits. You complain that only one editor spends their own time to allow you to make money??!!?? I put it to you that one of the options the community has is to call bullshit on that and each of us, independently and on our own initiative decide that if one is not good enough for you and your compatriots maybe it would be better for the project that no one answer those requests or maybe simply take two or three months to get to them like before that one editor started clearing things out. Please remember that while you are motivated to get your edits in to make money the rest of us are strongly motivated to see that Wikipedia's core content policies are not subverted by commercial interests. Taking a voluntary service for granted and abusing goodwill is a great way to loose access to that service. Jbh ^Talk 22:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support closure: I don’t work the COI queue but my initial reaction was that the original request should have been brought up at WP:COIN or its Talk page, not ANI. ANI seemed inappropriate given that COI queue is a volunteer project. If the recipients are not satisfied with the “service” (WWB Too’s language) then it’s what it is. Singling out a particular editor seemed inappropriate as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The stats

Robert McClenon asked whether edit requests have become lengthier and more complex. I cannot answer that question directly, but I can confirm that edit request filings have become much more numerous since Spintendo took on the thankless task of clearing the queue. PR departments keeping an eye on the backlog have realized that now is the time to file an edit request if they want an immediate response. By looking at the history of AnomieBOT's edit request queue and doing some offline spreadsheeting, I used AnomieBOT's edit summaries to roughly approximate how many edit requests were filed each month.

I can't get the x-axis labels to render correctly. But the large hump on the right side of the graph corresponds to the period November 2017 through March 2018 (five data points). Spintendo began clearing the backlog around December 1, 2017, and edit request filings have rapidly increased because Spintendo has responded much faster than prior editors.

Note that the edit request backlog has stayed clear thus far, most likely because of Spintendo. The following graph averages the number of edit requests outstanding in all of AnomieBOT's edit summaries for each calendar month, from the creation of EDITREQTable in July 2012 to the present.

The graph above shows that the edit request backlog currently sits at a low not seen since the edit request queue was created in July 2012. The backlog has a tendency to grow rapidly until an editor spends a few weeks clearing it out. But these editors typically do not return to keep the backlog small after they have drastically reduced the number of entries, probably because answering edit requests is exhausting; hence the backlog quickly returns to its original levels. January 2018 through March 2018 marks the first three month period in several years where the backlog has been cleared and has stayed cleared. I have no doubt this is due to Spintendo's efforts. Altamel (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I rotated the x-axis labels. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is amazing data and I thank you very much for posting it. I sense that the Beutler response would be, what good is it having the edit requests go out quicker if he's denying all of them? To counter that, we'd need to see a graph of every one of my edit requests, implemented versus declined, to see what the trend looked like, which is something I think would be worthwhile to see. Thank you again Altamel for compiling this! Spintendo      06:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is all really interesting. I would also be curious how many of these are the "Beutler requests" over time, as myself and my colleagues have been regular users. My guess is we are fairly consistent, however it's certainly possible we may have been more active in recent months. And Spintendo is correct about my take: while it's generally a good thing that the queue is manageable, I think it is coming at the expense of decent outcomes. Unfortunately, no chart will be able to show that. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

There's a whole mess here that's getting ugly. It started with this revert of an item I posted. I don't agree but it was well-reasoned and clearly arguable, so I left it be. FreedomJoe, however, did not. An edit war has followed: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. There had been an earlier removal here inviting talk page contributions and revert here. Looking at the edit summaries accusations of socking and being "unverified IP addresses" have been flying back and forth, so I asked everybody to play nice and reminded IPs are editors like everyone else. Joe then brought attention to their user talk and it's grim. Examples of accusations flying back and forth are "just the latest sockpuppet of some banned user" and "bugger off to whatever hole you came from". Finally, also of note are these edits to an IP's talk page: one, two, three. After reflection, it seems best I post this here and let editors with much more experience than me try to diffuse the situation. Now... I have a bunch of notifications to send out. 89.240.132.177 (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify. Were you a registered editor in the past? GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, but I don't recall the name I used, just that it was something generic so it would be fairly low-profile and anonymous. I did more lurking than editing tbh. It's definitely coming back to me how things work here but I've a ways to go yet. 89.240.132.177 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My 12+ years on Wikipedia, makes me suspect that you're probably a banned editor, who's evading that ban, via multiple IP addresses. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why, exactly? I'm not even involved in this dispute, and believe me, I don't want to be. 89.240.132.177 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also suspicious of who the unregistered Mobile editor is. Not interested in pursing any sock investigations, so I'll leave it up to others. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FreedomJoe has elected to continue their edit war. Looks like I was right to come here, since the edit war seems like it's going to carry on. 89.240.132.177 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name is brought up, I would like to add a few things regarding this discussion. There are a couple of posts which I have made in regards to the Current Events section. Every time I make a post, there are a couple of editors who aggressively remove or edit the posts, some without reason or some with the flimsy excuses that these posts are not noteworthy/notable or the references are not reliable. For me I just reinstate the posts and add more references or new sources irregardless. Now I clearly am being ganged upon by 1 or 2 editors, which I suspect are the same person or a banned editor as you suggested. Always is a anon IP or mobile address - both making false accusations that I am biased or that I am a sockpuppet. I have challenged these individuals to post with a proper Wiki account. But these individuals seem to have their own agenda and refuse to do so. I am not going to sit still and take this lying down. FreedomJoe (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just IP editors. While I have disagreed with Wingwraith on certain issues in the past, both they and I seem to agree that this matter is not newsworthy. I can also confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that they and I are not the same person. While some of the IPs are most certainly out of line (with the 2600-whatnot IP being outright rude), Wikipedia is not about "Being right" or "righting great wrongs"; it's about consensus.

When several editors seem to feel that an edit made by a user is incorrect, it is not proper to simply revert again and again; instead, you should almost always try to hash things out on the talk page. In this case, I would argue this has not yet been done, as no strong argument has yet been made for its inclusion on the talk page. You stated you would fight for its inclusion, but the battle is being fought incorrectly. I'd recommend writing on the talk page about why you feel it is so noteworthy, rather than simply reverting. With a strong argument, you may find people agreeing with you; I've had my mind changed over inclusion of news items more than once. Reverting repeatedly, however, simply causes others to view one as disruptive. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:FreedomJoe has been blocked for sockpuppetry, which I guess resolves this incident? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, seems he's gone; I believe that means this can be closed. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

I would like to raise a concern that Elmidae is treating AofD as Notability tag.

Elmidae flagged Wei Dai for AfD without going though the AofD policy in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives required steps including

1. C.2. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.
2. D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
3. 1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.

And to my understanding Elmidae has not been actively contributing this topic area (cryptocurrency) to be qualified as an "Editor familiar with the field."

He said in the Wei Dai AofD:

 I'll readily own to being ignorant about the topic, and having no respect whatsoever for your idols. It's for you to show their notability to people like me by referencing sources that clearly demonstrate that assessment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Suffice to say that it seems well understood in the NPP crowd that notability tagging in most cases is just equivalent to passing the buck to an empty place at the table - the related maintenance queues are vast and growing, and chances are that nothing will be done about any specific article any time soon. If a check of provided sources raises reasonable doubt about nthe notability(which I believe to be the case here), I prefer to call for a discussion and get decisive input. I don't buy any accusations about "forcing people to respond" - we are all volunteers that do as much as we want to; the final metric is article quality, not how much or how little work any editor was able to get away with; and if there is need for more expansive comments in an AfD, then the likelihood is that there was need for work on the article. - But let's not turn this into too much of a meta-discussion on notability tags vs AfD nominations, please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that Elmidae is using AofD as Notability tag because he believes a Notability tag is not as effective(as he said ). I disagree with this approach. Instead of keeping flagging new article for AofD, I'd suggested him to take a different approach:

1. Raise his concern if he believes the Notability tag is ineffective, and suggest the community to collaboratively make a decision to change the policy in his favored direction.
2. Prioritize flag AofD the articles which have had Notability tag for a while.

I would like to raise awareness and start a discussion here.

Xinbenlv (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xinbenlv, you need to notify Elmidae on their talk page that you are discussing them here. ~ GB fan 16:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GB fan, sure. Xinbenlv (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, when reviewing a page for notability one should make a good-faith search for source material and if you do not find sufficient material it should be kicked to one of the deletion processes. In some cases the reviewer will use their own judgement to say 'I can't find anything but someone more familiar with the subject probably can' – that is when it is appropriate to tag for notability. Elmidae is correct that most maintenance tagging is unlikely to result in the issue being addressed.
  Sometimes one gets it wrong and it becomes apparent at AfD. In that case the proper thing to do is Withdraw and, if there are no other Delete !votes close the AfD as Speedy Keep. Live and learn, figure out what you missed and work not to make the same kind of error again.
  What should never be done is for an editor who opposes the AfD to go off-site, gather a mob of brand new accounts and long dormant accounts and brigade the AfD to force the result. That, if shown to be true, is in my rather strong and inflexible opinion strong evidence that the responsible editor is a poor fit for Wikipedia. Jbh ^Talk 17:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised this article was only recently created. While I've voted to keep it, there's nothing unreasonable about nominating it based on the state of the article (the refs are weak). Due to Wei Dai's generally private nature there's less readily-accessible information than would be expected. I don't think ANI needs to do anything here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, just as a note, but a notability tag means I suspect this is non-notable, but I don't have time or access to verify at the moment. Here's a notice for someone else who does. It doesn't mean This subject is non-notable. Here's a note for someone to fix the notability of the subject. You can't "fix" notability like you can tone or the presence of original research. It either is or ain't notable. If someone has time and access and verifies the subject is non-notable, the correct step is to nominate for AfD (or another form of deletion if appropriate), not to tag for notability and move on, and there is no requirement to tag for notability first prior to going to AfD. GMG^talk 17:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think there's anything wrong with nominating an article for deletion if you come across an article at NPP that doesn't seem to have any evidence of notability. Putting a notability tag on an article may be helpful (but probably still not) if you are unable to determine if a subject is notable, but if you do a couple of google searches and come up with nothing, there's no point in slapping on a notability tag when you are relatively confident that the article should be deleted. (And even if you aren't relatively confident, it's actually doing something, as opposed to tagging and hoping someday someone will do something about it.) Natureium (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd need to see thet the user has a bad track record of AfDs which they don't [53]. Tagging is nearly pointless. This should be closed as baseless. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]