Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

History of Ally Prisock[edit]

Ally Prisock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could an admin please help me to figure out the fill history of this article? It was created today, but on 23 April the redirect was overwritten (by what text?). The text is found on external sites, and, indeed, is marked by 23 April. I would like to figure out where the original text is/was and, if possible, attribute it, because the article is technically a copyright violation right now, but somehow I can not understand what happened. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what's happened. First...
  • 10:35, 23 April 2019 Cetteuqap moved page Ally Prisock to Ally Prisock (2nd nomination)
Then...
  • 10:45, 23 April 2019 Praxidicae moved page Ally Prisock (2nd nomination) to Ally Prisock
  • 10:45, 23 April 2019 Praxidicae deleted redirect Ally Prisock by overwriting
I can't tell what happened to it after that. I've restored the "23 April 2019 Cetteuqap moved page Ally Prisock to Ally Prisock" version to the history, but can't see how the original 23 Apr version got there or where it went. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. This is exactly my problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Might it need someone with OS rights to see if there are any fully-suppressed versions? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. Oversight nowadays is merely a super-revdel; it doesn't completely delete revisions like it used to. Unless I'm forgetting something, if a page has an oversighted edit in its history, you can always see that it's there. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I wondered if one of Praxidicae's edits might have gotten deleted, but I glanced through Special:DeletedContributions/Praxidicae and didn't see anything Prisock in the April 2019 section. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Aha, got it; you folks forgot to check the logs :-) Page history is at User:Cetteuqap/Ally Prisock. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks to both of you. I will see and likely merge the histories.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, well spotted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:BLP-revdel[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 13 § Template:BLP-revdel. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Filter_name[edit]

Could I get an admin to implement this to prevent automated runs from a bot operating on unapproved accounts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

RFPP Sweep[edit]

Could a couple of admins with some time take a look at WP:RFPP - there's 14 unanswered requests, with the oldest one being 17 hours old?

Cheers! Nosebagbear (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's down to 6. — xaosflux Talk 17:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Looks like it's under control at this point. - CorbieV 19:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
There are a few that have been logged for ~12 hours. If someone could take a look, that would be great. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Now back to 6 hours but still requires attention.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you to all invovled. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Citation bot unblock discussion is stalled[edit]

To quote Kaldari from their update: Citation bot's web interface now requires OAuth authentication to make an edit and always identifies who activated the bot in the edit summary. Thanks goes to them and the developers. Bot has been unblocked a few days ago and so far all seems well. El_C 18:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prior discussion: User talk:Citation bot/Archive_15#March_2019, Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Clarification on "Bots operated by multiple users" and Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Bot unblocks

JJMC89 (talk · contribs) blocked this bot on March 16, citing two reasons:

  1. The addition of CiteSeerX links to articles in violation of WP:ELNEVER (due to copyright problems on CiteSeerX)
  2. Concerns that the bot is user-activated, yet does not authenticate and log the identity of the user who activated it.

The problem with the CiteSeerX links has been fixed by Martin, the bot's operator, by blacklisting CiteSeerX within the bot. However, JJMC89 has declined to unblock the bot because they feel that the matter of authentication and logging the identity of the user that activated the bot is sufficient grounds to leave the block in place.

There has been extensive discussion. The remaining disagreement is mainly around three points:

  1. Who is responsibile for the bot's edits. The bot's operator of record (Martin) and the two assistant operators, Kaldari and AManWithNoPlan, have stated that Martin, as the operator of record, is ultimately responsible for the bot's edits. This is also consistent with the bot's initial approval for automatic operation -- not as a user-directed bot. Subsequent approvals were also for automatic operation. However, the waters are muddied by the fact that the problem with CiteSeerX links was originally approached as a problem that could be best addressed by dialog with the users activating the bot rather than by the bot's operators. It is on this basis that JJMC89 believes that the bot is not in compliance with WP:BOTMULTIOP, which requires that bot operators be identified and disclosed for each edit. Thus the question hinges on whether the bot is "operated" by the users who activate it, or by the operator of record.
  2. Compliance with WP:BOTCOMM. While Martin remains engaged in technical maintenance of the bot, he has stated that he "no longer regularly engage[s] in discussions on Wikipedia talk pages" and is grateful to have AManWithNoPlan take this role. While WP:BOTCOMM permits communications to be delegated, some commenters believe that Martin, as the operator of record, has an obligation to engage with the community to a greater degree.
  3. Whether the bot's tasks are being performed as approved. The most recent BRFA for CitationBot was approved in 2011, and the bot has evolved considerably since then.

Discussion has stalled with JJMC89 declining to unblock, and Martin unwilling or unable to add WP:OAuth to the bot, at least in the near term. There does appear to be quite a bit of support for removing the block, including from those admins and members of the WP:BAG who have participated in the discussion, but not a clear consensus.

The bot does valuable work and I am listing here to try to find some sort of way forward. UninvitedCompany 17:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Much of that thread is technically over my head, but this might be a good place to point out that there needs to be a consensus to maintain a block, not a consensus to lift a block. If there is, after further discussion, still no consensus, I believe the default must be to unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Striking per Gallobter's comment below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    • While adding OAUTH to the bot is clearly desirable, it's not a trivial task and no one currently has the bandwidth to implement this. Frankly, it would be more productive to spend development time fixing bugs in Citation bot than adding OATH, in my personal opinion. Insisting that we need to know who activated Citation bot for each edit is a bit pedantic punctilious, IMO, as Citation bot used to just run across all articles all the time (in the old days). And just like then, Martin (as the operator) was the person ultimately responsible for the edits. I'm not necessarily up-to-date on all the bot guidelines and policies, and I agree that it's unfortunate that this venerable old bot doesn't really have a dedicated full-time maintainer, but it seems like the bot does more good than harm, so I would support unblocking it. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I can't fault Martin for setting boundaries on how much time/effort/energy they want to contribute to the project. When the other issues with the bot are fixed, I think any stipulation that Martin increase their engagement with the community as part of an unblock would be unfair. Rivselis (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
        • @Rivselis: You may think it unfair, but in that case your disagreement is with BOTPOL. While I sympathise (deeply!) with Martin's desire to avoid controversy and the often really toxic discussions that are beginning to be the norm on the project (CIVIL? collaborative? consensus? Bueller?), that desire is simply not compatible with operating a bot on Wikipedia (what, nobody remembers a certain bot "enforcing" NFCC and how that turned out?). This is not an issue of an operator being busy IRL and having limited bandwidth or long response times. They have been asked four times, over four months (five now) to confirm whether they are in fact still the bot's operator, and to address WP:BOTACC, second para, and WP:BOTCOMM. There has been no response, beyond removing the question with the edit summary Archive aggressive comments. They have received this question on their own talk page, on the bot's talk page, on the BOT noticeboard, and now here (UnivitedCompany notified them of this thread). They edit elsewhere on the project, they are just refusing to respond to a simple, neutrally phrased, question about how they view their adherence to policy. At the time it was first asked I would have been inclined to accept any responsive answer—even one I disagreed with—but after five months of refusing to answer it I am forced to consider it willful disregard of BOTPOL (not necessarily in bad faith, but the result is the same). Instead of an answer from the bot's operator to this straightforward question, I've gotten increasingly hostile insistence from others that this is an entirely unreasonable question to ask a bot operator. I asked JJMC89 to address a similar question about WP:ADMINACCT in their RfA and nobody seemed to object to the question at the time. Granted RfA can be a quagmire of toxicity at its worst, but, really, asking admins about ADMINACCT, and bot operators about BOTCOM, really shouldn't be taken as hostile unless it's at a level that involves curse words or something. --Xover (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The issue really here is whether the bot task should continue (no point unblocking if the bot doesn't make any edits), and bots need consensus to do a task. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Point taken. Stricken. Still true for humans tho! --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi there, xaoflux here, these are the relevant points I'm seeing:
    1. Is this bot making "bad edits", that is: edits that if they were individually made by any other editor would be considered unacceptable? If so, the operator needs to fix this or stop operating entirely. It is cetainly possible that the edits would not have been considered "bad" in the past, but as the project has evolved they are now.
    2. Is there an operator that is responsive and taking responsibility for their bot's edits? If not, it should stop operating.
    3. Is the bot making edits that are not approved under a BRFA Task? If so, the operator should cease these edit and seek a BRFA.
    4. Any of the above items that result in "stop", where the bot won't stop can certainly be enforced with a block until the operator says they are resolved.
    5. Have the community's needs signifigantly changed since this bot's tasks were approved, such that one or more tasks should no longer be performed, or not performed in the way they are now? (This is the 'what is needed in the edit summary line') If so, a thread should be opened at WP:BOTN to seek de-approval of the task(s).
      1. If this is the ONLY issue, unless it is so agregious, blocking shouldn't be needed.
xaosflux Talk 20:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Concerning 1), there's no outstanding 'bad edits', save for the occasional GIGO stuff. 2) The operator is Smith609. AManWithNoPlan is currently the main/active maintainer, and they are very responsive/active in addressing bugs. Concerning 3) not that I know of. But the bot is approved for general citation cleanup, so that's pretty wide reaching. Concerning 5) the needs of the community have changes yes, but mostly in that CitationBot is expected to do more than ever and be of use to less 'experty' users. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I doubt that there's no outstanding 'bad edits', save for the occasional GIGO stuff. Citation bot is currently excluded from 546 articles, which is high compared to other bots excluded from articles: more than 4 times the next highest excluded bot and more than 15 times the average exclusions per excluded bot. That number is ~3.5 times what it was a year ago, which seems to have been steady for a couple years until sometime after Q3 2018. — JJMC89(T·C) 07:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how helpful that statistic is. I spot-checked a few pages that Citation Bot is excluded from, and found that in many cases, Citation Bot had never edited the page in question. It seems that a number of aircraft-related articles in particular have the bot blanket excluded, and there's no edit summary or comment in the article source explaining why. In other cases, it's excluded due to the CiteSeerX issue - so if that issue is solved, we can't exactly use the fact that it was previously excluded as evidence that it would still make "bad edits" today. ST47 (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@ST47: if we unblock this and 'bad edits' resume, it can obviously be blocked again. The CiteSeerX complaint appears to be addressed by the operator, do you see any other impediments to unblock? — xaosflux Talk 13:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I would support unblocking the bot. It has an operator who is willing to provide support, the CiteSeerX issue was resolved, and I personally don't think the issue of attributing edits to the specific end user who "requested" the bot visit a specific page was ever an issue in the first place. The overwhelming majority of {{nobots}} exclusions are either due to CiteSeerX or for no stated reason at all. Let's unblock it. If there are more issues, as you say, we can always block it again. ST47 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@JJMC89: You can stop mass removing bots deny: the ones I saw were added deliberately to prevent edits from Citation bot that were deemed objectionable (and people became aware after the RfC linked below), and in response to the bot's adherents suggesting there was no need for the bot to be fixed because editors could just use that template to prevent it. When they realised people would actually take them up on it they tried to switch to suggesting tagging each individual parameter in a citation template instead (but, obviously, still not fixing the objectionable edits at their source in the bot), and using a fiddly HTML comment for it. Shifting the burden to human editors instead of the bot, and making sure they can impose stylistic preferences on 5.5+ million articles and only actually discuss where someone objects. Or, hey, when the de facto maintainer (not the operator, they are still unresponsive) refuses to fix the first issue that eventually got the bot blocked the community can just make an edit filter(!) to prevent those edits (but let the rest of the bot operate). Note well: not "didn't have the time to fix", but "refused to fix" a genuine concern raised about the bots edits. Whether Citation bot has edited the articles before is completely immaterial: the instances I saw were people adding the bots template to articles they edit regularly or created, and specifically to prevent the objectionable edits the bot makes. They were doing that because the bot's operator was unresponsive to community concerns, its maintainers are opinionated beyond what CITEVAR provides for (and it takes a community RfC for concerns to be heard), and the oversight mechanisms designed to prevent just this situation have failed to do so. Using the bots template is neither a blunt instrument nor "FUD" (as you just told Nikkimaria), it is so far the most surgical and only recourse to prevent the bot from doing whatever its maintainers want to all citation templates regardless of consensus. The fact that it's now present on this many articles should in itself tell you that this bot's edits are both not uncontroversial (which BOTPOL requires) and not unproblematic (or so many editors would not feel the need to prevent the bot from editing so many articles). There is no edit summary and no hidden comment for it because they were not added by a bot, but by human editors who object to the edits the bot is making but who cannot hope to keep up with the speed or volume of a bot. This is why we have BOTPOL in the first place! --Xover (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @JJMC89: any additional insight in to this? — xaosflux Talk 19:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If I have a comment on the regard of the operation of this bot, it's this: Given our current bot policy, it should not take an RFC to stop activity for which there was never a clear authorization. I do not have faith in any of the operators of the bot at this time to operate the bot, whether actual or stand-in. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Izno: can you elaborate slightly? It would help if you can provide some diffs occurring after that RfC where this bot is making edits in violation of the RfC closing? — xaosflux Talk 21:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    The bot has been changed since the RFC. The point I'm making is that the operator(s) (whoever those are) should not have forced an RFC to stop the bot's activity on the point, given that it was never obvious the bot had authority to perform those actions in the first place. That means somewhere, someone, or some process failed to ride oversight on what the bot is doing or what the bot operators have subsequently coded the bot to do. That's not okay. The correct way for the bot operators to have proceeded (again, if it were obvious who the bot operator was), once the activity was in question, was to stop that activity and verify with the community whether continued removal was okay. --Izno (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    Essentially, #5 in your list above. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Izno: thanks for the update, is it your understanding that this issue is not expected to continue to occur should operations resume? Can you elaborate on what unaddressed issue is still so egregious that the task needs to be reevaluated prior to resuming operations? — xaosflux Talk 21:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    I think Xover below hits on one of the points still egregious about the situation below. That particular point aside, the other "egregious" point is that the bot has not had a BRFA in some substantial time while its functionality has continue to increase. It's not doing whatever it was signed up to do in the most-recent BRFAs, and that's driven by the personality problems described by Xover also. If you were to review User:Citation bot#Bot approval, and then review what the code actually does, I think you'd find it clear it is not now and has not been for some time within any of its BRFAs. That's a problem by WP:BOTPOL; WP:BOTACC if nowhere else. To take a "personal" example, I much appreciate it when you (specifically) approach the community about a bot which may be problematic for the community, an activity that some significant portion of the BAG will also do. At no time in the past several years, besides the RFC that I initiated (not any of the responsible or less-responsible persons directly involved in the changes that have been made to the bot) has anyone from that bot project approached the community, when there have been several potentially-problematic changes made to the bot code. Either the bot operator (or one of his proxies) should have had, many times, the good sense to invite additional comment beyond the people who show up to the bot's talk page.
    Continuing, from WP:BOTPOL, we have at least one specific section that the bot is not in accordance with (though without fault of its own); that's WP:BOTMULTIOP. --Izno (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Xaosflux: Citation bot ticks all three of your first "stop" criteria (which, it should be noted, are just the ones you adduce under BOTPOL and the BAG's remit, but just because it's a bot doesn't mean it is exempt from other community norms).
      1. The bot itself has not made any problematic edits, because it has been blocked for two months. However it is still operating in Gadget mode, and there it still makes mistakes: the last one I saw was setting |publisher=London. Those were, thankfully, much easier to handle because in this mode the edits are attributed to the user operating the tool, and so they get notified when the edits are reverted. Of course, tellingly enough, the edit in question was by the bot's de facto maintainer: so much for checking the edits before saving and not making mistakes a human editor wouldn't. Before being blocked the bot made similar mistakes: changing a {{cite magazine}} into {{cite web}}, messing with the whitespace inside the template (which is annoying for cosmetic change reasons, but majorly so for anyone trying to maintain citations by hand), etc.; stuff that Headbomb above dismisses as mere "GIGO". And since the bot's maintainers claim they have authority to do essentially whatever they want to citation templates, it's just a question of time before it starts doing stuff like removing |publisher= and |location= from {{cite journal}} again (the latest use of valid citation parameters that its maintainers DONTLIKE seems to be |via=, so I'm expecting a spate of edits to remove that to show up any day now), again pointing to an 11 year old BRFA about adding DOIs to {{cite journal}}.
      2. As explained (at length, sorry) elsewhere here, the bot's operator is not only not responsive but is actively refusing to interact with the community, even to the point of not responding to requests to address policy issues on their own talk page, the bot's talk page, BOTN, and here. Of its two "helpers" one doesn't have time to involve themselves (thanks for the "pedantic" comment btw, Kaldari; that really made me feel like you care about my concerns), and the other "doesn't have an opinion, they just want to code" (I'm paraphrasing because I couldn't be bothered to dig up the diff). This bot also doesn't so much have an operator as it has defenders, to the point that I'm actively avoiding its talk page (thanks for the ping there btw, UninvitedCompany, but I'm not going near that place unless the need is great; you migh try Serial Number 54129 and David Eppstein though, I think they still have the stomach for it).
      3. The bot's BRFA was in 2008, and was for adding DOIs, removing duplicate template parameters, and other such minor cleanup in {{cite journal}} only. And even then its edits were problematic enough to end up… here at AN actually. And the consensus then was that it had to respect, in essence, CITEVAR. At the time that was regarding removing |url= when it pointed to the same place as |doi=, but in some articles they used the URL to signal that the journal article was free to access. That particular issue is, I think, moot now, but the point was that the bot should only make edits that were safe in the face of such citation style issues (i.e. CITEVAR). (It also, incidentally, concluded that when the bot was being directed by someone other than the operator of record, the user operating the tool should be identified. This concern was not sprung on them out of nowhere and recently.) In any case, the bot now makes edits far outside the scope of that BRFA. The RfC triggered by it removing |publisher= and |location= from {{cite journal}} is the immediate example: its maintainers don't think those parameters should be used, and so they program the bot to unilaterally remove it. There was no attempt to seek consensus for its removal from all articles, objections were met with… well, it ended up with a contentious RfC. And now they claim authority to do whatever they want to citation templates based on that ancient BRFA (so long as they think it qualifies as "tidying"). I have suggested elsewhere that the bot's functions need to be broken down, analysed and categorized, grouped into meaningful tasks, and each task subjected to a modern BRFA using modern standards. Because any new bot proposing to do what Citation bot is doing would, if not rejected outright, have been required to run an RfC to demonstrate that there is consensus for for its proposed tasks (just look at some of the hoops a few recent bot tasks have had to jump). --Xover (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sigh. I did warn that this would eventually end up at a noticeboard (but thanks for small mercies it's here and not at /I).
    @UninvitedCompany: I think you are mistaken: to my knowledge no one on the BAG has expressed an opinion in favour of unblocking; except Headbomb who unfortunately seems to have momentarily forgotten to note that they are so up to their ears INVOLVED when it comes to Citation bot that they should (and have been requested to) recuse from any BAG discussions about it. In fact, the BAG, despite the issue being raised on BAG/N, has so far responded in a way best described with "crickets" and "ten foot pole". Personally I expect this is due to the two (independent) factors that there are (some, I don't want to blow it out of proportion) behavioural issues surrounding Citation bot and its community of adherents (which is outside the BAGs remit), and because a BAG member is involved there and it would be awkward around the watercooler if they touched it (regardless of conclusion). We could have presumably have avoided ending up at AN if the BAG had involved itself at least to the point Xaosflux has done here (hint: letting stuff like this fester is unlikely to result in less conflict).
    I also think you should have included a link to the contentious RfC that is the proximate cause of the current situation. I realise that for those who have not yet lost faith in this bot's ability to perform in accordance with community norms and policy are enticed by the good functions of this tool, and thus inclined to see that RfC and the behaviour surrounding it as a single issue and water under the bridge; but it was the straw that broke the camel's back and is hence very relevant background. I'd link the concurrent discussions on the bot's talk page, but frankly I'm too discouraged to go trawling through that mess (I avoid it like the plague now, because of stuff like whatever this is every time I go near it). What this bot lacks in an operator it more than makes up for in defenders. --Xover (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "Headbomb who unfortunately seems to have momentarily forgotten to note that they are so up to their ears INVOLVED when it comes to Citation bot that they should (and have been requested to) recuse from any BAG discussions about it." You can request I recuse from discussions 3 billion times, I will not. I have recused from making decisions involving citation bot, and that should be enough for anyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @Headbomb: Indeed; since my comment that you quote can easily be misconstrued to mean more than I actually intended, let me be tediously clear about it:
        I think you need to recuse from making any decisions regarding this bot in your capacity as a BAG member: as you say yourself and as you have done. And—lest the opposite should be implied by mentioning it—it should be noted that you did without any prompting from anyone (least of all me). Very much appreciated!
        I also think that to the degree the BAG holds any discussions (on IRC or a mailinglist or a obscure talk page etc.) that are to some degree non-public, that you recuse from those discussions. Your status as an "insider" combined with the absence of outside voices would influnce such discussions no matter how hard you tried to be neutral and objective (and that's about all human nature, not you personally). I'm not aware that the BAG employs any such forums or processes, and if so you can feel free to just consider this a pedantic and theoretical request.
        And finally, I think that when you participate in discussions like here, you need to note that you are not speaking in your capacity as a BAG member. Your membership in the BAG means those reading your comments tend to assign them weight, authority, and presumed objectivity that are not merited on an issue where you are INVOLVED. For example, I believe UninvitedCompany read your comments as from a BAG member and for the BAG. I realise it is tedious, but when you have hats like that you do need to specify whether you are currently wearing that hat in certain discussions where the distinction has bearing (such as this one). That was the issue my above comment was actually addressed to, and the frustration you can probably detect in it was at your failure to make clear that you were not speaking for the BAG.
        I absolutely do not mean that you should in any way refrain from participating in public discussions regarding Citation bot, but I see that my comment could be read that way (and if read that way it implies an accusation that you had acted improperly in that regard), and so I apologize for not being clear there. --Xover (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
        • @Xover:, fwiw, I did not interpret Headbomb's comments as speaking on behalf of the BAG. Indeed, I do not believe that anyone issues statements on behalf of the BAG. I had also interpreted Xaosflux's comments as being generally supportive of removing the block. I note that the BAG is small, with 13 active members at present. At least 4 of these members have commented on or formally approved Citation Bot tasks in the past. The BAG is collaborative by nature and I am unsure that it makes sense to ask BAG members to recuse themselves as a result of past collaborative behavior. I do value Xaosflux's and Headbomb's comments as each of them speaks from the experience of working closely with many bot operators, as a result of their involvement in the BAG. That said, I'm watching for a consensus to emerge, and do not necessarily have my own mind made up. Citation Bot has both proponents and detractors, which is unusual for a bot, and I am unsure what to make of it. UninvitedCompany 02:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
          • @UninvitedCompany: Thanks for clarifying, but I feel you somewhat prove my point: you value Xaosflux's and Headbomb's comments as each of them speaks from the experience of working closely with many bot operators, as a result of their involvement in the BAG. They indeed have that (very valuable) experience, but in Headbomb's case they are so deeply involved with Citation bot (top filer of change requests, chief "defender" of the bot that interjects themselves in all discussions where the bot or its operator is criticized) that you cannot assign that weight to their statements. Were this at arbitration, they would be named as a party (not an accusation, just an analogy!); were the question discussed an admin action, they would be WP:INVOLVED; were they a member of ArbCom they would have had to recuse. They are subjective and biased (like everyone else, me included, that cares deeply about a given issue) and letting their frustrations with the bot's critics shine through (see their responses to my BOTCOM question at BOTN).
            Compare that with Xaosflux who has no discernable personal relationship with Citation bot or its operator, is very carefully neutral in how they address the issue (refering almost exclusively to BOTPOL), and does not express an opinion beyond that (I, frankly, wish they would; precisely because I value their experience even beyond the remit of the BAG). But I have not seen Xaosflux express an opinion on whether the bot should be unblocked: they have merely explained policy and tried to clarify how it applies here.
            I have also not seen any other BAG member (except Headbomb) express any opinion (either way) on this; so if that's indeed the case I'm afraid I'm going to have to say "Diffs please!" (sorry, not trying to be glib, but I've been watching the issue and haven't noticed those comments). That a BAG member performed the formality of approving a BRFA 11 years ago—when a huge part of the issue here is that the bot is not operating within its approval—does not mean they can be presumed to hold any particular opinion on the current situation. The issue was referred to the BAG at BOTN, and apart from Xaosflux trying to sort out what the issues were, there was no participastion from the rest of the BAG nor any conclusion or recommendation. In other words, so far as I can tell, it is actually specifically incorrect to say that the BAG or any of its members have expressed an opinion either way on this. --Xover (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
            • Could you, like, dial down the pointlessly inflammatory rhetoric about 204 notches here? I'm being pilloried for having opinions, filling bug reports, and making feature request, including one that requests that activators are identified. And somehow, this is a crime which means my opinion is now irrelevant and should be discarded. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll also note there's a pretty easy solution to all this. If the anonymous activators are deemed undesirable, just have the bot fail to edit when no activator is specified. Either through a code update, or an edit filter. I don't understand why this hasn't been coded in yet, or implemented at the EF level so the bot can resume normal operation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Headbomb. And anonymous activators are undesirable, as Citation bot can be used to do questionable edits. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe that JJMC89 had previously stated that they would not find any solution that does not authenticate the activator to be acceptable. UninvitedCompany 02:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
BOTPOL reads users able to direct the bot to make edits must be positively identified to the bot at the time of edit, in some manner not readily faked and unique to that user that cannot readily be bypassed or avoided (e.g. non-trivial password, restricted IP, wiki login, IRC hostname), so that the user directing any given edit and identified above, may be considered verified. --Xover (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I will also note that keeping citation bot blocked is harming Wikipedia as it cannot be used to improve referencing. Our purpose here is to make an encyclopedia. The benefit of its use out ways the fear that it might be misused. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
via= is removed if there is a doi/pmid/pmc and no url of any type. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I have yet to find a page that blocked the bot for any legit reason. I know that it is often there because someone flipped out after a gadget edit was done and a bunch of non-bot edits were down too and the bot took all the blame. As for the punblisher=London, that was GIGO, but still made article better since it now has locatio(just in the wrong place!). London is now in the bot as a bad_publisher AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The bot seems to be mostly blocked because it converts ISBN 10 to 13. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Uh? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
the use of the bot blocking template on specific pages seems to be mostly for the ISBN conversion feature. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
the code for isbn upgrades has been changed to match the newer style guides and now only changes ISBN to ISBN13 when year is 2007 or newer. Also, someone claimed that the bot changed magazine to web: I find that hard to believe without an example. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@AManWithNoPlan: who are you talking to? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I blocked the bot in my pages because of the ISBN conversion and because it screwed up my cite journal entries by removing the publisher and location. I gather that the first issue has been fixed in a way that I'm fine with, but what about the second? And I very much did not appreciate the removal of my blocks with inexplicable comments like "not a blunt instrument" or whatever. Not helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The removal of publisher/location was changed back in March, I believe. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
GB: Negative. Citation bot was blocked because it was harming Wikipedia by disimproving "references", and without adequate attribution of editing. As to the implied argument that various alleged improvements require us to accept any collateral damage: bullshit. And perhaps it is time to discuss that? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I added the {{nobots}} card to John Glenn as an interim measure on 17 October 2018 because the bot became confused by the use of handles for web sources other than journals. I did not see this as using the template as a "blunt instrument". I thought that was what it was there for. I raised the issue with the maintainers at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 11#Handles are not journals, and a fix was deployed on 31 October 2018. I should have removed the {{nobots}} template, but did not do so. My bad. Some clarification of the term "blunt instrument" would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Not really sure what the rationale behind a generic 'blunt instrument' removal would be, especially without diffs. Sure {{nobots}} is a blunt instrument, but it's also one that works as intended. A {{nobots}} template should only be removed once it's confirmed it doesn't screw up that specific page anymore, or the problematic citations are bypassed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • To reply Xaosflux: 1) the number of erroneous edits (i.e. edits with more mistakes than intended fixes) is minuscule, to the point that it took months for some users, repeatedly asked for examples of harmful edits, to come up with any example; 2) in my experience the bot operator is very responsive to requests in his purview, while the most active developer generally fixes any reported issue within a few days, which is better than the vast majority of bots I know of; 3–5) the essential task (to fix citations so that they're closer to the expected usage as stated by the documentation) is supported by the original consensus and no new consensus has emerged (sometimes the consensus changes on specific parameters and how they should be used, and the bot has been changed accordingly). In conclusion, I agre with Graeme Bartlett and ST47. Nemo 15:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    (Copied from my talk) in general I think most of the "making bad edits" issues seem to have been addressed by the operator, so on that consideration unblocking and resuming operations should be allowed. I think the force edit summaries to include the editor it is reacting to part is an outstanding consideration - however I don't think it is a showstopper. Policy-wise, I don't see these edits that react to requests as elevating the others to the status of "operator", as such editors do not exert autonomous control over the account. (Compare to how someone not signing an edit is not operating sign-bot). I'd want to see affirmation acknowledgement of the current operator (Smith609) that they will be responsive and take responsibility for all edits their bot makes, and that if minor adjustments are needed to meet changing standards (e.g. if a certain parameter should not be removed from a template) they will comply to the standards. Taking responsibility for edits of one's bot is a core tenant of bot operations, and "garbage in - garbage out" isn't an affirmative defense (it should be "garbage in - nothing out"), as they are always welcome to NOT make any edit. While I'm on BAG, this is not intended to be a response "for BAG". — xaosflux Talk 15:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    I can confirm that I am happy to take overall responsibility for the bot's edits. I have confidence that the bot's overall error ratio is presently very small – for every deleterious edit, there are many, many positive changes, and (invisibly) the bot visits many pages and correctly identifies that no edit is required. The bot now has an extensive test suite against which edits to its code are evaluated, and as a result, I can't think how long it's been since the bot systemically introduced major errors (which would occur occasionally before this test suite was introduced). There is a transparent way to report errors, linked in each edit summary, and an active community monitoring the bot's talk page and its contributions. As a result, fixes to most bugs are now rolled out to the production code within 48 hours, and the bot can be blocked very rapidly if necessary. Likewise, any changes in policy or template protocol can be reflected in the bot's code rapidly (I would welcome any suggestions from the community as to how planned changes can be communicated to the bot operating team before they take place, to give us a head start in adapting the bot's code). Whereas I am not now in a position to donate as much of my time to the Wikipedia project as I used to be, I am reachable by e-mail (via my user page) where my personal input is required. Finally, I would note that the scale and incidence of bugs requiring input from the operating team is now much smaller than it used to be; I've manually reviewed runs of c. 1000 page visits without noticing any adverse edits. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

At this juncture, I do not believe that there is any remaining rationale for keeping the bot blocked:

  1. The operator of record is clearly taking responsibility for the bot's edits
  2. The original reported problem with CiteSeerX links is solved
  3. There does not appear to be widespread support for the idea that authentication of the users activating the bot is strictly required by WP:BOTPOL
  4. There is an absence of diffs showing actual problematic operation other than problems already addressed
  5. Blocking policy states: "bots may occasionally not operate as intended for a variety of reasons. Bots ... may be blocked until the issue is resolved.... Blocks of [...] malfunctioning bots should be undone once the bots [...] are repaired."

I do not believe that a continued block is in accordance with policy, nor do I believe it is in the best interest of the project.

I do acknowledge that there are various other concerns unrelated (or loosely related) to the original block. It appears to me that the operator of record and maintainers are making a good-faith effort to respond to specific concerns. I would hope that these dialogs continue. I also recognize that there are a minority of editors who oppose ongoing operation of the bot. The proper venue for these concerns is to make a request for reexamination at the bot noticeboard.

I note that the blocking admin has been absent from the discussion for several days despite being aware it is ongoing. Accordingly, I am unblocking the bot. I will remain engaged in discussion should there be any further comment about the unblock. I will also follow any request for reexamination that is filed in an effort to mediate and build consensus. UninvitedCompany 17:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Bot has unblocked, and the third edit I looked at caused a working link [1] to no longer work by changing it to [2] instead[3]. Doesn't give a good impression... Fram (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I reported this on the bot's talk page and will continue to monitor the situation. UninvitedCompany 11:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The link works, Academia.edu was down for a while. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Well no. The original link worked all the time, the "improved" link didn't work for a while and works now. Furthermore, the old link made it clear that you were going to a PDF, the new one doesn't. Why is the bot making changes which don't improve things and may make things worse (replacing a direct link with one which needs an extra resolve step at the source site, increasing the risk that it won't work sometimes, like here)? Fram (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

In this edit, in one instance the bot changes a link to BBc news from cite web to cite news, and changes "work=BBC News" to "newspaper=BBC News". The BBC is not really a newspaper though. Baffling is why then in the same diff, in the next ref, the bot again changes a BBC link from cite web to citenews, but now adds "work=BBC News", the exact thing it removed higher up in a similar link. The bot seems to do a lot of good things, some useless but not in itself wrong things (like an edit which only changes "citeweb" to "cite web"), and then some weird stuff which seems more like annoying meddling than actually helpful improvements. Fram (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: I believe these are legitimate concerns but are unrelated to the block/unblock discussion. Everything the bot is doing should be listed in one of the bot's BRFAs. If these changes are not listed there, initial discussion should be on the bot's talk page. Ideally then the maintainers would remove the feature or start a new BRFA covering it. If the response is unsatisfactory, I believe it would be appropriate to make a request for reexamination at WP:BOTN. UninvitedCompany 17:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

New problem[edit]

Here's a problem. Someone is driving the bot to abuse WP:FOLLOWING. After this ANI case closed with the following editor being blocked, someone started following hard on the heels of both of our edits.... with the bot. It's still going on today. (There are about two dozen more diffs.) One bot edit included the username of an alt account of the blocked user, but the others are not signed. Can a checkuser read the IP of who is using it on these specific edits and block individual users of the bot based on that? Otherwise, this is being misused and we need another solution. - CorbieV 20:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
IP address logs are not accessible by tool maintainers. Bugs and issues with the bot should be reported at User talk:Citation bot. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I think this is as good a place as any to report such an issue. El_C 20:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The bot operators of record are responsible for any edits the bot makes. If the bot is engaging in behaviour which falls foul of any policies, the bot operators are liable for those edits. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The bot is also being put to nefarious use, so I think we may have a problem here. El_C 21:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Kaldari: I emailed the bot owner, and you, and got no response. And I pinged you on talk. Clearly a number of people are concerned or this discussion wouldn't be happening. - CorbieV 21:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Kaldari just told me that they are looking into this. El_C 21:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I just had a look at this, why can this bot even be activated to run tasks by people who are not the operator? (As is my understanding of what is happening) Is this intentional? As it seems a custom made harrassment tool if so. Does it log who activates it? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It's still happening.[4][5][6][7] - CorbieV 17:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan: I looked at one of your examples: Special:Diff/901618104 - is something "wrong" with this edit? That is, should you revert it? — xaosflux Talk 18:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't see anything wrong with the content of the edit (except a trivial cosmetic-edit issue), but the bot is clearly here being used for block evasion and, given the context, as a way to keep stalking after being blocked (maybe we should ask T&S to block the bot?). Which was why the lack of authentication for using the bot was flagged previously. Which is why we have BOTMULTIOP. Which is why we demand all edits be attributed to the user that made them. Which is just common sense. But nobody wanted to spill the BEANS here, figuring the problem would be obvious. In any case, it has now been demonstrated. --Xover (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: the edit is attributed, to the bot. The responsibility for the edit is the bot's operator. If this is an edit that if made directly by the operator would be considered bad enough to lead to blocks, - ask the operator to stop. If they won't stop - then it can be blocked again. — xaosflux Talk 18:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: We're on the Administrators Noticeboard and I have to go ask Martin to stop evading the block ElC placed (yesterday) on the user harassing Corbie? I'm so confused. --Xover (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • For the record, I replied to the e-mail that I received within 24 hours. The e-mail did not make clear what specific harm was being caused, so I was unable to suggest a specific solution. I note that the linked section on "Hounding" states that "the singling out of one or more editors [...] to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". Corbie, if you could you spell out how your work is being inhibited, we might be able to suggest a solution: for example, if the problem is that you are encountering edit conflicts, you could use the bots|deny= template to exclude citation bot until you have completed your edits. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you please identify yourself by logging in? El_C 17:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC) [done - Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 06:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)]
Anonymous editor, being hounded by an individual and then by the bot does not make my experience here enjoyable. I also received troubling emails telling me that the initial block they were given would not prevent them from hounding me also with racist epithets. Having my watch list fill with bot notices prevented me from constructive editing. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @UninvitedCompany:, the bot is being used for abuse (WP:FOLLOWING), and as far as I understand, the bot handlers cannot prevent it. I'm considering reblocking, since there is apparently no other way to prevent this abuse. As the recent unblocking admin, do you object? Otherwise we're asking Corbie to tolerate behavior from a malefactor using the bot that we would never tolerate from another identifiable editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the late reply -- I've been traveling with family. I see that you've blocked the bot, which I fully support under the circumstances -- I would have done the same thing. UninvitedCompany 12:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Citation bot is making unacceptable proxy edits for blocked users[edit]

@Smith609, Xover, and CorbieVreccan: xaosflux Talk 18:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm breaking this out to it's own section so that it doesn't get lost in the huge thread above. If I understand your report correctly Xover, you believe that Smith609's bot is making edits in violation of the proxying component of the banning policy, correct? To lay this out specifically in the component parts, can you identify the edit(s) you suspect are in violation, and the editor you suspect is being proxied? — xaosflux Talk 18:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: In a nutshell: yes. But it's Corbie and El C who reported the problematic edits (in New problem. See that thread for a list of diffs). I just tried (poorly, it seems) to clarify that it's not the content of the edits that's the problem, but rather that the edits are being made at all: the bot appears to be being used as a proxy by a blocked user to harass one of the two admins involved in the ANI case that got that user blocked. Note also that the original thread contains further relevant information. --Xover (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC) [edited to correct per El C's clarification below. --Xover (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)]
For the record, the bot has not been used to follow me around. El_C 19:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Further clarification, the bot has followed two of us to continue the harassment; the same two of us I reported being harassed in the initial ANI case: myself, and another user who is not an admin (Indigenous girl). - CorbieV 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If someone made a spelling fix on every single page I edited, immediately after I edited the page, with the sole intention of annoying me, I don't think I'd be able to ignore that forever. If Corbie said "whatever, I'll ignore it", the blocked user (or some other blocked user with a different perceived enemy) would switch to someone who would care. And that behavior would be expressly forbidden by WP:FOLLOWING. My understanding is that a CU block on-wiki of the underlying IPs would still not prevent someone from using the bot. My understanding from Kaldari's post above is that it can't, anyway. Is that not true? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the bot is set up to accept requests from any editor or IP. My understanding is that its currently being used by IP's to harrass other editors. Unless there is a *quick* way to fix the bot so it doesnt allow anyone to set it off on a run, then it needs to be blocked. As the bot operators are responsible for all the bot's edits, they are enabling harrassment at this point. As an aside, I cant see how WP:BOTPOL allows a bot to be run by anybody. WP:BOTMULTIOP cant possibly be interpreted to mean a bot can be set to perform tasks by literally anybody. If it is, its not fit for purpose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Only in death: The bot isn't being "operated" by "anyone" it is just being "triggered" by anyone. Same as how sinebot isn't "operated" by people that don't sign their posts, and how ClueBot isn't "operated" by vandals. In any event, the current issue is that proxy edits by blocked/banned users are being facilitated and there are limited defenses to that, namely that the operator will have to show that their bot's edits are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.. — xaosflux Talk 19:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not going to rehash that issue here (my word count on the matter is already large enough to annoy people), but just so that an absence of objections is not later read as consensus: that is not a reasonable interpretation of WP:BOTMULTIOP and would make it pointless if it were so. Cluebot reverts (clear) vandalism and is operated by a known operator: nobody can go to a web interface and ask it to edit a particular page, it edits by rules set by the operator. Ditto Sinebot, and it is triggered by one's own edits, not directed by a third party. Neither of those bots can be used to harass an admin that blocked you. This situation is exactly why we have BOTMULTIOP. Just imagine if AWB allowed unidentified users to run its canned rules on any page (and AWB requires permission even for authenticated users)… --Xover (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam and UninvitedCompany: - pinging to this section. I agree that unless Smith609 can defend these proxy edits, it is against policy. — xaosflux Talk 19:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Bots are required to be operated by someone if its not being operated by anyone its in violation of BOTPOL. There is a reason BOTPOL contains the word 'operator' a number of times, and 'triggered' zero. But I digress, WP:BOTMULTIOP has three criteria and as far as I can see this is breaking the first two, "1. operator disclosure – the Wikipedia user directing any given edit must always be identified, typically by being linked in the edit summary" - A number of the edits linked above do not list who is operating/triggering the bot that I can see in the edits. "operator verification – users able to direct the bot to make edits must be positively identified to the bot at the time of edit, in some manner not readily faked and unique to that user that cannot readily be bypassed or avoided (e.g. non-trivial password, restricted IP, wiki login, IRC hostname), so that the user directing any given edit and identified above, may be considered verified." - I cant see that the IP's triggering it are restricted in any way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure we're not going to come to a quick agreement on what elevates someone to the status of "operator" right now - but that is a bit aside of the claim of proxying for blocked users. Unless this claim is wrong, the exception is met, or there is some strongly compelling IAR reason - the proxy edits need to cease. — xaosflux Talk 20:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Unless the code of the bot can be changed, now, to always show the username of the person running it to make the edits, I don't think it should be in operation. I don't think it should continue being operated by anonymous people who are in violation of policy while we debate this. - CorbieV 20:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan: from what I can see above, "identifying" the triggering party won't be sufficient to prevent proxy edits, the bot would need to also be able to make a determination that the party is eligible to make edits, something that would be quite difficult. (e.g. Just knowing that a blocker user was triggering the bot isn't going make this better for you). — xaosflux Talk 20:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the web interface has to be removed. Enabling the bot through the off-wiki web link means literally anyone can trigger it. I think the bare minimum is that people need to be signed in to their (unblocked) wp account to run it. That would stop blocked users. I don't know how to code the thing, but that seems to be a pretty basic requirement, yes? - CorbieV 20:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan: there are ways to authenticate someone via a web interface, and a major re-write could do lots of things, keep in mind "blocked users" can still "sign in" - they just can't "edit" (and can't do some other actions too). I'm assuming good faith that the claims of bad-faith edits here are legitimate, thus this should be taken seriously. I don't think I've seen harassing edits that have risen to the extreme of "emergency" levels of urgency and would ask that we give at least 24 hours for response on why this bot operations is other wise acceptable. (See below). — xaosflux Talk 21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding the claim that this bot is enabling bad-faith proxy editing, I'm recommending blocking (in 24 hours) unless someone can show:
  1. That the claim is not credible
  2. That the claimed bad edits meet the exception to WP:PROXYING
  3. That there is an unrepresented overwhelming consideration (e.g. If the edits are of such great use and the "damage" is being greatly exaggerated, such that stopping operations would ultimately lead to a worse project, even when considering the outcome could be driving away productive editors).
xaosflux Talk 21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
From looking at this a little, I think a block would be justified now, but I would ask Corbie's forbearance for 24 hours to see if anyone can think of a way around having to block. The problem seems to be that it is literally not possible to throw out the bathwater without throwing out the baby. But CitationBot does valuable work, and if Corbie can put up with the annoyance a short time longer, let's see if anyone has any brilliant ideas on separating the two. To be clear, Corbie: do I understand right that the sole problem is that they're WP:FOLLOWING you? There are no other errors being introduced? If so, are you OK with being patient a short time longer? Because frankly, if you're not OK with a short delay, I don't see how we justify not blocking right now. I acknowledge it isn't fair to ask you to wait a while, and no problem from my end if you say you aren't willing to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
p.s. I think I wrote this weird, probably from my lack of technological prowess. Maybe people smarter than me already know for an absolute fact that this can't be prevented. If so, then my replies to Xausflux's list is: I've looked at this, and the claim is credible. The edits themselves don't seem to be the problem, but the articles chosen to run the bot on are chosen specifically to violate WP:FOLLOWING; deliberately flicking Corbie's ear. There can't really be an overwhelming reason to keep the bot running in the face of this, because it has not been running for months and the world hasn't ended, whereas I have to believe that if it isn't stopped, the LTAs have a new tool in their arsenal to drive off editors one by one with no consequence. To be clear: if an identifiable editor was doing this to another editor, I would have already blocked without a second's hesitation, no matter how productive an editor they were elsewhere. I think we should block now, and the only reason I don't is I defer t xaosflux's superior technical understanding, and fear I'm misunderstanding something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
[Edit conflict]Well, as I noted above, the bot driver is also still harassing Indigenous girl, as well. At first I thought the bot following was funny: I thought the legit bot owner was making sure the harasser hadn't messed up the templates, and was correcting the mistakes the troll had made during the hounding. Then I realized it was the same pattern, and the troll had carjacked the bot. Not so funny anymore. I want the IPs of the stalking driver logged and blocked. Yeah, I can "tolerate" it. But I don't think anyone should have to, just for the sake of automating a few edits. I don't think it's good for morale to have disruptive users using this for block evasion and harassment. I don't think we should have to be making this kind of decision to tolerate abuse for the sake of making a few formatting tweaks more convenient. - CorbieV 21:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Floquenbeam: the delay I'm suggesting is somewhat related to Nemo's question below - at least at first glance these edits don't seem to be very offensive or difficult to ignore, so I at least wanted to give the operator a chance to respond (also if the only offended party is an admin - we sort of expect admins to have thicker skin). — xaosflux Talk 22:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • To clarify, what part of the edit makes them "hounding"? Does the specific username mentioned in the edit summary matter? Does the content of the edits? By the way, I can't avoid thinking that an unwanted consequence of noticeboard conversations like this is WP:BEANS: if nobody has ever suggested that edits following a certain pattern would be such a terrible thing, probably nobody would have thought of making them; now, the goal of such edits may also be to get the bot blocked, which is disruption in itself. Nemo 21:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Nemo, page up and read the original ANI case. Someone is using the bot to follow two of us and continue a pattern of harassment they are indef-blocked for. The other editor is not an admin. I've pinged them if they want to weigh in. Their contribs are linked above, and you can see that they're also being followed. I'll post diffs if you want. - CorbieV 22:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I was harassed/stalked by an individual who is now blocked. Part of that harassment included them using the bot. This person also emailed me more than once via the WP interface and said some pretty racist stuff and creepystuff. They also told me that the block against them would not matter which is when the bot started following me around. It's very creepy when a person tries to negotiate harassment (they initially stated they would not harass Corbie and I for 48 hours if the initial block was lifted. I believe their final negotiation attempt was a year of not harassing us). I don't feel that it is helpful to have a bot that can be utilized to retaliate or harass editors. I am a little weirded out that people think this is permissible harassment when it is being done by a human driven bot. El_C ended up having to semi-protect more than half a dozen articles I regularly work on. This is not cool, this does not benefit WP or the editors that keep it going. Nemo they made it very clear by using their name on at least one occasion while driving the bot. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Just a note that I did block both SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) and SolarStorm1859 indefinitely for misusing the bot for the purposes of harassment. El_C 11:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Just so we're all on the same page on this: Nemo bis is here implying that one or more of the bot's critics (and they probably have me specifically in mind, given their previous accusations on my talk page) have deliberately impersonated a blocked harasser, and used the bot to continue harassing that editor's victim, for no other purpose than to get the bot blocked through underhanded means. Since I suspect they may genuinely not understand just how serious an accusation that is I'm not even going to bother asking them to retract that, I'm just noting it for the record. --Xover (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I've reblocked the bot. I'm sorry, I know it's really useful in good faith hands, and that good faith users are like 99% of the users. But the current configuration cannot prevent this from happening. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It sucks for the 99% of good-faith edits by the bot to be blocked like this. But it was the right thing to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Could this maybe be remedied by checking "Human (not bot)" in the Watchlist settings? --213.220.69.160 (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      • If someone is being harassed, it is not an adequate response to say "but maybe if you stop paying attention to the harassment it will go away". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. The Anti-Harassment team at Wikimedia Foundation has been asked to help out with the Citation bot by adding an authentication step before the bot can be triggered. We are working on this at the moment and hope to have a fix in place soon. Kindly refrain from making any code commits to the bot in the meantime. Please reach out to me directly/ping me if you have any concerns about this. Thank you! -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

NKohli (WMF) - Awesome! Thank you for letting us know! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Citation bot works too slow. There are millions of articles. There could be a twin Citation bot to help do the job or Citation bot needs more power. QuackGuru (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well until the problems which resulted in it being blocked are fixed, it's going to be infinitely slow. Unfortunately fixes seem to have stalled due to some confusion over what was being asked for and the fact no one seems to be working on it anymore after the bot was changed in the wrong way. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: Thanks to the work of some volunteer developers with some help from the WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team, Citation bot's web interface now requires OAuth authentication to make an edit and always identifies who activated the bot in the edit summary. Apparently, blocked users are also now blocked from using the bot. Kaldari (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive309#A_request_to_see_deleted_edits_of_files[edit]

Have some new message to this?--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Hey, why don't you email me. I'll send you the ones I can, and at least describe the rest. You can then go do whatever you intended to with them. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion[edit]

I found two attack revisions at Irakli Tsereteli. I think they need to be hidden

Diffs

Best regards

190.160.21.173 (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I missed those. El_C 21:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Marina1banch Linkspam/Paid editing? Seeking guidance[edit]

I'm seeking guidance on how to proceed, and not necessarily any particular action.

All contributions by this user follow the exact same pattern: They add a "new" fact to the article, and always contain a reference with a link to an article on social.techcrunch.com - see the latest example (they are all the same, basically).

The user has been active for some months, none of their contributions cited any other reference than techcrunch and they did not make any other type of edit.

While each edit in itself seems innocuous, the overall pattern may indicate an agenda. I'm unsure on how one would proceed with this, so I'm bringing it up with the admins who may have more power to investigate.

I'll be leaving the required notice on the user's talk page, but they have not previously engaged on talk pages, even in a previous ANI case. Averell (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This was previously discussed here. Clear possibility of COI editing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I am the editor who started that COIN thread. On a behavioural basis, COI looks highly probable. Edwardx (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Blocked. It would be one thing if this user were citing something reliable, but the citations consistently go to unreliable reports, and the worse the content added in the pattern, the more likely that it's promotional, not a matter of someone trying to improve the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. As pointed out by Lordtobi, there are also links to theverge.com: [8]. You can compare with the contributions of Alexandra.cader, RichardBentley1980 and SusanJames83. Marina1banch started editing 6 days after these 3 users were blocked. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The user has now requested an unblock, though they still didn't add their view to this discussion. Averell (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

They requested unblock again. I have to admit that I‘m mildly fascinated. The goal was obviously to generate a lot of „legit“ edits in a small amount of time (they said in the unblock request they wanted to „build up“ their account). It may be possible that they actually do what they say - churning through some random news feed and turning each item into an edit; some kind of „edit farming“ For what purpose I can only speculate... Averell (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:All BLP articles lacking sources[edit]

This category includes 96,013 pages and if the category was used correctly, all of those articles on biographies of living persons lack sources. From my understanding of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, a category like this should not exist. Clovermoss (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

What should not exist is a BLP without any sources, however I spot checked 5 articles from Category:BLP articles lacking sources, and 4 out of the 5 had more than one reference. People use the tag which generates the category for articles they feel need more sources, so those 96K articles aren't completely unsourced, many of them are simply undersourced, so there's no particular need for panic. If you're concerned, grab a few articles every day and add some references if there aren't any or they need more, or remove the clean-up tag if it's been used unwisely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I have marked quite a few pages as BLP sources, yet quite often someone then changes it to BLP unsourced ignoring the fact there is a EL right there. (Granted I have made the mistake of putting unsourced before, but I usually catch that and have not done that in years I believe.) Wgolf (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Wgolf: '... BLP unsourced ignoring the fact there is a EL right there' - EL's are not references. A BLP with only an EL to the subject's twitter is still unsourced. Worse, a BLP where only said twitter feed is used as a reference is still essentially unsourced. (but I agree, there will be many articles where there are reference-quality ELs and/or to which quality references have been added which are still tagged as unsourced). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay those ones I do considered unreferenced if they have something like a Twitter/Facebook/Youtube only. There are some though that are just listed as that. (I have tried using https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ to sort some out-I have found quite a bit by having articles without the reflist tag. Though it still will include ones with refrences that don't use that tag but another one) Wgolf (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Wgolf: What does EL mean? Clovermoss (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
"External Link".--Jorm (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
In many cases an in-line external link can be considered a reference. It's not the ideal form, but it's a ref nonetheless.
Incidentally, the 4 out of 5 articles I mentioned above all had references in the usual format, not ELs, in-line or otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
As others have said, a big part of this is users not understanding the differences between a source or reference and an inline citation. A lot of users think a source or reference is not a source or reference unless there's an inline citation. This is also partly why there are a lot of incorrect BLPPROD taggings. Adam9007 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Some sort of history merge[edit]

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask. In 2015, the article Marcus Louis was userfy-ed into one of my user pages: User:Starship.paint/Marcus. Since then, it was recreated as an article and still exists now: Marcus Louis. Could an admin help merge the histories of the pages? Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
You're fast, thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus! :) starship.paint (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Office actions changed from a policy page to an information page[edit]

I've changed the Wikipedia:Office actions page from a policy page to an information page. It is clear that it no longer holds local community support to be considered a policy following the update of February 2019. –xenotalk 13:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I've got the popcorn, folks, this should be entertaining. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rdfox 76: at least it brought you out of virtual retirement. Now that's a silver lining. ——SerialNumber54129 13:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Good edit! This looks like the beginning of regime change. I would like steps taken to take over the WMF. The WMF can be run by the Wikipedia community of volunteers. QuackGuru (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
We do still need a policy on the community's handling of office actions, yes? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Wheel of Fortune vandalism[edit]

So there's been on and off vandalism on the Wheel of Fortune (American game show) page. It usually takes the form of inserting vaguely related gibberish related to the show. Take for example, this edit, which changes some phrasing for no discernible reason while also adding nonsensical phrases like "How to Play Wheel of Fortune in January 3 1975 After Jeopardy Between Friday & Monday" and "to Earn $1,000,000 as 2015 or 2019". I run a Wheel of Fortune fan wiki, and I often find editors in the same IP range vandalizing my wiki in a similar fashion, such as this example. It's my understanding that IPv6 addresses of this nature are harder to rangeblock, at least from what i've been told before with this editor. Given the nature of the edits -- random words, Capitalizing Every Word Regardless Of Whether It Makes Sense, repeating words, always putting words in certain manners -- I have to wonder if our IP editor is special needs in some way. What would be the best way to keep them from continuing to muck up the pages? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Have you requested semi-protection or, perhaps better, pending changes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The article is already pending-changes protected, and has been for some time. Deor (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I looked at the IPv6 addresses that have recently edited the WoF page. They are all quite different and from what I can see an enormous distance apart in terms of number. Moreover, geolocating them turns up locations all over North America. I think someone's playing with proxies or a VPN service that hasn't been caught. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: Then what would work? I deal with what is clearly the exact same editor on my fan wiki. As mentioned above, the article already is on pending changes, but the edits somehow get through anyway. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
It's just a couple disruptive IP editors playing around on an article that has name recognition to them. Both are range blocked now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: My concern is that the edits are so ongoing, and have spread over to my wiki as well. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about vandalism to Wikia. El C semi-protected Wheel of Fortune (American game show). If there's more vandalism to the articles here on Wikipedia, I can block anyone who gets through the page protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
TenPoundHammer, have you thought of requiring an account to edit? If you run it, I suppose you can make tons of configuration changes. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

TFD > 3 months[edit]

Hi. Please could someone take a look at this TfD, which has been open for more than 3 months? Just a note that I was active in the discussion, but would appreciate if this could be closed one way or the other. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Working on it. Primefac (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Primefac: thank you for looking at this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Marchjuly on Arsenal W.F.C.[edit]

NO ACTION
Closing, continued discussion is clearly becoming counterproductive. Fortunately, we already have a solution: OP has initiated an FfD; interested parties should direct their comments there. Thanks, FASTILY 08:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Marchjuly has repeatedly reverted my attempts to update the Arsenal W.F.C. article with a correct version of the club badge. The badge that is currently on the page is not only outdated (it uses the wrong name), it was never actually used by the club. It was a Twitter profile photo that was apparently chosen as a "solution" when a bot deleted the correct badge file (Arsenal FC.svg) for not having multiple NFCC templates (one for Arsenal FC, another for Arsenal WFC). I have fixed this by adding a second NFCC template, as we do for all other women's clubs that share a badge with corresponding men's clubs. And yet he still refuses to let me fix the page because he seems to think this three year old flawed compromise is law, and is holding out for one specific admin (User:Explicit) to "figure out what to do," even though obviously nothing needs to be figured out - one logo is correct and the other is wrong. Eightball (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to explain why the file was removed on my user talk page at User talk:Marchjuly#Arsenal Women, at User talk:Explicit#Arsenal Women and in edit summaries here. There've been a few edit conflict while posting which might have caused confusion, but despite what Eightball posts here, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is not some "made up hoop" that I've created. All he needs to do is discuss things with Explicit and explain why the close should be re-considered. File:Arsenal FC.svg was removed by Explicit when he closed the FFD discussion (see here and here; the file wasn't deleted at that time because it was still be used in another article. File:ArsenalLFC Twitter logo.png was deleted per WP:F5 because someone removed the file from the article and it became orphaned non-free use; this was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124#Arsenal W.F.C., Explicit commented in that discussion, and then restored that the Twitter logo file and re-added it to the article last month per this edit. Eightball re-added the other file with this edit and I removed it per Explicit. Eightball posted on my user talk about this here and I explained why I removed the file here, but we had an edit conflict. Eightball also posted about this at Explicit's user talk here and I responded here and here. At no point have I been trying to avoid discussion; I've been actually suggesting to Eightball how this might be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
There would be nothing to resolve were it not for your involvement and insistence on reverting an obvious and necessary correction. The page was wrong, I fixed it, and now I'm spending hours of my day dealing with the fallout solely because of you. Eightball (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
And you to have the self-awareness to understand that what you are demanding I do in order to make this change (which, again, is obvious and necessary) is absolutely absurd and indefensible. Eightball (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly is correct. Per the result of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg, File:Arsenal FC.svg should not be added to any other pages, except for the one it is already used in. @Eightball: Please drop the stick; if you re-add File:Arsenal FC.svg to Arsenal W.F.C., I'll be happy to block you for disruption. If you have a problem with the result of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg, then please make your case at WP:DRV. -FASTILY 01:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion at DRV would likely just result in relisting the file for further discussion at WP:FFD, which would be a waste of a week. I suggest going straight to FFD, an editor did at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 June 20#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg. ƏXPLICIT 07:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I found a mistake on Wikipedia and it took me ten seconds to fix, and that should've been that. Now it's going to take me literal days to make that fix permanent because you insist on forcing me to lie to our readers until I jump through your hoops. This website is broken. Eightball (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I would have to think WP:IAR is relevant here. The admins and Wiki rules are only serving to stop me from improving Wikipedia. I have a very hard time accepting this. Eightball (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm missing something here (and that's a good possibility, since I rarely if ever disagree with Marchjuly), but the FFD restricted use on sub-groups of Arsenal FC. The WFC is a separate entity. We have plenty of company logos that are used in more than one location, provided they have the non-free notice for each one. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Yup, I was right, I missed something (see below). Primefac (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Primefac: Some editors do consider the women's teams to be "sub-groups" of the men's teams, but I don't think that debate even matters - as you say, there's nothing wrong with using logos in multiple locations so long as there are non-free notices for each one. I made this change but the admin involved in the discussion removed it, for reasons I can't possibly understand. The whole thing is immensely frustrating. Can you please chime in on the FFD discussion? They forced me to do this little dance and yet no one has even participated in the discussion. Such an incredible waste of time. Eightball (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Non-free files are only required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7, and they can be used in more than one article as long as each use satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. Providing a separate, specific non-free use rationale, however, is only one (actually it's just one part WP:NFCC#10) of these criteria and doing so doesn't (as explained in WP:JUSTONE) automatically mean all of the other criterion are being met. The file had a non-free use rationale for the women's team article when it was first discussed at WP:FFD and this rationale was removed by the closing admin Explicit when he removed the file from the article. The file wasn't originally removed from the article for not having a rationale, but for other NFCCP issues; so, you recently re-adding a non-free use rationale to the file's page for the women's team didn't change anything from that FFD discussion. This is why you were asked to discuss things with the closing admin Explicit and this is why Fastily removed the rationale you added. What needed to be done is for you to establish a new consensus for the file's non-free use based upon the women's team re-branding in 2017; this is why Fastily suggested DRV and Explicit suggested FFD. A consensus can change over time, especially when there's some new relevant information to be considered per item 3 of "Deletion review may be used" in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but you just don't unilaterally decide such a thing yourself, particularly when it involves an administrator's decision, and you don't just claim IAR to justify ignoring an administrator's close because you think it was made in error. Now, that you've started a new FFD discussion about the file's non-free use, it's possible that a new consensus will be established in favor of adding the file to the article, which means that anyone who disagrees with that close will be expected to do exactly the same thing you were asked to do (i.e. follow CLOSECHALLENGE). -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I would strongly request that you stop interacting with me on this website. I will do what I need to in order to fix the article; I don't need any further harassment from you. Eightball (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Please read WP:AOHA and WP:HA#NOT. You start a discussion on my user talk page here and here. You ping me in your post here at user talk Explicit. You start this AN discussion about me. You come to my user talk page and post this and this in a discussion started by a different editor about something completely different. You ping me in your responses above and below (the one to Primefac). You've argued that I am making you do all kinds of things which are making you waste time, and then you accuse me of harassing you for simply responding in a entirely civil manner. If you're going to make such an accusation against me, then please provide diffs showing where I've done this so that others can assess and take action if necessary. We're not here because I or anyone else has made you do anything, where here because you seem to have gotten really angry really quickly because someone else has disagreed with you. My guess is that this isn't the probably isn't the first time you've responded in such a way to someone doing so, and it probably won't be the last. What happens with the file at this point will be determined through consensus at FFD, not by any one single editor doing what they need to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Might I suggest, to both of you, that whether the logo on this page says "Ladies ®" or not is not a hill worth dying on. —Cryptic 16:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I would agree; until other editors have commented on the situation there's nothing really more to add. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cryptic: Why is it that so many uninvolved editors try to cut down disputes in this way? It's important to me that Wikipedia displays correct information. Is that not important to you too? If not, why are you even here? Eightball (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Eightball, I don't think that Cryptic is trying to shut down the conversation, but rather mentioning that the two logos being used are nearly identical and this level of apparent vitriol and anger is a tad unnecessary. My comment was in a similar vein, in that if it's just two editors arguing there will never be a consensus, so stepping back to let other (uninvolved) editors comment is a good idea. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Primefac, I don't disagree, necessarily. The two logos are nearly identical EXCEPT one includes the word "Ladies," and seeing as the team is no longer called "Arsenal Ladies," it seems like common sense to change the logo to the newer, correct version. The level of "vitriol and anger" I may be displaying has nothing to do with the logos themselves, it has to do with Marchjuly refusing to allow me to make a clear, obvious, common sense correction, and instead demanding that I spend literal days of my life navigating the banalities of Wikipedia bureaucracy in order to overturn a flawed, outdated consensus. WP:IAR exists for precisely this reason - perhaps it is good to have a structured method for reaching consensus, and perhaps it is also good for utilizing that same method to reverse said consensus, but when the time comes to fix an obvious error, we should be able to ignore those rules for the sake of improving and maintaining the wiki. This dispute is ultimately not about the logos, it is about the fact that I am being prevented from improving and maintaining Wikipedia.
If you think this is a waste of time, or that it's getting too heated, or that this hill is not worth dying on, I would strongly agree - we should not be here. This dispute should not have ever happened. I should have simply been allowed to fix the page, it'd be correct and up to date, and we'd have one less error on Wikipedia. It was not my choice to make it so difficult. Eightball (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Primefac, I too think that Cryptic has a worthy point here, but the problem is though that we're discussing the usage of copyrighted content here. We're limited to which of that we can use under a fair use claim and thus the difference between the files does matter. We can only justify the fair use of one of them and Eightball has given sufficient evidence that it should be the one also used in the men's team's article. Therefor Eightball's edit should have been uncontroversial and the last thing Marchjuly should have done is repeatedly reinstate a copyrighted file the fair use of which is clearly questionable. At the very least they should have removed the logo's altogether pending outcome of the discussions. They could have decided to use common sense and accept Eightball's edit based on the evidence they provided instead forcing this proposed change through the bureaucratic chains despite Wikipedia itself telling us it is not a bureaucracy. Is is their actions and not Eightball's which has created all this drama (and unfortunately Eightball reacted badly to that) and what's worrying is that it is not an isolated incident. Marchjuly has repeatedly gotten involved in multiple such disputes over football team's logos with multiple different users. I appreciate that they want to get the right thing done, but these are just cases of being overconcerned.Tvx1 00:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I didn't restore and re-add the Twitter file to the article. I also didn't originally remove the file used in the men's file from the women's article or the rationale from the file's page. All of this (including diffs) has been explained above. Eightball was only being asked to follow CLOSECHALLENGE and discuss things with the closing admin, which is the same thing which was asked of you here. The fact that neither you nor Eightball think such a thing is necessary does not mean it's not necessary. Explicit seems to disagree with your approach as previously posted a little over a week ago here and here and then re-affirmed once again today here. Other administrators like JJMC89 and Ivanvector also seems to disagree with that approach per here and here made a few weeks back. Add to that what another administrator Fastily posted above here, then that seems to make at least four administrators who don't agree with that approach. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no possible justification for changing the logo here other than that one of them is actively incorrect. (I don't see you arguing anywhere that the one you're reverting from is, though it's late here and my head hurts and I'm pretty unmotivated in general.) There is exactly zero difference between the copyrightable parts of the logo you're reverting to and the logo you're reverting from. Hosting the same copyrighted content in multiple files, one for each article, makes us less compliant with WP:NFCC#3, not more.
If, arguing in the alternative, your primary objection is the FFD itself rather than following NFCC, then your reversions aren't correct either: the version of the logo with text should be G4'd and the article should have no logo at all. Maybe that meets WP:UUI#17 better, I've got no position either way on that, but using it as a justification to revert to the same image is insupportable. If the FFD legitimately forbids the textless version from being on this particular article, then it forbids the with-text one just as much. —Cryptic 07:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cryptic: I did actually ask about the Twitter logo in the FFD discussion and then asked Explicit about the difference at User talk:Explicit/Archive 23#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg shortly after the FFD discussion was closed. The logo with the text was only uploaded and added to the article after that user talk page exchange. It was used in the article until someone removed it a few months later in August 2017 and was subsequently deleted per WP:F5. It came up again as part of a WT:FOOTY discussion about the badge about a month ago, and was restored and re-added to the article by Explicit. It was then removed by Eightball and I re-added it per Explicit's edit. If the text file needs to go, then that's not a problem with me. If the FFD consensus about the other file is reviewed and a new consensus is established, then I've got no problem with that as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gumswick55[edit]

Gumswick55 (talk · contribs · count), along with a bunch of other accounts, blocked as socks of Max Arosev (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User_talk:ViperSnake151#Strange_IP

In my opinion Gumswick55 doesn't understand that amateur boxing, and Olympic boxing in particular, is not about national things, it's about the level of competion which one or another national Olympic team could have brought to the game, especially in such sensitive issue as in case of the boycotted Olympics (1980, 1984, 1988,) therefore articles on athletes and events that they've participated in should be free of any nationalistic agenda regardless of who was boycotting whom, the political things are of least importance in the sports-related articles (in my opinion, Gumswick55 with his ad hominem approach, and edits like these [9], has trouble complying with the WP:Politeness either, but that is not an issue of main importance.) 93.73.36.17 (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:SaskatchewanSenator ; Senatorsfansask[edit]

Please check

in connection to aforementioned User:Max Arosev, for the same reason: an edit war already in progress over the same article of little or no interest within two hours since previous account was blocked, (with another edit war in a bunch of related articles,) along with constant deleting related thread from my talk page, and from the article's talk page. (It seems that somehow the topic is sensitive to Max.) Thank you in advance. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I reported your IP. Hope that finally puts your destructive activity to an end. Senatorsfansask (talkcontribs) 09:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be a sockpuppet report? Why the strong wording? I think this should be moved to the bottom section. Nigos (t@lk Contribs) 09:18, 28 June 2019