Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive313

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Proposal: General sanctions on post-1978 Iranian politics[edit]

The community authorizes sanctions on post-1978 Iranian politics. I would prefer a broader participation, but this has been open long enough, and the consensus is clear. I will appreciate help documenting these sanctions.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 17 August 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.

The administrator noticeboards have seen a seemingly endless stream of discussions related to conflicts in post-revolutionary Iran, and more specifically, on conflicts between the current government and entities challenging it. Examples include the following; AN, July 2019, ANEW, June 2019, ANI, May 2019, ANI, March 2019, ANI, February 2019, ANEW, November 2018, ANI, September 2018, ANI, August 2018, ANEW, January 2018, ANEW, January 2018, and ANI, November 2017. As a point of interest, the conflicts in this topic are not new; see this discussion from September 2015, for instance. There have also been a series of caustic arguments on various talk pages; see, for instance, the archives at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. These discussions have tended to become bogged down as a result of mudslinging between involved parties: attempts by uninvolved users to intervene are few and far between.

As a result, very few sanctions have been issued, and disruptive behavior continues unabated. The one exception is that participants at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran were persuaded by El_C to accept the terms of WP:GS; in my opinion, that is too small a set of editors, and too restricted a locus. To curtail further disruption, I believe it is now necessary for admins to be able to issue sanctions, including topic-bans, without extended noticeboard discussions. I am asking for community authorized general sanctions, rather that ARBCOM-authorized discretionary sanctions, because I think the evidence for disruption is clear enough that the community can act on this immediately, and because ARBCOM is a little busy at the moment, and so filing a full case request would be doing the community a disservice.

I have discussed this previously with El_C, who is one of few admins to have issues sanctions or warnings in this area outside of ANEW, and El_C agrees with me about the necessity for such sanctions. @Deepfriedorca, EdJohnston, Drmies, Black Kite, Nyttend, and Oshwah:, you have also participated in some of these discussions as admins; your thoughts would be welcome. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC) @Drmies, Oshwah, EdJohnston, and JzG: Apologies for the bother; I've amended the proposal to post-1978 politics, following a discussion with Nyttend and El_C below; I doubt it makes a difference to you, but procedurally, I think I ought to let you know. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, as proposer. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I support--I think it's worth a try. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree that this is an action that's necessary in order to assure that an acceptable and collaborative editing environment is maintained consistently throughout this topic area. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – This sanction, if approved, could work like WP:GS/SCW which I think are reasonably successful in keeping the topic of the Syrian Civil War under control. EdJohnston| (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support — To reiterate, I think agreement to apply the specific GS to People's Mujahedin of Iran, an article which suffered from chronic edit warring, has proven to be quite successful. Slowly but surely progress is being made, whereas edit warring is now approaching zero (note that I did try to suggest applying the same thing to Fascism in Europe and did not even get a response from participants — so, you win some, you lose some). At any event, Vanamonde93's proposal to extend GS to other post-1979 Iranian politics articles, I am confident, would aid editors, article quality, and reducing conflict on the project overall. El_C 17:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Question Why post-1979? Is the revolution itself free from these disputes? If this area needs general sanctions, I would guess that it should be post-1978, unless you believe that items specifically from 1979 aren't being disrupted. Nyttend (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Nyttend: I don't think there's a political topic free of disruption on Wikipedia. I was trying to draw a line between a topic that has egregious localized disruption, and other related articles that merely have pedestrian levels of bad behavior. So far as I can tell, the conflicts on Wikipedia that prompted me to propose this stem from real-life conflicts between the current theocratic government of Iran and its opponents. As such, I haven't seen the same conflicts spill over into the revolution itself, yet. I'm not necessarily opposed to a broader regime of general sanctions; but I think that if a line must be drawn, it must be drawn at 1979 or 1953 (or 1905, when the constitutional revolution occurred); and it has been my impression that the community favors narrower areas of broad admin discretion. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    Vanamonde93, if we're drawing a line at the Islamic Revolution, that's perfectly fine, but the revolution happened in 1979, and your proposal is post-1979, i.e. beginning in 1980. For example, the proposal doesn't cover the beginning of the Iran hostage crisis or any of the December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum. That's the reason I'm confused. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with Nyttend. The revolution should be encompassed as well, since a lot of the disputes are rooted in it. El_C 00:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Nyttend and El C: Okay, fair enough. I'll amend it to "1978", as that is more concise that trying to spell out post-revolution, and ping the others. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for amending, Vanamonde93. Looks good. El_C 00:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for sure. In fact I'd cover anything where the troll of all trolls is involved - North Korea, China, US trade deficit, and so many more, but this one is obvious and long-standing. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – per nom Levivich 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment If further evidence were required that this is getting out of hand, there's these two conversations in the last week. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:34, 11 August 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.
  • Vanamonde93: I was surprised to see this discussion where, I think, active editors had to be pinged to comment. Also, El_C's intervention is shown to be pretty excellent, but slow. Surely much better than the previous condition. Now, your arguments are really seen and considered. --Mhhossein talk 14:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Second look at the scope of the sanctions[edit]

Following my discussion with Vanamonde93 I think the scope of the sanction are too wide and requires further discussion. Just see the examples brought to our eyes by Vanamonde93; Nearly most of the cases are related to MEK and the OP, I think, fails to raise his concerns, which I think are quite right, on proper ground. The remedy should be devised for areas with continued and repeated disputes. So, just asking for sanctions on "post-1978 Iranian politics" is not really fair without showing how this wide topic need such a thing. Multiple examples from various cases of 'continuous dispute' should be the minimum requirement; that said, I think the major issue lies with the MEK-related articles at the moment which was nicely handled by El_C for the main article. (pinging involved parties for attention @Drmies, JzG, Levivich, Nyttend, EdJohnston, and Oshwah:). --Mhhossein talk 13:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Why too wide? What is in scope that should not be? Guy (Help!) 13:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Guy: I think this is the OP who needs to prove the scope contains enough articles with diverse subjects making the scope wide enough. But as you requested please see Assembly of Experts, 2016 Iranian legislative election, Guardian Council, Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Iran), Combatant Clergy Association, Islamic Consultative Assembly and etc., though there are plenty of other examples. Please note that we're talking about continuous conflicts requiring remedies. --Mhhossein talk 18:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Guy: Any more comments on my recent examples? --Mhhossein talk 12:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would oppose any proposed reduction in scope, because there are severe conflicts within this topic that are unrelated to the MEK. As exhibit (a) I present to you 2019 Persian Gulf crisis, where the conflict is indubitably a spillover from Iranian politics (rather than from US politics). There's also Hafte Tir bombing (only peripherally related to the MEK); and somewhat lower levels of conflict at Manshour Varasteh (also only peripherally related), Mohammad-Javad Azari Jahromi, 2017 Iranian presidential election, and Ebrahim Raisi. Reaching further back, there's others; and those aren't conflicts that have been resolved, it's rather that the locus of conflict has temporarily shifted. Also, fundamentally, these conflicts are driven by people with strong opinions being unable to set those aside and edit within a policy-based framework. Reducing the scope of the sanctions will allow far too much opportunity for anyone sanctioned to continue problematic behavior in a closely related area. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
For your information, both Hafte Tir bombing and Manshour Varasteh are heavily related to MEK. Also, can you show us what conflict there's in Ebrahim Raisi for instance? Please note that conflicts between editors are often seen in various articles, but here we're talking about continuous disputes/conflicts requiring remedies. I mean come with something please! As for people having "strong opinions" regarding subjects; what's the relationship between this and making the scope of the article unnecessarily wide? --Mhhossein talk 18:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't buy that. Unless our article grossly misinterprets the subject, Hafte Tir bombing is only related to the MEK because they were accused of it without evidence; that's a tenuous connection at best, and it's exactly the sort of connection that has been endlessly wikilawyered at AE. When editors are sanctioned for an inability to follow NPOV, they need to be removed from the area of conflict. A very narrow scope for a general sanction does not help with this. Why are you so strongly opposed to the current scope? If you edit within policy, it should affect you at all; if all of you people editing in this topic edit within policy, the sanctions have no consequence whatsoever. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to list the sources here, but your latest comments on Hafte Tir bombing, i.e. "a tenuous connection at best" and "is only related to the MEK because they were accused of it without evidence", are just personal viewpoints regarding the subject which probably contradict numerous high quality reliable sources (comments special:diff/867882764, special:diff/904031175 should be enough for list of sources saying MEK did the bombing). Also, I'm not suggesting a "a very narrow scope", I'm just saying the the remedy should be as wide as necessary, but not wider (to make it unnecessarily wide!). I strongly oppose the current scope, since "writing laws is easy, but governing is difficult!" and it's just meaningless for the remedy to cover areas which does not need such an attention. Needless to say that I, having been edited withing policy, don't fear the consequences of the remedy and that I was of the first users who welcomed the restrictions which was then placed over MEK article, so your argument is not applicable. Instead, please show that all articles lying under post-1978 Iranian politics need to be sanctioned. --Mhhossein talk 13:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
These sanctions are just fine, it was about time. Sanctioned users actually have to edit within policy, what an outrage /s. Seriously though, post-1978 Iranian articles have been plagued by disruption for years now, this is the right step. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid, in that case, reverts which are nither discussed nor justified, would be with tough consequences. --Mhhossein talk 16:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I also fully agree that it's about time something of this sort was implemented. This needed to happen a long time ago, but either way it's a step in the right direction. Bless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I also agree that this is a great idea. Long overdue. The scope is commensurate with existing and expected disruption. In any case, noone loses. If there is no disruption, it doesn't matter how wide the scope is, noone will be sanctioned. If disruption arises, then the sanctions come in and save the day. This is a win-win situation if I ever saw one. Kudos to the initiators of this great idea. Dr. K. 01:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Off topic. Take it elsewhere if you really must continue. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mhossein; I simply restored the original revision which was suddenly changed by the same user whom you have been accused of collabrating with and whom along with yourself have been warned for to refrain from IRI pov-pushing. Not to mention you have also defended a Khomeinist user who was banned due to anti-semitism and much more [1]. Thus, your "Needless to say that I, having been edited withing policy" is highly invalid. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones (btw [2]). Not interested in derailing this thread, so this is my last message in this section. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
What did these bizarre comment had to do with this discussion? Your comment, being fulled with baseless accusations, is itself demonstrating you need to review our Wikipedia:Etiquette (for violation which you were blocked). This message is a warning against casting aspersion. With this edit, I wanted to show you need to be more careful after the sanctions. As for this discussion, there's an intervention by a 3rd party (who's an admin) with the comment saying "In my experience with Mhhossein, I've found him to be a conscientious editor who is genuinely trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia" and " Also, Mhhossein's suggestions of the portrayal of Agha Soltan in the media seem to me to be good to include as well." --Mhhossein talk 13:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
So much for this being my last message; These aren't baseless accusations, thus there's no aspersions being cast ([3] [4] here's two pieces of evidence for starters). Also, you don't need to show me anything, instead you should focus on your own edits within this encyclopedia. Furthermore, I was referring to literally everything else that was going on in the Neda discussion, which you interestingly enough ignored. I assume I don't have to quote them here? At last but not least, please try to keep a proper tone, calling my comment "bizarre" was uncalled for. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
You were successful at transforming a general discussion into this irrelevant discussion (see WP:BATTLE). Nothing to add here, except that my concerns regarding Neda page was right, as the admin said. --Mhhossein talk 10:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually this is more relevant than anything. Regarding the Neda article, people are free to check the link [5]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Extra Eyes Please on The Epoch Times[edit]

The article is the subject of a current and critical piece from Brietbart. (Can't post the link due to blacklist.) This could generate some attention from people who are either unaware of (or unconcerned with) our WP:PAG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart and Breitbart.zh are fighting? MichaelJacksonPopcorn.GIF
All joking aside I'll make sure it's still on my watchlist. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Breitbart-induced insomnia, the worst kind of all.-BMK
Not-so-thin Kong-EEng
Wow, Breitbart really hates me. It's such an honour. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
They can hate me too. I just SP'd for 4 days. Feel free to unprotect at discretion.-- Deepfriedokra 15:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, the article on Breitbart is slugged as by "T. A. Adler", which, we are told, is a pseudonym for User:The Devil's Advocate. Now Breitbart says (jn something that was undoubtedly written by TDA) that TDA was banned from Wikipedia because he "privately report[ed] conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators." But the banning block notice points here, where it says:

    In remedy 8.5 of the GamerGate case, The Devil's Advocate was 'strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.' Accordingly, for continuing harassment of other editors, The Devil's Advocate is banned indefinitely from the English Wikipedia.

    My problem with all this is that now I'll be up all night trying to figure out which version is accurate, and which is a wishful-thinkong fairy tale made up by a long-term disruptive editor. Oh, woe is me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@EEng: I beg to differ. There is another. -- Deepfriedokra 08:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra: HUH? EEng 14:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Your pardon, it was Beyond My Ken that added the picture.-- Deepfriedokra 14:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
My fault, for usurping EEng's gig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's good to keep an eye on possible Breitbart meatpuppets, but it's equally important to scrutinize edits for SPA editors like SecretRussian (talk · contribs), who popped out of nowhere to post the "information package" in the article. Due to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, pro-CCP shills are out in full force, with The Guardian reporting thousands of pro-Chinese shills being suspended in Twitter and Facebook. --Pudeo (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on Chernobyl (miniseries)‎[edit]

WP:ANEW has been pointed out as the correct forum for future reports. The page is now fully protected and discussion as to the efficacy of the edits in question can develop on the talk page. ——SerialNumber54129 08:21, 5 September 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.


An ip editor seems to be unaware of the ordinary phrase "for dramatic purposes"and has taken against it for an unclear reason, despite it being the precisely correct phrase in context. They have repeatedly changed or removed it despite being reverted by myself and others, and encouraged to engage on the article talk page. I posted on the talk page here and on their user page here. They chose to delete that. Their first edit here, and my reversion, with edit summary. Their subsequent edits:
here
here
here
here
here
here
here

Their latest edit is to imply on my userpage that I have not considered the matter (pot calling kettle imho). Captainllama (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple reverts going on here. From what I can see, the IP's edits have been reverted by several different editors. Without getting bogged down with who-did-what-to-who, isn't page protection the best way forward for the short-term, and the IP can go to the talkpage? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I fully protected the article for three days. The IP is technically speaking not at WP:3RR, and their edits, though clearly edit-warring, are not vandalism, and a discussion must happen whether they are appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, I've not claimed 3RR or vandalism. I'd have taken it to WP:ANEW had I noticed its existence! Captainllama (talk) 20:32, 4 September 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.

Petition to Amend the Arbitration Policy: Interim Elections[edit]

I have started a petition to amend the arbitration policy on interim elections at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Petition_to_Amend_the_Arbitration_Policy:_Interim_Elections. All are invited to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Recurrent vandalism to TFA[edit]

Has been protected. ST47 (talk) 06:01, 8 September 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.

There has been recurrent vandalism to Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware today. Three unconstructive edits were not spotted in more than 20 minutes before I reverted them. Please consider semi-protection or pending changes protection. Thank you! 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:E42E:97B9:E2A6:6B69 (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is often backlogged, but that's the best place to request page protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:45, 6 September 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.

Arbitration motion regarding Eric Corbett[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has been made aware of and has independently confirmed that Eric Corbett (talk · contribs), since his public retirement, has been abusively misusing multiple accounts and disruptively editing while logged out. Eric Corbett's accounts are hereby indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee. Accordingly, the case request involving Eric Corbett, which has been accepted by majority vote, will be closed.

Support
  • Courcelles (per mailing list)
  • GorillaWarfare (per mailing list)
  • Joe Roe (per mailing list)
  • KrakatoaKatie (per mailing list)
  • Mkdw (per mailing list)
  • Opabinia regalis (per mailing list)
  • Premeditated Chaos (per mailing list)
Oppose
Recuse
  • Worm That Turned (per mailing list)

Katietalk 14:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Eric Corbett

Request to override Global range block[edit]

Ajraddatz suggested me to post here again my request so i created this new section because the previous had already been archived

I would like a local admin to whitelist the ip range 151.48.0.0/17 so that users from that ip range can edit again from ips

The ip range was globally blocked because an abuser used it to create many fake accounts in many projects so the problem was account creation not anonymous editing

Please unblock locally this ip range by allowing editing from ips and keeping blocked the possibility to create accounts to protect en.wikipedia.org

Semplicemente Agghiacciante Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It isn't possible to block account creation and not anonymous editing, but it should be possible to whitelist the global block locally. I confirm that the block is needed at the global level, but recommend that local admins/CUs look into whether it can be whitelisted here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It is accepted that a local override can't allow account creation if it is already disabled globally. The only quesion being raised here is whether it is worth it to re-enable anonymous editing (not account creation) on enwiki from the range Special:Contributions/151.48.0.0/17. Anyone who advocates this might try to click on that contributions link and try to find any useful IP edits from the six months prior to June, 2019. See if you think that anything positive was happening then. Unless some data is presented, I would go with the view of User:Anachronist whose name appears in the block log and so far has not decided to re-enable the range for IP editing. The user Semiplicemente Agghiacciante has an account now, so the block is not impacting them personally, provided they are willing to log in to edit. Simply allowing one person (who has an account) to edit anonymously from that range doesn't sound like a good enough reason to lift the block. EdJohnston (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Anachronist blocked that ip range on my request because he told me he could set account creation allowed instead of anonymous editing but it did not work

The ip range 151.48.0.0/17 does not cointain any more non constructive editing than any other ip range but more important the global block was set to stop an abuser from spamming accounts and messages across the wikipedias not to stop anonymous editing in en.wikipedia.org

And if that ip range is unblocked here it would be even easier to find out any disruptive editing from there because administrators would have just to have a look at the ip range once in a while

Semplicemente Agghiacciante Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

(I've been away for a while.)
Yes, I experimentally changed the local block settings for this range to allow for account creation, but it seems the global block settings take precedence. I have no idea if this is intentional or not. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Anachronist, I believe you have to use this as well to whitelist the range. SQLQuery me! 01:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Long term sock problem[edit]

Done by El C --DannyS712 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 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.


Louispogi0012 (talk · contribs)

Can someone block this account and semi-protect these articles? We are going round in circles on literally a daily basis with this person's sock farm.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 08:46, 5 September 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.

Vandalism on Bais Rajput article[edit]

Page protected. I'm trying to help with the dispute resolution, but more outside input would be welcome. El_C 19:25, 7 September 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.

On the article , Bais Rajput, a user who was previously involved in edit wars is continuously trying to add Pakistan to the lead section. His source is a unrelated medical journal which mentions the term "Bains". Clearly Bains has no relation to Bais as all sources that mention Bais, place them in the Baiswara, Awadh (Oudh), Uttar Pradesh region. Neither is there a source showing Bains to be synonymous with Bais. Furthermore, this user has previously been blocked for sock puppetry and edit warring. Even this week, he received a warning from an admin and is clearly not here to contribute in good faith. I request administrator assistance in some form. Thank you.HaoJungTar (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The source given does not say they are only solely found in uttar pradesh either also I found this website talking about bains rajput in mirpur but its a health report https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4216966/and the spelling is a bit different so what and I am not notoriously known to have sock puppets and your statement that real rajputs can't be found in punjab just shows your mentality are you even a real sri lankan and this dispute got settled why did you bring up again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bais_Rajput Admins look at the site for yourself the sources given don't mention that they are only found in uttar pardesh the health report I gave also mentions them in pakistan and there is no crediable site that talks about tgem as thery are either blogs or facebook groups that talk about them nothing creiable but surely a health report is valid here.Arsi786 (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edits are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. The only sources mention them being present in Uttar Pradesh. The absence of a source indicating their existence elsewhere means that only UP is relevant. Furthermore, you can't even speak English properly and regularly engage in edit wars and personal attacks. Your only source mentions some distant group called "Bains".HaoJungTar (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Arsi against me:

Accusing me of not being Sri Lankan (as if that's of any relevance):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bais_Rajput&diff=914477693&oldid=914476874

Accusing me of hating Pakistan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bais_Rajput&diff=914475196&oldid=914470174

HaoJungTar (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

How are they personal attacks your sri lankan and yet you claimed real rajputs are not found in punjab (Most of pakitan's population is in punjab) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bais_Rajput&action=history Yes there are a lot of indian trolls on here who hate pakistan it was more of a accusation rather then a attack because and what sri lankan cares about pakistani and indian caste's. Arsi786 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Violation of the 3-revert rule by Arsi786[edit]

In the talk page, we find that Arsi has violated the 3-revert rule:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bais_Rajput&action=history

Just how many chances will he get? Accusing me of being an "Indian troll" as well.HaoJungTar (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Let the admins deal with this.Arsi786 (talk) 19:33, 7 September 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.

Attack page[edit]

Not in scope for thhis noticeboard. ST47 (talk) 06:00, 8 September 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.

I just discovered this attack page, presumably made by the WMF-banned user User:Projects. He called me an "idiot" and one of the users called me a "moron". A person who banned him from a wiki powered by MediaWiki also replied to the comment, against them. Nigos (talk Contribs) 08:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There's no jurisdiction over off-wiki forums here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:03, 7 September 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.

Islamic Republic of Iran users and destructive behavior[edit]

OP blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 8 September 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.

SharabSalam and Benyamin-ln Controlling all articles related to the Islamic Republic of Iran. This two are campaigning for the Iranian regime and dont let other users to add or remove anything from related articles of Islamic Republic of Iran and ali Khamenei. The last one is: Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Please set Wikipedia free again. You Persian (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@You Persian: looking at the recent article history of Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, this looks more like a content dispute than an issue needing ANI attention. Please note that, whenever you are making changes on Wikipedia and you are contested by other editors (as you were here [6]), please discuss the changes on the article talk page, per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
They have many accounts and have high access. Like before, they win and censor the contents of Wikipedia. They support each other and i will try... okay! You Persian (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I would add that saying any user is a government agent or acting on behalf of a government("campaigning for the Iranian regime") is a serious accusation that needs evidence(while not violating WP:OUTING). 331dot (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is free for everyone to edit in a constructive way. It is not free for adding biased point of views, vandalism. I am trying to protect the article from that sort of thing. You are adding point of views and refusing to collaborate with other editors. Instead you believe that you only has the right to freely edit Wikipedia. Also you are again accusing me of using sock account as a puppet, that is not true, this is the first time I see Benjamin, I have your userpage in my watchlist and I went to see what you are doing and I found it disruptive and not neutral point of view, so I reverted.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I am allowed to do that like you. And that's interesting that you removed all of my content not just a few. Is this neutral? You Persian (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is the POV content you added to the lead!! I don't know why you haven't been banned yet, you are editwarring and adding POVs unsourced content, if that was me I would have been banned long time ago!!

Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been likened to ISIS by many Iranians and foreign governments. Many countries believe that this government provides financial and weapon support to the terrorists. Also, It has good relations with China and Russia.

The government constantly violates human rights in Iran. The government is using executioner to kill prisoners in public places and in front of people. The government also executes children. Atefeh Sahaaleh and Mona Mahmudnizhad are children executed in Iran for religious reasons. Journalists who do not work for the government may be imprisoned and executed. Many foreign journalists have been imprisoned in Iran and many other have been executed.

The government has strict laws against Iranian women, including mandatory hijab. The government holds large mourning ceremonies in Iran (Most of them are religious mourning ceremonies) and prevents people from dancing and celebrating.

--SharabSalam (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
And just an information, I have been to Iran and none of what you added about Iran is true.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:47, 8 September 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.

Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting[edit]

Would an uninvolved admin please close the discussion in Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting#Naming the perpetrator. There is overwhelming WP:SNOW consensus there but one editor refuses to drop the stick and reopened the discussion. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It'd be nice if we could continue to discuss, the content in dispute has already been added back to the article, but there is potential for broader discussion... and perhaps a compromise at some point. —Locke Coletc 02:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
There is overwhelming consensus already that you are refusing to acknowledge. Drop the stick and move on, please. Nsk92 (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I have closed the discussion accordingly per WP:SNOW. El_C 02:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. Nsk92 (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x2... There were two !votes that offered alternatives worth discussing. The WP:INVOLVED editor closing the discussion prematurely ended the potential for those discussions to bear fruit. Explain to me how leaving the disputed content in the article but not wanting the discussion closed constitutes "refusing to acknowledge" the !voting so far? Remember: this discussion started in the last 12 hours... —Locke Coletc 02:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I think 12 hours is more than enough time when consensus is this overwhelming. El_C 02:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Half the world was asleep for most of that time. It was a strong pattern, no doubt. But a day should be the minimum, just to be surer. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, September 2, 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. It sounds like a bit of a stretch. El_C 03:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not exactly half, and factoring in our userbase complicates the logistics beyond my skill level, but we do have people who schedule Wikipedia time for certain blocks of their days. Some are Alaskan, some Okinawan. I think it's a good idea to go a full turn unless completely consensual; knowing a dead guy's name isn't urgent, like having an active shooter's description (or a tsunami warning) should be. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, September 2, 2019 (UTC)
That's if we accept your notion that this wasn't clear enough, which I do not. Seems like that 24-hours rule you made up is bureaucracy for its own sake, in this case. A few hours is enough, however, when the preference ratio is ten to one, I challenge. El_C 03:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
No rule of mine, just a suggestion. You're free to use it or forget it. Can somebody hurry up with the Virginia Beach shooting one, though? Six dead folks have been waiting three months (180 times longer) for this same courtesy. Seems a bit too relaxed. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, September 2, 2019 (UTC)
A bit less whimsy would be the respectful way to bring attention to this. El_C 04:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
You have a strange notion of "whimsy". I'm saying six people were shot to death, identified by police, popularized through the media but swept aside on Wikipedia. That's tragedy in my books, and the respectful choice is remembering how they died for an article about their killer counterpart. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, September 2, 2019 (UTC)
Six dead folks have been waiting three months seems a bit tone-deaf, is what I'm getting at. El_C 04:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that. If I knew how many living people are still waiting, I could've invoked them instead, but I don't. I could name more than six, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, September 2, 2019 (UTC)

Leaving the name of the shooter out of a shooting article? Yeah, right. Now, I've seen it all. Wow. Just, wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the norm per BLPCRIME. Until they are convincted (Which will probably happen quickly in this type of sitaution), and the person otherwise unknown, it is better to leave the name out. --Masem (t) 03:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
He is dead; there will be no trial or conviction. He was killed by the police. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Until this is spelled out for mass shooting perpetrators (and victims), local consensus is going to decide. El_C 04:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I meant that our default position is to omit, but yes, local consensus can override. --Masem (t) 04:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Indeed. El_C 04:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Always best to check the facts on a specific case before opining on a case where the specific facts are dispositive. The death of the suspect in this specific case changes the equation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How can I request a deletion of a revision?[edit]

(non-admin closure) Revision deleted, please see WP:REVDELREQUEST for a less-public way of requesting this in the future. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:40, 9 September 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.

I want for example an admin to remove this diff Special:Diff/914510886 because it is very insulting to a BLP.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 21:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Nevertheless, requests for revision deletion should not be posted to highly-visible public pages like AN -- see WP:REVDELREQUEST for more details. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:53, 7 September 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.

WP:Draft[edit]

Administrator Deb unilaterally moved the page Mohamad Barakat to draft without specifying any reasons and did not react on my complaint even though as I now saw the rules clearly say

"The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. As a matter of good practice the editor moving a page to draft should mark its talk page with the tags of any relevant projects as a means of soliciting improvements from interested editors. ...

Requirements for page movers

To unilaterally move an article to draft space, you should:

  • notify the author (this is facilitated by the script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js),
  • be accountable for your draftification decisions per the standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability

If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD."

I find it very rude to move an article that has numerous reliable secondary sources and to which several users contributed for more than a year to draft without even specifying reasons on request. Ironically this was the reaction to a complaint about repeated vandalism on the page by single purpose accounts Rafaelbernardes, 2804:14C:36:8B7A:E436:A2AA:BB32:F8B, and Nicolegomesa who so far were not sanctioned in any way.[7] I don't remember the cases but this is not the first time I see articles being moved to draft without following due process. Apparently not everyone is aware of the rules - I wasn't until I read them but I am glad they are the way I think they should be rather than how some users would prefer them to be. Regarding accountability I think it would be good to keep track of such incidents. Omikroergosum (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

We can delete it as blatant advertising if you'd prefer? Guy (Help!) 19:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Well Deb is I believe an administrator, but it's far more likely this was draftified as a function of WP:NPP. And Guy is absolutely correct. The other alternative is speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. John from Idegon (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually it only got up to the level of advertising because the BLP violations were removed. There might be enough sources out there to write an article which is policy compliant but it will take an editor who understands Portuguese and does not want to write a hatchet job on the subject. Jbh Talk 20:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Jbhunley nominated the page for deletion,[8] it was speedily deleted and then recreated after Phil Bridger contested the speedy deletion because "the negative content is reliably sourced"[9] (immediately reverted by Jbhunley).[10] It was then again moved to draft by JzG [11] ignoring the rules that I pointed to above.
It was advertising when the vandals about which I complained deleted the parts on the internationally reported doping scandals and put Portuguese content, links to his social media pages and amazon links to his books.[12] Draftifying it again without discussion even after I pointed to the rules here clearly saying this is not allowed is scandalous, in particular with the justification that it lacks reliable sources given that even after you deleted the content on the scandals 11 sources remained even though the main content on those touching the doping was censored [13] and everything in the article is based on the sources. I tried to move back but JzG now protected the page from creation. I expand my complaint to include administrators Jbhunley and JzG whou should be held accountable for breaking wikipedia rules in the same way as Deb. It is also erroneous to point to new pages control given that the article is more than a year old and in a previous deletion it had been decided to speedy keep the article and the user nominating for deletion was blocked for sockpuppetry and accused of paid editing.(User:2Joules). Jbhunley even writes in his own edit summary that he doesn't have sufficient language skills to make qualified judgments on the sources but still deletes well sourced content over speculations.[14] JzG even reverted a nomination for draft revision [15] and threatens me with a block for "disruptive editing" [16] although all I ever did is adding content based on high quality reliable sources and I showed here that he broke wikipedia rules. The draft was reduced to non-negative content that to me seems barely notable [17] and those who did that refuse to specify which parts they object to and why. Special interest accounts and administrators who think they need to help them but don't follow the rules should not make contributing to wikipedia such a difficult experience. Omikroergosum (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not an administrator. Jbh Talk 22:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Would still be nice if you could help to follow due process and refrain from deletions based on poor foreign language skills. Omikroergosum (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Omikroergosum, In the past hour and a half you've edited the comment Jbhunley replied to nearly a dozen times. Do you have your reply sorted yet? SQLQuery me! 00:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • My more detailed reply is on the article talk page to keep content discussion there rather than spreading it all over WP -- per my reply to the OP's comments on my talk page. Jbh Talk 01:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
SQL, I carefully did not edit parts of my post that Jbhunly had replied to. I felt I had to add difflinks and give more context as apparently readers are misled by single purpose accounts to believe that the very well sourced article is in violation of rules for articles on living people.
This discussion here is not about the content of the article but about the repeated abuse of admin powers by circumventing draftification in order to circumvent deletion discussions (which in this cases had already been held). Omikroergosum (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Given that JzG deleted the draft even after I showed the rules clearly say draftification is to be undone if a user objects (in this case two users did), a formal deletion discussion had come to the decision to speedily keep and JzG was accused of abuse of admin powers but still kept acting on the case I have to bring this up at the Administrators' Incident page. Omikroergosum (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
There are two competing versions of the article: a blatant advertisement, or your version, which is an attack page. Your seem pretty determined not to hear anything that contradicts your opinion. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── OP has now opened a thread at ANI on the same topic. John from Idegon (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to this that I had announced above already as the repeated abuse of admin powers unfortunately converted this into an urgent case rather than a general discussion on apparent lack of knowledge about the rules regarding draftification. JzG aka "Guy", please stop repeating your empty claim over and over, specify your argument in a deletion discussion if you so much want it and follow due process. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I have moved the ANI report back here as a subsection. El_C 08:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the discussion should rather be moved to ANI because this is now an urgent case of repeated abuse of admin powers rather than a general discussion on apparent lack of knowledge of rules on draftification. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
No, the discussion should not be split, regardless of the perceived urgency — which does not really factor here, anyway. El_C 08:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I meant to move rather than split the discussion. And repeated abuse of admin powers is clearly an urgent incident. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A reasonable solution may be:
    1. Undelete and merge all revisions of the article and draft into a singe edit history;
    2. Nominate the result for regular deletion under WP:notability (people).
    But actually I don’t expect the establishment to desire any solution like it – scores of such cases could in the future deter sysops from thoughtless clicking on [delete] in disregard of the policy. The policy would become more important than the establishment. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Repeated abuse of admin powers[edit]

A deletion discussion on the article Mohamad Barakat had come to the decision to speedily keep the article and the user nominating for deletion was blocked for sockpuppetry and accused of paid editing.(User:2Joules). However, administrator Deb unilaterally moved the page to draft without specifying any reasons and did not react on my complaint even though as I then saw the rules clearly say

"The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. As a matter of good practice the editor moving a page to draft should mark its talk page with the tags of any relevant projects as a means of soliciting improvements from interested editors. ...

Requirements for page movers

To unilaterally move an article to draft space, you should:

  • notify the author (this is facilitated by the script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js),
  • be accountable for your draftification decisions per the standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability

If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD."

I find it very rude to move an article that has numerous reliable secondary sources and to which several users contributed for more than a year to draft without even specifying reasons on request. Ironically this was the reaction to a complaint about repeated vandalism on the page by single purpose accounts Rafaelbernardes, 2804:14C:36:8B7A:E436:A2AA:BB32:F8B, and Nicolegomesa who so far were not sanctioned in any way.[18] I don't remember the cases but this is not the first time I see articles being moved to draft without following due process. Apparently not everyone is aware of the rules - I wasn't until I read them but I am glad they are the way I think they should be rather than how some users would prefer them to be. Regarding accountability I think it would be good to keep track of such incidents.

After I brought this up at the Administrators' Noticeboard, administrator JzG claimed the article was "blatant advertising" although it was only advertising in the versions by the single purpose accounts I had complained about when they put Portuguese content, links to his social media pages and amazon links to his books.[19]. A user erroneously justified administrator Deb's action pointing to new pages control although the article was more than a year old, numerous editors had worked on it and there was the result of the deletion discussion. The article was then speedily deleted and users claimed it was an attack page. As another administrator pointed out that the negative content was well sourced it was recreated. However, ignoring the rules, administrator JzG draftified it again. The draft was reduced to non-negative content that to me seems barely notable [20] Jbhunley admitted in his own edit summary that he doesn't have sufficient language skills to make qualified judgments on the sources but still deleted well sourced content over his speculations that things might be different.[21] He refused to specify which rules on biographies exaclty had been broken by which part of the article.

JzG then even blocked the article from recreation, [22] reverted a draft revision nomination, posted a warning to block me on my talk page for "disruptive editing" [23] although all I ever did is adding content based on high quality reliable sources and I showed here that he broke wikipedia rules. JzG then even deleted the draft along with the discussion even after I had complained about his violation of Wikipedia rules, which should have stopped him from acting on the case. He also uses a different name in some of his messages, which can make other users think that there are two different users who share his opinion. It was claimed that the artile lacked reliable sources although there were 17 of them from top quality media like ARD, Veja, Globo... Everything in the article is based on the sources. Administrators JzG should be held accountable for breaking wikipedia rules in a much more flagrant way than Deb who has abstained from the discussion after I brought up the complaint at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Special interest accounts and administrators who think they need to help them but don't follow the rules should not make contributing to wikipedia such a difficult experience.

Please block the single purpose vandals Rafaelbernardes, 2804:14C:36:8B7A:E436:A2AA:BB32:F8B, and Nicolegomesa, restore the article and start another proper deletion discussion if you so much want it, warn admininstrators Deb and in particular JzG, as well as user Jbhunley. Omikroergosum (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The final version of the article—i.e. the version from which the BLP violations and irrelevant PR puffery had been removed—in full read Mohamad Barakat is a Brazilian physician of Lebanese descent practicing in São Paulo. He has been sharing his daily life on social media since 2014. He has more than a million followers on Instagram. Barakat has published a book on how to live a healthy life and is a frequent guest talking on the topics on radio and television.! Barakat and his wife have a daughter. If you can write a version of this page that complies with Wikipedia's rules, feel free, but we're not a general webhost; the deletion was completely correct. ‑ Iridescent 07:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Please be specific in how far the well sourced content was in violation of BLP and follow due process, which is to nominate for deletion if a user (and in this case several users, including administrators) object to deletion and draftification. How ironic to claim that an article is an attack page and "PR puffery". He also published two rather well selling books, both of which were well sourced and with ISBN. Omikroergosum (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Can Iridescent explain how is it G10 then? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
It was a blatant attack page; the material quoted above is what was left behind once the inappropriate content had been removed. You can complain all you want, but you're not going to find any admin on Wikipedia who is willing to restore this. ‑ Iridescent 07:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
All content was extremely well sourced. Please explain how an "attack page" can at the same time be "PR puffery". You cannot just make a wild claim to justify that due process was not followed and the article was already restored by an administrator and another administrator had decided to speedily keep. Omikroergosum (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, there were two competing versions. One was your attack page, the other was an advertisement. Given the obvious marginal notability of the subject, we don't need either. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
That is your opinion that you repeat over and over. As already at least two administrators and several other users expressed they share my opinion that this is a valid article (Count Count and Atlantic306 in the deletion discussion ruling to speedily keep, the administrator that reverted your deletion yesterday, those users that had edited the article before deletion, and Incnis Mrsi above) and as the rules clearly state a deletion needs to be justified by a proper deletion discussion please undue your violations of Wikipedia policies. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, zero administrators have agreed with you on this. But you can add me to the list who think deletion was the right call. This was a straightforward violation of WP:BLPCRIME, and getting over that hurdle requires showing that the subject of the article is either WP:WELLKNOWN, or that the crime of which the subject is accused is obviously notable, rather than WP:NOTNEWS. In any event, this is by no means an urgent issue, nor is there any admin abuse going on. You have all the time you want to put together an argument for undeletion. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
You cannot see what was deleted: The administrator who recreated the article after JzG deleted wrote the negative content is well sourced. You apparently also did not read the deletion discussion whose final decision was speedily keep and in which I convinced that Barakat is not notable for a crime but for being a celebrity doctor omnipresent in Brazilian media and accused of questionable practices by several journalists as well as a singer who won a defamation case started by Barakat. Those actions may or may not be illegal. As I pointed out at the time, Eufemiano Fuentes of course also has his article even though he was even acquitted. Your argument that the guy is not well known shows you have not looked into the case as there were 17 sources, most of them highly reliable and some even international showing he has more than a million instagram followers, published two well selling books, is near omnipresent in Brazilian media and even raised the attention in far away countries like the UK and Germany. Admittedly seeing this became difficult after the repeated deletions by JzG. This is clearly an urgent case as administrators repeatedly violated the rule that deletions and draftifications need to wait for a decision in a deletion discussion if a user objects, and in this case not only I objected but an administrator had even restored and a deletion discussion had come to the result to speedily keep. Omikroergosum (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
A couple items of note Omikroergosum. Someguy1221 is an admin and can see what was deleted. Also the speedy keep was because the AFD had been "Nominated by confirmed blocked sockpuppet" and the non-admin closer did not comment on the content of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 09:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The administrator who had wanted to delete wrote himself in the deletion discussion that he changed his vote to weak keep.[24] If Someguy1221 read the deleted content and still claims no administrator agreed with me the article is well sourced or that Barakat is not well known or that he is only notable for a "crime" I am afraid I have to see he must be either extremely careless or he is just lying. And even if he were right this would still not be a justification for the flagrant violation of the wikipedia rule that a draftification is not acceptable as a means to circumvent a proper deletion discussion. Omikroergosum (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Given that you appear to have now moved on to outright lying, I've temporarily undeleted the talk page in question so everyone else can see that your claims are untrue. ‑ Iridescent 10:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Please show me where I lied and I apologize right away. Otherwise I take this as a personal attack. Thanks for undeleting as I never had a chance to see the finally specified objections by Jbhunley [25] as they were deleted before I could see them. Omikroergosum (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, there's at least two administrators and several other users expressed they share my opinion that this is a valid article when you've not provided an example of a single admin who feels this is valid (as I've already explained on my talkpage, because of the way Wikipedia operates it would only take a single admin objecting to the deletion to get it restored), If Someguy1221 read the deleted content and still claims no administrator agreed with me…, where I've just restored the deleted talk page complete with all its history and it's clear nobody (admin or otherwise) agreed with you, the wikipedia rule that a draftification is not acceptable which you seem to have just made up… ‑ Iridescent 10:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
A) Count Count is not an admin. B) I did not say that Barakat is not well known - I said that it needs to be shown that this is the case. C) You are making an assumption that your own conclusions are so obviously correct that no reasonable person who saw the same evidence could disagree with you. Whether you choose to keep thinking that way is up to you, but it's not a great attitude for collaboration. I don't think you're lying, but I do think you are confused about some things, have made some colorful interpretations of other things, and overall are approaching the situation with an unhealthy intensity. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Someguy1221, quite. I am seeing distinct shades of WP:RGW here. It reminds me of the guy who got banned for trying to blaze the trail in publicising Lance Armstrong's drug use. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
If Count Count is not an admin I admit I got that wrong. I assumed if someone can close a deletion discussion it must be an admin. Getting something wrong is not a lie. The article was restored yesterday and a user reverting wrote in his edit summary that the negative content was properly sourced. I assumed if it was restored this must have been done by an admin but as the history is still deleted I cannot even see who it was. I take writing that negative content is properly sourced as an agreement with me. I also take the above question by Incnis Mrsi how the article violates G10 as an agreement with me that it has not been shown how it violates such rules. I also take those several users who edited the article after his creation without deleting content and without asking to get it deleted as an agreement with me that the article has its value. I showed very clearly that Barakat is well known with 17 sources, most of them reliable top quality and several even international, they clearly show he published two books that he presented at many prominent venues, he has more than a million instagram followers and has posed with dozens of (even international) stars. If you claim that does not show he is well known I don't know what to say. And I repeat, even if you were right, that does not justify to abuse admin powers to flagrantly violate the wikipedia rule I pointed to above that draftification is not an acceptable means to circumvent a deletion discussion. I would call it an unhealthy intensity if an admin draftifies a page after he was shown this violates the rules, then deletes it twice even after it was undone, blocks the page from recreation and threatens good faith editors who contribute with top quality sources to block them. This while three single purpose vandals who repeatedly posted Portuguese advertisements and refused to discuss still remain unpunished. I have to admit that I cannot stand injustice and authoritarian condescending behavior at all. I believe wikipedia has its great value because numerous editors respectfully work together. Unfortunately this is not always the case. Omikroergosum (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC) PS: Thanks for the interesting link on Righting great wrongs, JgZ. I hope you have read it. "if you want to ... Explain the "truth" or "reality" of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue ... on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media." As you will see from my contributions I used to edit on quite a variety of topics so I don't see explaining the truth on anything as my mission here but mainstream media started to report on the questionable practices by Barakat 6 years ago... Omikroergosum (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── In fact, administrators are empowered to act unilaterally in the enforcement of WP:BLP, and so even the sequence of events you describe is not prima facie evidence of misconduct. In other words, you are describing something that an administrator is allowed to do. Administrators are also empowered to evaluate whether there is or is not consensus, and whether that consensus is or is not based in policy. If an administrator has a good faith belief that an article exists in violation of BLP, he is permitted within reason to boldly act on that belief even in the face of opposing voices. There is a process to dispute the deletion of an article. It starts with opening a civil dialog with the deleting admin, and follows with a post to WP:DRV if that does not satisfy. If a single admin is shown, by reversal at DRV, to be habitually out of touch with the community with regards to speedy deletions, then there would be a reason to start talking about warnings or sanctions against them. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Omikroergosum You keep lecturing me on how I am not allowed to do things because you have pointed out the "rules". Have you noticed that you have zero admins supporting your position here? You have 500 edits, largely pushing this "drugs scandal". I have 120,000. It might be that I know the rules better than you do. Ort it might be that I am wrong, but your style is simply spectacularly counterproductive. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
As you may have seen, I only started to get drawn away from my other activities by the repeated vandalism of this one article I once created and then the refusal of you as administrator to accept the wikipedia rule that a draftification is not an acceptable means to circumvent a proper deletion discussion. Please explain how the article was restored (twice if I understand correctly?) if there was no admin who disagreed with you. The whole article is entirely based on reliable sources as someone (I thought an admin) that you will be able to identify yesterday confirmed in his edit summary and you refused to specify what exactly you object to. Your zillion edits don't justify a condescending way to react on a well explained complaint about clear vandalism by three single purpose accounts and a clear violation of wikipedia rules (Deb never claimed the article was violating rules on biographies of living people) by abusing your powers and repeatedly keep acting on a case in which you were accused of abusing your administrative powers.
Someguy1221, I don't care if sanctions are taken on Deb or JzG (although in the latter case repeatedly taking action when he himself is accused of misconduct is another violation of wikipedia rules) but I think such cases should be noted somewhere because otherwise users have no chance to see without much effort if an administrator has a history of such conduct. And I think the article needs to be restored to start a proper discussion as it is extremely well sourced and the only ever proper discussion on deletion was to keep it. Please also note that in my attempt to have a civil discussion with the deleting admin he started to threaten to block me and never ever showed precisely why exactly he thinks there is a violation of rules on biographies of living people inspite of another user reverting with the justification that all negative content is properly sourced and Incnis Mrsi asking how G10 was violated and the previous decision to keep the article. Omikroergosum (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and immediately defer to a new deletion discussion; restore as courtesy blanked - no fault to anyone here but this deletion was botched at several stages and needs to start from scratch. We have a no-prejudice speedy keep in a previous discussion as well as several objections to both G10 and G11 deletion in the deleted page's history; it should have been blanked and left to discussion. Neither G10 nor G11 are listed under criteria which override previous deletion discussions, G10 only applies if the content is entirely unsourced, and G11 is for pages which are blatantly promotional - this was poorly written but not blatantly promotional. As for the real-life situation, I have difficulty Googling for foreign language topics but from what I put together from Brazilian sources, this individual is a notably controversial celebrity doctor ([26], [27], [28]) who became embroiled in a scandal with a Brazilian singer over wrongly prescribing anabolic steroids ([29], [30], [31]) and also made news recently when he accidentally posted to Instagram a video of a lewd encounter between him and his wife ([32], [33]). Someone who actually reads Portuguese should review the sources, I have no idea of the accuracy of machine translations or the reliability of these sources, it's worth noting that I can't find any information whatsoever on the individual in English-language sources, and I'm not really convinced these points establish notability per our criteria for an article (considering BLPCRIME and such) but this is all consideration that should happen in a deletion discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    I agree. Furthermore, such a restoration would be entirely compatible with policy and is regularly done at WP:DRV (where this discussion should have been held at the first place). Regards SoWhy 12:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'd support that. To be honest, I wish I had just speedy deleted the thing in the first place, since notability had not been established. I saw that there had been a lot of edit warring, and I made the mistake of giving the creator an opportunity to improve it in draft space. Deb (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    (I'm just participating here because I do speak Portuguese and a Portuguese speaker seems to be needed in this discussion) I read all the news articles pointed out by Ivanvector. Most, or all, of the articles are from reliable sources from Brazil (like Veja and Globo.com). However, I'm not quite convinced that there are "depth coverage" about the person in question. He's cited as "celebrity doctor" with a strong presence in the social networks, but few biographical information is given, about him, on these articles. The articles are more about his involvement in doping cases, his prescription of anabolic steroids and other controversial stuff in which he's involved. He might be barely notable or this might be a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT.--SirEdimon (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
It is just a blatant lie that notability has not been established. Read the rules. There are numerous reliable secondary (and even international) sources that have in depth coverage. Notability established. Period. And there was a decision to keep, so no speedy deletion. Accept the rules please. Thank you very much Ivanvector and SoWhy for pointing to due process. Would be nice by Deb and JzG to finally acknowledge that they went wrong on the Wikipedia rules and by JzG to take back the threat to block me (for pointing to the fact he violated rules). Most importantly, as to my knowledge Mohamad Barakat is not accused of a crime but of questionable medical treatment on sports people (that is what he is most notable for as there was in-depth coverage internationally) and using a title he does not hold (which I guess is not a crime but maybe an administrative offence). A source in English is here: [34] This was also reported by quality media in Swedish,(Expressen [35]) Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang [36] and a Polish sports paper,[37] in case that helps... Omikroergosum (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Omikroergosum: STOP continuously editing your comments. It is disruptive. Jbh Talk 13:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There is nothing stopping the OP from clicking on Draft:Mohamad Barakat and writing a policy compliant article. I explained to him what I thought some of the issues were and why the article was not policy complaint [38], as they asked. Instead of correcting or working to correct the problems he just kept re-inserting the same text and complaining about "abuse" over dozens of edits, at least four talk pages and hours of time.

    There is no need to undelete the old article. it was crap and WP:TNT is the best thing for it. Jbh Talk 13:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

If I had not assembled all those difflinks to show you are wrong I doubt the wrong decision would have been overturned. Thanks for acknowledging you went wrong. Please stop shouting and using condescending language like "crap". And as the decision was wrong please undelete immediately so that all the previous work by several editors is not lost and the abuse of admin powers keeps being documented. As three administrators above pointed out (and you Jbhunley as you pointed out are not an administrator although you like to behave like you were) the decision to delete was wrong in the first place. Also please finally block the three single purpose vandals who inserted Portuguese text and advertisements and deleted well sourced content without discussion. Omikroergosum (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In view of the above, I'd like to request a short block on Omikroergosum for continued personal attacks, such as calling me a liar. I won't do it myself - I'd like to see consensus. Deb (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
You wrote notability is not established although there are dozens of reliable secondary sources, even from international quality media, with in-depth coverage. Where please are my "_continued_ personal attacks"??? Is that an implicit lie? You were shown to have circumvented a deletion discussion by draftification in violation of explicit wikipedia rules and never brought up any even botched justification for this. And now you want me to get blocked? Are you serious? Omikroergosum (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, yes she is and should you continue as you are it will most likely happen. Now, serious question: You seem to have assembled sources enough to write a good article; There is nothing stopping you from recreating the draft and putting it through WP:AFC for an independent review. So why are you not doing that? Is it that you are just incensed and mad or do you expect something else to occur here? If the former, it is just a waste of energy; if the later what outcome are you looking for? Jbh Talk 14:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The decision was overturned, so I wait for the article to be recreated as per wikipedia rules. I will not allow you to make me redo all that work you tried to destroy. Omikroergosum (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
You really, really need to take on board everything that has been said here and elsewhere, not just the parts you want to hear. If you do so I believe you will find that what you assert is not the case. More so, I can pretty much guarantee that, whether the article is undeleted or you recreate it in draft, should you simply replace the BLP violating material without regard for neutrality, the policies for BLP and WP:WEIGHT, you will be blocked or topic banned from editing BLP under the special sanctions regime for living people. You have already received the required notice so please, please spend the time to read and understand those policies rather that blithely asserting you understand them and how they apply to your subject. Jbh Talk 14:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I already replied to your largely unfounded claims in the article talk page. If you have nothing else, please just refrain from editing an article for which you don't even understand the sources. If you have any specific concerns, you are very welcome to bring them up on the article talk page rather than here. Your continued use of threats to a user who is contributing with content from high quality secondary sources is disruptive. Omikroergosum (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm just going to point out that any editor can draftify, pretty sure the only special permission involved here is automatically deleting the redirect instead of flagging it for speedy deletion. There is no "abuse of admin power" involved in this draftification. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you seriously want to claim that any editor can draftify articles like Adolf Hitler, Katy Perry or Platypus - without even providing a justification on request??? Have you even read the rules on draftification that I pointed to when starting this discussion? Did you notice two administrators have overturned the decision to draftify or delete the article - even though so far no one has taken action? Omikroergosum (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. I merely said that any editor is able to draftify (though I will clarify that I mean this in the technical sense - any editor is able to move an article to draftspace or run the draftify script; I have done so several times myself), and so this does not qualify as abuse of administrative tools. I said nothing about whether Deb's action was correct, nor did I mention justifications, Hitler, or platypi. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you seriously want to claim that this obscure person is anything like Adolf Hitler or Katy Perry? This is starting to sound like a WP:CIR issue. Guy (help!) 19:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I never wrote Barakat is like Adolf Hitler, Katy Perry or Platypus (!!!!), and I guess, JzG, even you are able to understand that, you are just using a strawman argument because that is easy to beat. I brought the extreme examples to show it is very obviously wrong to claim any user can just draftify any article. I also did not put words in your mouth, creffpublic, I repeated you. You may be right that technically any user could do this, and I would like to stress that I think this should not be allowed at all for any of the three articles I enumerated, and, as I showed at the very start of this discussion, existing Wikipedia rules on draftification clearly prohibit draftification to circumvent a deletion discussion as was done and continues to be in place in this case. And countless others. Omikroergosum (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Overall, Omikroergosum, the problem is that you say you are here to argue that process has been abused, but all you are doing is making arguments that the process arrived at the wrong result. This is a distinction that I hope you are able to grasp. If you believe a process (including unilateral process) has arrived at the wrong conclusion, you appeal it. It is understood and widely accepted that no process is perfect, and that there will be mistakes. That is why avenues for appeal exist. But even if you prove that a process got the wrong result, that does not prove that the process was abused. You would have to prove that an admin did something he knew or should have known was incorrect. It's very clear that you believe they should have known the actions were incorrect, because you refuse to believe that anyone could draw a different conclusion than you did. But convincing yourself over and over does not improve your case. Truth is, this never should have come to AN. You asked Deb to undraftify the article, she suggested asking someone else to review it. You went to Jzg's talk page to... really just vent, it looks like. I really think you should just, generally, chill. Whether your goal is to get your article back up, or to "note for the record" that bad admin did bad thing, the first step is the same: get a consensus that the article should be kept. And the discussion to arrive at that consensus does not take place on AN. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221, I showed very clearly right at the beginning that the process was wrong as the rules clearly say a draftification is not acceptable as a means to circumvent a deletion discussion. The same holds for the current "courtesy" blanking. I don't care about any single admin, I care about repeated abuse of admin powers, and not only in this case. SoWhy agreed with me that draftification is generally used in a way that, as I believe I have clearly showed right at the start of this discussion, is violating the rules on draftification. If you believe my editing here depends on an article on some celebrity doctor who according to many credible sources makes his money prescribing dangerous medication to healthy people, just look at my history (including in other language versions). Omikroergosum (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The speedy keep at AFD was a procedural close, and does not represent a binding consensus. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that Luz & Batista Jr 2017 is not about this person's life and works. It is about a general and widespread problem in Brazil of which this person is one case. Shoe-horning it into the biography of a person is quite wrong and grossly misrepresentative. (Wikipedia:Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography) The "Bomba tô fora" people seem to be trying to make the point that this is about the general population, not just sports, moreover. And certainly not about just one person. Uncle G (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Luz, Sérgio Ruiz; Batista Jr, João (2017-06-01). "Os médicos que receitam bombas". Veja (in Portuguese).
    • "anabolizantes" (in Portuguese). Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabologia. 2019.
This guy is noteworthy as a doctor omnipresent in Brazilian media who treated a Latin Grammy Award winner (without any allegation of wrongdoing), several soccer world stars, a popular singer who accuses him to have ruined his health with steroids and two undercover journalists who showed he easily prescribes doping to healthy people. It is not just some random doctor who does what countless others do in Brazil, and for which it will be very difficult to identify more than 20 reliable secondary high quality sources even from international media, and had you really looked at the case you could have seen that yourself. I agree there should be an article Doping in Brazil as there are already Doping in the United States/Russia/China, and I already suggested it at the page for this and created Category:Doping by country. I also agree that my own article Júlio César Alves cannot remain in its current state as in this case, in contrast to Mohamad Barakat, that doctor maybe also due to his very common name, is difficult to be identified as notable for anything else than the doping, which can be seen as a single event (even though it was reported twice in different cases). Omikroergosum (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Just noting here, Omikroergosum, that the claim you made earlier is neither a threat nor anything resembling one. Using fake claims in order to influence the outcome of a discussion is disingenuous if not downright dishonest. I would prefer to AGF and assume you inadvertently selected a wrong diff, but that will be for the community to decide. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, you found a link where I went wrong. Could have just looked at my talk page to find the right one: [39] Is "stop your disruptive editing. ... you may be blocked from editing." threat enough? Omikroergosum (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Omikroergosum, you began this ANI discussion therefore the onus is on you to get things right if you are going to make accusations. It's not up to me or anyone else to go hunting for where you might have made a mistake. And it's still not a threat, it's a standard template warning. Perhaps you should look up a dictionary definition of 'threat'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have restored the article and nominated it for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamad Barakat (2nd nomination). The article is courtesy blanked and full-protected until the discussion concludes. You might call this an WP:INVOLVED action but 1) this path has been independently suggested three times in this thread; 2) a slim majority of editors commenting desire further discussion; and 3) this thread is devolving into partisan sniping. Also 4) an AfD will put a definitive rest to the matter. So WP:IAR. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Isn't IAR normally for cutting through bureaucracy, rather than adding to it?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Nope. IAR generally creates more problems than it solves, because we have good reasons for the rules we have. There's an unsolved question of whether this individual warrants an article at all, even one that is properly written, and only AfD can really definitively answer that question. So we can bicker about whether to restore it or not and then bicker about whether to blank it or not and then bicker about whether to have a discussion or not and then bicker about whether this warrants a deletion review before a subsequent discussion (because it was speedy deleted) and then bicker about what is the right venue for that discussion (because it was moved to Draft:) and only then come to a final result, or we can just cut to the chase and go straight to AfD without all the extra steps. Hence IAR. If it passes AfD, or if it doesn't, the rest is moot. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

False claims[edit]

Reported user blocked by swarm. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 17:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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.

Musician, Matt Hales is falsely claiming to be the creator of new animation series, "Ricky Zoom".

The creator of Ricky Zoom is actually the well-known and Emmy Award winning Kids TV show creator, Alexander Bar (see alexanderbar.me and IMDb entry).

Matt Hales has had nothing to do with either the creation, development or production of Ricky Zoom.

Some of the sites that have been edited by Matt Hales with these false claims include:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Zoom Ricky Zoom is a British animated series created by rock musician Matt Hales and produced by Entertainment One and video hosting service Youku. It first aired on Nickelodeon as a sneak peek on September 2, 2019, before its official premiere on September 9, 2019.

https://nickelodeon.fandom.com/wiki/Ricky_Zoom Ricky Zoom is a British animated television series created by Matt Hales and produced by Entertainment One and Youku. For the United States, Entertainment One negotiated a broadcast agreement with Nick Jr. US, which previewed the show with a sneak peek on September 2, 2019. The series will officially premiere on September 9, 2019. The show focuses on a red motorcycle named Ricky and his friends DJ, Loop, and Scoot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_One eOne is now gearing up for the launch of its newest property, Ricky Zoom, a brand new animated pre-school TV series created by piano rocker Matt Hales and produced by Alexander Bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.40.214 (talk) 16:35, 8 September 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.

Is there a semi-automated tool that could fix these annoying "Cite Web" errors?[edit]

The overall consensus of this very large discussion is to remove the parameter requirement recently added to the update of the CS1 family of templates. While the outcome of the RFC calling for the italics of websites is not in question, the implementation (making the |website= param mandatory) has been heavily criticized here. The other updates shall stand, but until either an RFC (or a re-opening of the various "implementation" discussions) is held, error messages and tracking categories for this issue should be rolled back. A full rollback of recent changes is not supported. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 6 September 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.

Discussion[edit]

Per inquiry, I would like to know if any such tool exists to fix errors like these. They just started appearing out of nowhere today, and if it can be helped, I'd rather not fix these errors one by one manually. Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

What page is this from? The history might have clues as to why this is happening. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Also ping Trappist the monk who seems to have been playing with Module:Citation/CS1 today. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
(ec)This appears to have been caused by an edit made to Module:Citation/CS1 by user:Trappist the monk; they have changed it so that the templates ({{cite journal}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}) require a work or periodical parameter. This will of course mean that a huge number of articles (I dunno, millions I bet) are now showing such errors. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The changes do not seem to be appropriate at all as there are many changes is a widely used template that should not have occurred without a strong consensus, and they should have been widely advertised. I propose that changes to Module:Citation/CS1 be reverted. However rage and discussion is taking place at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
(ec x2) Those were an unpleasant surprise to me earlier today. I found this discussion which may lead to the answer. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: It's from Pretty Cure Dream Stars!, but I couldn't see a point in its history wheer the refs failed (looking @Citationbot, e.g.). Mind you, it's had some bizarrely massive fanboy edi-warring in uts two-year history. A discussion some-err-four years ago deprecated hyphenated parameters (i.e. |deadurl= rather than |dead-url=), so I guess it's been restarted. ——SerialNumber54129 12:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I've screencapped it from Precure: Dream Stars. Though, this is not the only page that has this sort of problem. Almost every page I watch (I have over 1100 articles on my watchlist at the moment) have this problem. Examples include Funimation, Steve Blum, Shinkansen Henkei Robo Shinkalion, etc. Diannaa's analysis is sound - the change made to the template has indeed affected a lot of articles. Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This looks to be a result of Help talk:Citation Style 1#update to the cs1|2 module suite after 2 September 2019 and the discussions linked therein. Sam Walton (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Sam Walton. Tbh, if that's the "discussion", it looks more like a cosy chat between two editors rather than a consensus-building exercise as found elsewhere on the project. ——SerialNumber54129 12:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

So I take it that this is a case of fixing what ain't broke? I'm sure many of us would appreciate it if we were at least notified that these changes will be occurring. Not to mention, as noted above, this change has affected a large amount of articles, so it makes no sense as to why the change was made without consensus. I agree that these changes will have to be reverted for now to prevent even more confusion from spreading. Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the change to the module due to it disrupting a very large number of articles, pending its maintainer addressing the errors in the recent update. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I'm still seeing errors for most cite web templates. Perhaps more than just that edit needs to be undone? Trappist also edited Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration and five other Module:Citation/CS1 pages. Ss112 13:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, he undid IV's reversion. Can Trappist the monk please come here and discuss the changes? ——SerialNumber54129 13:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3) Well now we've got lua module errors coming out the yin-yang. Please look at Adolf Hitler or Schutzstaffel. This needs an Unbreak Now! please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)