Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive950

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

The Wiki Ed welcome mat[edit]

Last month I posed a question on Adam (Wiki Ed)'s talk page and got no response. Nor have any of the students & instructors who have left queries since 29 December. Nonetheless his account is still churning out welcome messages (around 8500 in the last 15 months) which don't vary, and haven't been interrupted by any signs of human activity in some time.

I also see no other interpretation than that Adam is running an unauthorised, unattended bot.

He's not responding on his personal page either.

If Adam's no longer responding perhaps another account should be doing the welcoming? The present situation does no favours to WikiEd, Wikipedia, the students, or the instructors. Cabayi (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Entirely agreed - @Adam (Wiki Ed): please respond here at your earliest convenience, as I can't help to agree that it appears you're running an unauthorised bot. Although we don't really have much say as to the services Wiki Ed supplies I do think perhaps the welcoming aspect of it could be improved somewhat -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Protonk, the personal account, since I mentioned it. Cabayi (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Note, this task would generally not be approved even for a bot, see Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently_denied_bots#Welcome_bot. — xaosflux Talk 15:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

At 19:14, 3 March 2017 (within that one minute timestamp), the account welcomed 40 different editors. Many of the timestamps seem to occur at roughly the same times, suggesting an automated program running on a set schedule. There's been no activity outside user talk from this account for a while and no response to inquiries about these welcome messages. It seems extremely likely that this account is being run as an unauthorized bot, so I'm blocking it until the human editor returns and explains what's going on. ~ Rob13Talk 16:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Technicalz isn't my dept., clearly; but isn't there a way of finding out what's actually being run on 'our own' site? Wouldn't it have to run from a subpage? or because it's open source, can it just run from a home PC and not be embedded? But that 19:14 timestamp seems to clinch it- one every 1.5 seconds?! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: No bots run on our site. They run off some other site, server, or computer and interface with Wikipedia. There's no way to tell whether something is automated or not except via behavior, at least not in a way that has no false positives and can't be gotten around. The closest we get to running something on our own site is Tool Labs, but even that's really another site that the WMF just provides. Most bots don't use that. For example, my own bot uses AWB and runs entirely off my personal computer. ~ Rob13Talk 21:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Thanks very much for the information. Interesting stuff. I understand now, cheers. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 21:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • note, Adam's account has been blocked which at least stops the ongoing botting Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ian (Wiki Ed) has taken up Adam's welcoming workload using the same bot. He has at least been interacting with students on his talk page. (Ping Guettarda, his alternate account) Cabayi (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Part of the Wiki Ed support system for classes is that User:Ian (Wiki Ed) and User:Adam (Wiki Ed) provide support for student editors. The welcome messages get posted (automatically) to the talk pages of users soon after they enroll in the class, by whichever Wiki Ed staff member is supporting that class. Adam has been intermittently sick for the last couple of weeks. We generally have someone else help out when someone is out sick, but these talk page messages slipped through the cracks.

The welcoming of users is something we previously did manually, but switched it to be automatically done by the dashboard at some point. I didn't think of this welcoming feature as a 'bot', separately from the general OAuth approval system, which is why I did not go through the bot approval process at the time that feature was added. I can do so if folks think that's necessary.

I will follow up in more detail later today. In the short term, I've removed the 'greeter' flag from Adam's account (but not Ian's), so the dashboard won't make any further welcome edits on his behalf.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sage (Wiki Ed): I think it would be useful if you could clarify whether the dashboard makes these welcoming edits automatically, or if the user (i.e. Ian or Adam) have to manually approve each welcome. If it's the former, then that would fall under using a non-bot account as an unapproved bot. Bot Policy requires that a separate account be used, and that it be approved before running. If each welcome is being sent manually, and simply being sent from the interface, there shouldn't be a problem. Sam Walton (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Samwalton9: at the level of individual user welcomes, it's automatic. The manually approval happens at the level of a course, but once the course itself is approved, the welcome messages are automatic for each new user that joins the course.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome messages disabled[edit]

I've disabled the automatic welcome messages from Ian as well now. It would be pretty simple to convert it to a dashboard-assisted manual welcome, but that seems pretty pointless since we want to make sure every Wiki Ed student editor gets a welcome ping from the person supporting their class, and the sooner after joining the class they get it, the better. I'll put up a BAG submission soon.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

BRFA is up: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Wiki Ed Dashboard student greetings.
User:Cabayi: Thank you for opening this discussion. It pointed out a hole in Wiki Ed's support procedures that we'll figure out how to patch, for when staff have unexpected time AFK.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
For clarity: the BRFA has been withdrawn (with automatic welcome messages still disabled). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Dashboard[edit]

(may be related to the above?)

Question: is the WikiEdu Dashboard ( https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/ ) considered a bot? And if so, has it been approved by en.wikipedia bot-related approval processes?

I bring this up while there has been a problem that from that dashboard en.wikipedia pages can be updated (overriding any content that is on the page) without the dashboard editor being responsive to in-Wikipedia user talk page or project talk page comments by concerned in-Wikipedia editors. Example:

Although nothing much happened any more since last year in this example it got stuck in my head as an unresolved issue. Possibly I lost my cool somewhere along the line, but what I remember is that there was a pile of cleanup after the project had passed through Wikipedia – and, frustratingly, no way to contact the people messing up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I would call it an alternate editing interface. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
BTW. I think that it is rather strange that WikiEdu asks people to edit something in the dashboard, and then doesn't even allow sysops to actually do so on their pages... That's definitely something that should be rectified. It's not the wikiway. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Re. "I would call it an alternate editing interface" – yeah, so is AWB I suppose... the question is not whether it is an alternative interface (it is, no doubt about that), but whether it is a bot, and if so, whether it went through due process.
The worrying aspect (as I saw it in the experience described above) is that you can ping a dashboard editor, or write on their Wikipedia user talk page or on the talk page of the project as much as you like, none of these messages go through to the "alternative interface" (so the editor there ignores it all, not even knowing a concern has been raised). Thus these dashboard editors continue editing Wikipedia via that interface without being aware about any concern voiced through Wikipedia's usual channels. In that sense it is bot-like: it steam-rolls whatever concern and overwrites Wikipedia content automatically with whatever the Dashboard sends out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
In as much as it allows Wikipedia to be edited via WikiEdu's tools, and cuts WikiEdu users off from the concerns of Wikipedia's wider community (in effect censoring what messages get through to the WikiEdu users), it's a type of WP:OWN. Cabayi (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Really the dashboard needs to go both ways, in that anything on the wikipedia end is copied to the off-site project and vice versa. Its not really acceptable for an offsite dashboard to be in control of a wikipedia page and overwrite it regardless of what wikipedia editors have done in the meantime. Its a core tenet of wikipedia that communication is required *here* between editors. Not referring them to external websites. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Re. "... it's a type of WP:OWN" – that is indeed how I experienced it. So the question can be rephrased thus: do we allow https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/ to WP:OWN pages such as Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016)? I, for one, can not remember ever having agreed to that, and suppose for instance Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval would be a place where such agreement can be negotiated. And indeed "two-way communication", as mentioned by Oiddde, would seem a minimal requirement for such approval to be possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The idea with the dashboard on-wiki course pages, like Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016), is that they provide an on-wiki mirror of the dashboard.wikiedu.org content, so that things like 'what links here' can be used to easily find out which editors are connected with which other editors through these courses. Two-way editing of those is not practical, because the content isn't structured the same way. Those are the only pages that the dashboard quote-unquote 'owns'.
In terms of approval process, the system itself went through the OAuth application approval process for the technical side of things, and there was a lot of (well-advertised) on-wiki discussion about the basic concept and using subpages of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed as, essentially, a replacement for EducationProgram extension that was the previous basis for course pages.
The dashboard does not allow arbitrary editing of other pages, and all the actual article editing, discussion, etc, still happens the usual way. --Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I had already understood that much. Your last words ("... discussion ... still happens the usual way") gloss over the fact that project to project (i.e. between "Wiki Ed" and "en.Wikipedia") communication is structurally near impossible, leading to frustration on both sides (frustration from Wiki Ed project participant's side is for instance documented here). So take the interface to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, which is about more than the mere technical approval, and for instance also about how the interface blends in with the English-language Wikipedia. I suppose it should be possible to send notifications about a relevant on-wiki discussion to the relevant page in the dashboard interface when a Wiki Ed project setup causes problems in the encyclopedia (like in the Wikipedia interface we get a notification with a clickable link when someone pings us or writes something on our talk page).
Several Wikipedia editors, including myself, posted suggestions for a smoother interaction (which ultimately should result in better mainspace content, and better learning curves for Wiki Ed project participants) for future Wiki Ed project setups. I wonder what has been done with those suggestions? (if your reply would be that you didn't see such suggestions, that is kind of a confirmation of my earlier point that the project-to-project communication has in practice proven near impossible). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Francis Schonken: In general, adding more and better support for communication — such as notifying users on the dashboard about on-wiki communication they should know about — is definitely something I want to do at some point. I've thought a lot about this myself, and I've followed plenty of on-wiki discussion related to it. That said, I'm not sure what specific 'suggestions for smoother interaction' you're referring to here. I'm also not clear what you mean by "communication is structurally near impossible". The Wiki Ed system guides student editors to draft their work on-wiki, communicate about each others' work on-wiki, and interact with other editors on-wiki.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Re. "... at some point" – how about now? Re. "... on-wiki discussion related to it" – linking to some of these (if there are that provide insight) might be helpful.
Suggestions for smoother interaction / structural problems with project-to-project communication – apart from "see above" and "click on some of the links I gave above", here are some points I remember: there were some flaws in the setup of the North Carolina project mentioned above (leading to WP:CONTENT FORK problems etc.). Despite several efforts (by myself and others before me) we could not set up communication with the persons responsible for the project setup, in order to correct these flaws (the North Carolina professor...); Then there was the problem that almost all of the issues caused by the project showed up in a period of one or two days (on a few dozen pages), just before all of the South Carolina project editors disappeared from Wikipedia (a few remedies to avoid that in the future were proposed, e.g. timely publication of the due delivery date of the students' work on the project page; work from draft namespace instead of from user talk space; point students to guidelines that are specifically applicable for the topic area where they are going to edit; contact WikiProjects in the area where the editing is going to take place when setting up the project – instead of leaving the cleanup to Wiki editors when communication is no longer possible while everyone who was connected to the Wiki Ed project has left the building, etc...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Re. "The Wiki Ed system guides student editors to draft their work on-wiki, communicate about each others' work on-wiki, and interact with other editors on-wiki." Again, you're missing the (direct) project-to-project communication for addressing Wiki Ed project setup issues. Also, for the over two dozen pages I reviewed when cleaning up it was clear that either there had been no communication between the student and regular wikipedia editors (where such communication seemed indispensable), or, in the very few cases when there had been such communication, that communication was highly problematical (see student frustration link I gave above). So, whatever the interface was supposed to do in that respect, it wasn't working. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Francis Schonken: Thanks. That cleared things up for me somewhat. The core issues, I think, are the same ones that have been the hardest ones for the education program all along: getting newcomers to engage in communication in the ways the Wikipedia community expects is hard. I think there are some ways that improvements to the dashboard can help — especially around facilitating on-wiki communication — but it will take a lot of design and development work to do that right. When you said "project-to-project communication", I at first was thinking in terms of communication between wikipedia.org and dashboard.wikiedu.org. But I think the problems you are pointing to are more fundamentally about how to get editors whose entry point to Wikipedia is the education program — instructors and students — to think and act like experienced editors. My view is that we've gotten a lot better at this over time, and the structure provided by the dashboard is a big part of that. Over the last year, we worked with significantly more classes and students than in previous years, with fewer of these kinds of communication problems. When such things do come up, and people post about them to Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents, we often find ways of improving the process — occasionally technical ways, but usually more along the lines of changes to our training content, our help materials, and our processes for vetting courses and monitoring courses.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Some points:

  1. The "automatic welcome messages" BRFA was withdrawn after a comment that ended with "... Wiki Ed [...] looks like a separate organization and it wouldn't supersede anything on Wikipedia" – if the same is applied to the Wiki Ed project page updates that overwrite all the content on such Wikipedia project pages, this would become impossible by the same reasoning... So that functionality should be disabled immediately, then kept disabled until it passes a BRFA. I'd think (after an initial setup of the project page with the basic content of who is responsible, what the project is about, what the delivery dates are etc), that the talk page of such project page should be used to post incremental messages saying something like "the dashboard page of this edu project has been updated on <date>" (of course with a link to the related dashboard page).
  2. The BRFA for the Dashboard should explicitly include all aspects of (semi-)automatic updating of pages in Wikipedia originating from the Dashboard system. Thus far we've had two: automatic welcome messages (disabled, BRFA withdrawn), and automatic updating of project pages (should immediately be disabled per WP:OWN, see above) – are there any other (semi-)automatic updating functionalities generated by WikiEdu programs we don't know about yet? If so, ask permission for them via BRFA.
  3. Re. "getting newcomers to engage in communication..." – a quick fix that should at least alleviate some of the problems was proposed above: instruct the students that new articles are better started in Draft: namespace (and not in their user talk namespace where they are usually under the radar of Wikipedia communication until the content is transported to mainspace). Draft: namespace is monitored and students will get feedback, will often be pointed to WikiProjects that have experience in the topic area (leading to more communication), all of that long before the "due date" (which is typically the date when students move their new content to mainspace, after which they typically immediately stop editing Wikipedia). Rewrites/updates of articles that already exist in mainspace should likewise better be kept out of user talk namespace, and should take place directly in mainspace (or via update proposals on the article talk page), where of course there will be, in most cases, immediate feedback, and thus communication, too.
  4. Re. "... — instructors and students — to think and act like experienced editors" – err? I think they should think & act like newbies (which gives extra protection per WP:BITE). A part of the problem now seems to be that instructors and students, after following the WikiEdu introduction course, think they behave like experienced editors (with the tinge of arrogance that comes with it – excuse my French), but act in ways that upset regular processes and procedures, and write questionable mainspace content (e.g. in a page on a Vivaldi composition they think it is necessary to write a full Vivaldi bio, instead of just linking Antonio Vivaldi, give an overview of the composer's work, his style and whatnot, writing maybe ten percent of the new article about the composition at hand – without a single reference) – all of which isn't helped when editing from a "I'm an experienced editor" attitude, instead of from "I'm new at this, could I get some assistance?" approach. At the end of the introduction program they should know they are still newbies, so need to keep in touch with more experienced editors to address all sorts of practical issues (e.g. how to add proper references).
  5. Re. Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents – didn't know about that. How about providing a link to that page in the {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} box? That box would be the first place a regular editor learns about a student's involvement, so they should know where to go when issues need to be sorted. Also, this helps for early "regulars"–"students" communication (assuming the /Incidents page is not for internal Wiki Ed communication exclusively).

All of this said, I will repeat what I said before: Wiki Ed is imho a great thing, that's why I think it is useful to take some time to hash out its issues. The program should give new editors some gusto for editing Wikipedia beyond their class assignment, which it currently only very rarely does: too often, currently, it ends in frustration, so let's do something about it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Still another thought:

  1. In the introduction for Wiki Ed instructors it should maybe made clear that the professors/teachers should not primarily expect to test a student's ability to write an essay via Wikipedia (there are more appropriate venues for that, within their institution): what they are really testing in a Wiki Ed setup is the student's ability to work together with people they don't know, within their field of interest. Are they able to learn from that interaction? This is future-minded: the idea of a single scholar working in his study surrounded by books, undisturbed by the outside world, is overhauled in a wiki setting where there is immediate feedback: how do students cope with such feedback without getting sidetracked? ...seems more like the thing that is tested in a Wikipedia setup (hence my suggestion above to keep prospective mainspace content out of user talk namespace staying under the communication radar). Which entails instructors being instructed how to read edit histories and talk pages (how did the student react to input by others? what did they learn from it in their topic area? did they manage to stay on topic? did they learn something about assessing on-line and paper reference works in a WP:RS approach?). Seems like a setting that will gain momentum in future approaches to research, so today's students would do well to prepare for it (e.g. distinguishing fake news from solid information based on source assessment & input from others is a hot topic nowadays: better learn students cutting edge approaches on how to do that than learn them to write essays old style, which their schools and universities are surely better equipped for).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: If a single edit in the WikiEd interface leads to a single edit on Wikipedia, then that sounds like an alternative editing interface, not automatic editing. That's perfectly acceptable under the bot policy. It's when the WikiEd interface is set up to automatically edit with no oversight from the editor in question that we have issues. ~ Rob13Talk 14:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Tx, the problem is, however, with the alternative interface not accepting feedback: i.e. it doesn't pass feedback on to the editor who accesses & edits Wikipedia through the alternative interface, that is, without logging in into Wikipedia. In that sense the Dashboard operates as a bot, churning out dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of Wikipedia edits blindfoldedly. We wouldn't accept any bot to do that: the bot would be blocked immediately, until it accepts feedback from human Wikipedia editors. Imagine being able to edit Wikipedia with AWB, without being notified of pings, user talk page messages, or whatever initiates normal in-wikipedia communication... That wouldn't last long I suppose, even if you would only make an edit in this way every few days.
For me it makes no difference whether this is approached as a "go through BRFA to get approval for this functionality", or whether, alternatively, we block all external-Dashboard-generated edits to pages for which the Dashboard claims ownership, because it goes against WP:OWN to let it continue this behaviour. The first approach does however seem to have the advantage to offer a way out. The second approach is fairly simple and straightforward: Dashboard can't own a page in Wikipedia, thus exclude it from operations on Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The dashboard only makes edits on behalf of logged-in users. You must log in to Wikipedia in order to log in to dashboard.wikiedu.org, and we expect instructors to be responsive to problems that come up related to their courses. If you run into trouble with an unresponsive instructor, you can ping a Wiki Ed staff member and/or post to WP:ENI. The 'owned' dashboard pages on Wikipedia are a convenience for other editors to easily connect the dots with active courses. It would be easy to change the system such that it only posted essentially an initial version, and then made no further edits (so that it would never overwrite changes in the meantime), but that would defeat much of the purpose; it would just mean that the on-wiki page would not include up-to-date information about which users are doing what, and what the instructor's latest assignment plan is. I think I'll make some updates to the edit notice (Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wiki Ed) to make it more clear how to address problems (ie, contact the people involved rather than edit the automatically-updated course page). I'm not aware of any problems with these course pages for quite a while, though. The case you noted was more than a year ago.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
If you think the lack of talk page messages getting through/pings is an issue, you're welcome to start an RfC on it, Francis Schonken. I'm undecided (or possibly just apathetic) on that issue. It doesn't violate our bot policy, certainly, and I'm unaware of any other policy or guideline related to the issue you've identified. The editors making edits without access to feedback are responsible for their edits (including responding to feedback, as necessary), and they could be blocked if a lack of response to feedback becomes disruptive. There's nothing about the interface itself that crosses some bright-line in policy, though. ~ Rob13Talk 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The editors (who are brand new editors relying on experienced WikieEd instructors) should not be blocked for not giving response to feedback. The people responsible for encouraging new editors to edit through an interface which effectively disables the feedback from reaching these editors are the ones that should be blocked for it in such a case. Fram (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes and no: it is not my aim to get anyone blocked. Editors monitoring WikiEd processes, i.e. the ones with "(Wiki Ed)" in their username, are doing a great job. But, (1) they should seek permission if they want to override WP:OWN for specific pages, and (2) true, when they strive to get students and their educational instructors to get more engaged in wiki-interaction they might reflect that the way the Dashboard application is set up it rather works against such interaction, than that it supports such interaction. For these reasons I think it best that, unless the permission is obtained (which is in no way a case decided in advance), the Dashboard interface should be prevented to operate any edits to en.Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: This only addresses one of your points above, but regarding the course pages/WP:OWN issues, the on-wiki course pages (the ones starting with Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/) are on-wiki copies of Dashboard-based course pages. Neither Wiki Ed staff nor students nor instructors have cause to use the on-wiki copies. They exist because we heard from members of the community that it might be useful to have an on-wiki record, even if they would only be that -- a record. The way we can keep those on-wiki copies up-to-date is by having the Dashboard automatically update it. That means any manual changes would be overridden, yes, but there's not actually any reason to edit it because, again, it's only a record -- changing it would create a discrepancy between the on-wiki and Dashboard (primary) version and the people who you would want to leave a message for there would not receive the message there anyway (again, instructors/students/staff don't typically use the on-wiki course page). Personally, I like having the on-wiki record, if for no other reason than to have an internal link to include in the article talk page template, but it's ultimately up to the community and if it could feasibly be discontinued if there's consensus to do so.
Segueing to another point (though my response on this is somewhat redundant), although instructors/students aren't going to receive messages left on the on-wiki course pages, the Dashboard is only used for course organization/planning/management purposes, and all editing is done through traditional editing interfaces. So a student shouldn't be any less likely to see a message/notification than any other new user (more likely, in fact, because we regularly remind them to engage with the community on talk pages, check for messages, etc.). I'd be happy to talk more about these issues on my talk page (or elsewhere). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion here, please, I see no need to cut it up on several talk pages.
All of your explanations only confirm, in my eyes at least, that we should never have allowed edits to Wikipedia via the Dashboard interface. Why not use the Wikipedia WikiEd project page for updating the project status, and instead of copying that page from the Dashboard interface, copy the Wikipedia project page (semi-)automatically to the Dashboard website? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand this question. Have you used the Dashboard? If not, I'd recommend setting up your own test class/program on the Programs and Events Dashboard (outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org). It's a fork of the Wiki Ed Dashboard for programs beyond classes, so it won't create those Wiki Ed course pages, but it will give you a feel for why this suggestion doesn't make sense to me. The Dashboard is a piece of software for classes editing Wikipedia. No editing is done through the Dashboard -- it's where students go through training, add their assigned articles, where instructors can see an overview of student work, etc. The on-wiki course page is a brief, static information page. There is no static page to edit in the Dashboard, and its pages are automatically updated based on student/instructor activity. In short, it would be impossible to work the other way, and that's part of the reason why the Dashboard exists in the first place. Again, if you find there is consensus for your view that the Dashboard should not create these static information pages, we can certainly stop the practice, but while I know of others who like having them there, I've not seen others object. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I take the perspective of a Wikipedia editor. Which is by definition not knowing how Dashboard works. And not wanting that that external entity overwrites whatever suggestion I write on a Wiki Ed project page for a better interaction and less frustration. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, this line of defence makes the prospect for ever obtaining a permission to overwrite Wikipedia project pages even bleaker: above a Wikipedia admin defended Dashboard-to-Wikipedia edits while "a single edit in the WikiEd interface leads to a single edit on Wikipedia". Seems from the last explanation given by a Wiki Ed editor that that is not the case, while in the Dashboard "pages are automatically updated based on student/instructor activity", and then the overwrite is generated, blindfoldedly as I suggested above, without seeing what one is overwriting on a Wikipedia page. Not an acceptable process. AFAICS there's only one possible course of action: disable that Dashboard functionality immediately until a permission is granted to override Wikipedia policies for the particular case (BTW: a Wikipedia page that gets regularly updated is not a "static" page). Yes, the Wikipedia project needs to be informed about goings-on in Wiki Ed course projects that are affecting or going to affect Wikipedia content, so that information will need to be given by manual edits, and not by automatic overwrites, until if and when the automatic procedure may be accepted by Wikipedia(ns). What is even more needed than periodic one-way information about the goings-on of particular Wiki Ed courses, is the possibility to have, per Wiki Ed course, a forum where the course setup can be discussed to avoid annoyance (both from the course to Wikipedia as from Wikipedia to the course). Such page should probably best be organised Wikipedia-side, but with more responsibility from Wiki Ed side (including its initiators, instructors and students) to interact on that Wikipedia page to address unresolved issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal regarding overwriting of Wikipedia project pages[edit]

The "replacement" of content of Wikipedia project pages as mentioned in the first paragraph of the Wiki Ed "editnotices" template is disallowed. This does not diminish the need for two-way communication between people operating individual Wiki Ed courses and Wikipedia editors interested in particular courses of this kind. Wikipedia project pages about such courses will become platforms for such communications: basic information about the course will continue to be posted on the Wikipedia course page, and course participants are by this platform notified of possible suggestions, questions and remarks by Wikipedia editors.

Wiki Ed's preference for students to work in their user (talk) space[edit]

As already discussed in my suggestion No. 3 in the previous section, a quick fix for sound student-regular WP editor interaction would be to keep students out of their user space for drafting mainspace content. A violent (as opposed to sound) interaction is documented in progress here: a student's draft has been deleted from their user space, with admins quibbling (surely way over the newbie's head) whether the delete was opportune. That's not the welcome we want to give to newbie students, nor is this something where established Wikipedia editors (including admins) should devote that amount of time to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this a suggestion that new student editors not work in their sandboxes before editing articles? Part of the point of doing that (not just for students) is that content is less likely to be deleted from userspace while new users get a handle on editing... --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The main point is not the likeliness something can be deleted (this is a Wiki environment), but the soundness of the interaction. The in-progress example I linked to above illustrates a deletion under the cloud of a frustrating interaction. So snap out of the reasoning where "avoid deletion of whatever a student writes" is a goal in itself. If the student knows what they have to do better to make an edit stick, with admins addressing the needs of the student (instead of having a discussion over the student's head), then there is a useful interaction from which the student, Wikipedia and the Wiki Ed project benefit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal regarding preferred workspaces for Wiki Ed students[edit]

Both Wikipedia-side as Wiki Ed side interaction between Wiki Ed students and Wikipedia editors is promoted: that interaction is not helped by students working isolated from the wider Wikipedia editing community on prospected Wikipedia mainspace content in their user talk space ("sandbox" testing of the wiki editing mode is not affected by this). For this reason:

  1. Students will create new proposed articles in Draft namespace;
  2. If the work of the student is intended for an existing mainspace page, the student will work in mainspace and/or the talk page of the affected article.

Other comments (Wiki Ed)[edit]

I'm uninvolved in the above incident(s), but I believe some of the discussions above would be better discussed in the wp:village pump rather than here. Gamebuster19901 (TalkContributions) 16:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Then we'd need to weigh the downside of not being in exactly the right spot (but which is the right spot?... WP:VPP? WP:VPT? WP:VPR? WP:VPM? Alternatively, User talk:Jimbo Wales?) against the downside of starting a WP:FORUMSHOP mid-discussion. I'd suggest to wait until the current thread is closed and/or archived before starting another discussion on the same topic in another place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

False birth/death dates/places[edit]

Over the last few months I've repeatedly seen different IPs adding what turn out to be false birth and death dates and places, examples including this or this. They do occasionally add correct ones, but most of the cases I've seen are wrong. They almost always use the article title as their edit summary. Unfortunately there are probably dozens of articles where they've done this (I spot them when they do it to Israeli politicians on my watchlist). Because it's from a different IP every time, blocking is pointless, but I was wondering whether some kind of edit filter could be put in place to identify them by their edit summary? Number 57 19:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification Possibly I need to clarify – I think this is one particular editor using different IPs, not a complaint about IPs in general – the reason being the same edit summary being used every time. Number 57 22:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Number 57 - I think it stems farther than just birthdates. I see many changes made to death dates, ages, weights, heights, and other numbers like this. Edit summary wouldn't be too bad, but I believe that we have an edit filter that tags changes to birthdate, weight, and height already. It would be interesting to see one implemented that could detect edits made by non-comfirmed users that change only the numbers in a birthdate, date, age, weight, height, etc and add/remove nothing else (so... an editor that changes 2015-05-10 to 1990-05-10 only), and then warns/rejects knowing that no reference was provided. Problem is... I know it would probably cause a lot of false positives and trip-ups... :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The issue is that most of the edits are not changing a birth or death date, but rather adding something that isn't true (a lot of the one's I've seen had only the year listed, to which they have added made up day and month details. For birth/death places they will add a town if only the country is listed, or add both town and country if the parameter is empty... Number 57 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I've asked for this edit filter before, for the "cause of death" vandal. I don't think it was ever implemented. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The IP is still at it... Number 57 21:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Non-admin comment - Is this happening on a specific set of articles? Is there anything connecting these edits or IP users to one another? DarkKnight2149 19:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • On the Israeli articles, it seems to be largely those born in Eastern Europe. Following their edits to other articles, Romanian people seem to be a focus too. Number 57 20:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • PCR comment This is kinda normal latest is Mark Hamill. IPs are greater harm than good on BLPs and I would kinda like to put all hi-profile BLPs under indeff SEMI. Pending Changes doesn't solve the problem, as PCRs have to spend their time undoing unsourced additions/changes/deletions by hand. L3X1 (distant write) 22:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It's sad to say, but I honestly wouldn't object to that. I think the same is usually true for IPs editing Featured Articles, and even many Good Articles. DarkKnight2149 15:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I dunno, I sense it happens everywhere and all the time—I just reverted one 45 seconds ago at Carrie Underwood. El_C 22:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking when I asked my above question. I think more evidence is needed to suggest that these are connected incidents. DarkKnight2149 01:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • IPs often change numbers in infoboxes, including heights/weights. I monitor some error tracking categories and need to deal with IP edits that break templates in infoboxes–not many in recent days, but usually there are a few each week, although I only see the changes that break certain templates. I don't worry about them anymore—if the WMF wants the encyclopedia to deteriorate who am I to object? After all, there are thousands of good editors who carefully monitor all edits to the over 5 million articles. It appears that some IPs have a hobby of changing numbers, perhaps to prove how unreliable Wikipedia is. Here is an extreme example. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I call it in my ES "#integermonkeying". It is a hard type of vandalism to detect, if its not blatant (Joe McNotable weighs 5000000 pounds, and Dallas yesterday had 2.3 million pop. but now has 93billion). Monkeying with revenues, sports scores, its a real pain to determine between updating and hooliganism. L3X1 (distant write) 01:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The IP is at it again today. Is there a way to identify this IP based on their edit summary (always the name of the article) and get a bot to do rollback on them? Number 57 16:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You could ask the folks at Special Abuse Filter counter if its possible. L3X1 (distant write) 14:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Unwarranted personal attacks, veiled threat, claims of vandalism and calling contributions "junk"[edit]

Resolved: Illuminaati warned, then blocked.

"REPLY" I am stunned by the behavior Illuminaati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I almost just deleted my account and walked away from WP. It is unacceptable to me that he asks me to share my address "so that we can come and personally verify the legitimacy of your credentials!" Talk:Shakya (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) That should be beyond acceptable limits for this community. I also do not like him characterizing me as "hell bent" on proving I am "an acclaimed scholar" or of "following a personal agenda" or "vendetta". He makes these repeated statements in the edit history and the Talk page. None of these assertions are supported by fact, and they are confounding in that they seem to characterize his actions, not mine. Moreover, he makes unwarranted claims that I have engaged in vandalism in the article Shakya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He continually reverts my edits and calls them "junk", despite the fact that I am making legitimate attempts to improve the article with citations to some of the most well-known scholars on the subject. I am pleased that when it comes to content, additional editors have reverted his deletions of most of my contributions. Will he attack them next? Scottahunt (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

NA com The "share address" comment possibly might be sarcasm, but this behavior is unacceptable. Illuminati appears to be an SPA or someone's sleeper. L3X1 (distant write)
Yeah, I think someone needs to take Illuminaati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) aside and let them know this is not okay. --Tarage (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I've warned them. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
I will agree with whatever all contributors seem fair, but I am not going to back down to whatever Scottahunt's one sided intentions are. There has to be proper discussion on what he wants to add, what language to use and where it has to be added. I am okay with current version except the religion part where I believe a good discussion is worth. If I don't see a discussion happening on that topic in next few days, I am going to revert it back. So please don't come blaming me then.
Also I have never seen Scottahunt in past 10 years or so, his sudden and extreme interest in this article seems like he is an avatar of someone else.
@Greg Pandatshang, Joshua Jonathan, and Ogress: You can also join, and share your views Illuminaati (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Scott A. Hunt's REPLY: I just don't understand this incredibly emotional reaction to my involvement in this article. I am quite sad. I get along with everyone and enjoy collaboration. What began as a legitimate attempt by me to participate in a community of knowledge deteriorated into Illuminaati's harsh, unfounded accusations, and emotional reactivity. Not satisfied with undoing my contributions, he bullied by labelling them junk, said they didn't have citations, said I was a vandal, said I had one-sided intentions, said I have a personal vendetta, and did all this without ever engaging me in a genuine and civil discussion. Why not just discuss the merits? Why the labels and wild accusations? It doesn't even make sense. Nothing I have done warrants such treatment. And here's his latest message he just sent for me: "Well, Scottahunt you can go fish yourself ! Illuminaati (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Illuminaati&action=edit&section=8 Apart from the amusement factor of his strategic use of the word fish, this too is unacceptable behavior. And for what? If his actions do not violate Wikipedia's rules, then this is not the community for me. But first, Illuminaati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) please state your evidence that I have done anything malicious. Please state your evidence that I have "one sided intentions" and a "personal vendetta," and please explain why I would have a personal vendetta when I don't even know you. Please state your evidence that I committed vandalism. Please state your evidence that I said I was "an acclaimed Buddhist scholar." Please state your evidence that my contributions were "junk" and rather than properly cited content. Please state your evidence that I failed to provide citations. Please state your evidence substantiating that I'm an "avatar of someone else," and explain what you mean by that accusation (especially since you already have my REAL name and I have a User page). Please state your evidence that I have a "sudden and extreme interest" and state what you are alluding to with that statement. And please above all explain exactly what you meant by sharing my address to come in person to check my credentials, because while some may excuse it as mere "sarcasm" it is wholly unwarranted at best, and possibly worse. And when taken in context with all the other things you have done, it amounts to bullying and harassing. I don't understand why any of this happened, but it does not foster openness and inclusiveness. And by all means, whoever those people are that Illuminaati is rallying, I'm happy to have your opinions too. But as I understand Wikipedia, articles are not owned by one or a few people, but the entire community. So I invited comments and received supportive feedback that my contributions were not improper, irrelevant, or junk. I think more comments, even dozens or hundreds, would be great. If, however, you decide the article is not open to revisions, then it should be locked. Scottahunt (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • In addition to his newest, unsubstantiated and unwarranted accusations and rude comments, Illuminaati says this: "And Scottahunt ! regarding threat, I guess you haven't heard the word Sarcasm. If I would want something like that then I would just track your IP address and its router hops (and don't worry proxies are not so trace-less as their sellers make you believe) that's more than enough the info anyone would need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminaati (talk • contribs) 01:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Illuminaati (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)" This is not a place for sarcasm. It is not useful or helpful. And taken in context with his harsh words, it is plain to see it was malicious. When he first said he wants my address to come personally to see about my credentials, that was bullying not sarcasm. His insults continue. And then he adds specifically HOW he could find me. This is classic bullying behavior. And for what? To protect his vision of correctness? To stifle discussion? Or simply to be dominant? Administrator, are you following this? In any event, this is not a collaborative, open place to exchange knowledge so long as people like Illuminaati rule the day. Scottahunt (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Scottahunt I know you did not have any personal vendetta against me. I am after all faceless and name-less (technically!). I can be one person or many. I can even be you, who knows ! I personally think that you might have got snubbed by your Buddhist circle and you want to vent your frustration on this article. You say "Until 8 days ago, I was in holy Buddhist robes as a bhikkhu.... I had to give up holy robes to tend to family". It more sound like you got Fired and with nothing else to do, you turned to wikipedia to take your vengeance. Illuminaati (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Blocked for 1 week for personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Continued abuse.[edit]

I really have tried to avoid making this an issue, as I would rather just move on and not cause waves, but I fear this is just the beginning of these issues with this user, and he will continue to abuse other users who don't agree with him. Redhat101 uses very aggressive tactics to try to dictate the content in articles. This user even went and got an article edit protected for edit warring, where reverts were being made to removing content that explicitly violated WP:BLPCRIME. How the admin that protected the article didn't see this, I don't know. The user repeatedly kept adding the information after it was made very clear that it was a BLP issue. You can see one of the more blatant violations in the first line of the lead:

On February 22, 2017, an Indian engineer was shot dead and another was injured when Adam W. Purinton, a white American who mistook them for people from the Middle East, yelled "get out of my country" and "terrorist" before shooting them at the Austins Bar & Grill in Olathe, Kansas

There was an ongoing effort to clean the article up by myself and a few other editors, and before the edit protection was made, I created the first section on the talk page to encourage Redhat101 to engage in discussion and understand why he was being reverted. At first, I assumed good faith and thought it may just be a competence issue, and I tried my best to explain that to him. He then began a tirade of accusing me of bad faith over and over and over and over, and suggesting that I have not attempted any discussion over and over. He reported me to SPI for sockpuppetry accusing me of logging out and editing as an IP who was trying to explain the same BLP violations. This is about when I no longer assumed good faith, as any reasonable editor would clearly see that the IP and myself are not the same person, and I believe this SPI was made in bad faith. He then went to ANI, claiming I was reverting without reasonable explanation, despite a massive talk page discussion that was going on, that he was pinged in repeatedly yet engaged in no discussion before adding back the information that was being discussed by myself and a couple other editors. Some of that information, the reaction to the reaction stuff by the press secretary, was agreed upon by all of those in the discussion to be WP:UNDUE. So it's pretty obvious why it was reverted. There was also the question of WP:BLP violations that there is a current RfC ongoing about to clear up. My real concern his is the continuation of these aggressive tactics on other editors. I have removed myself from editing that article, aside from blatant BLP violations, because I am tired of being harassed by this user. I should also add that I will not respond to this ANI unless pinged by a user other than Redhat101. I will not allow myself to be abused anymore. I am also sure I am not completely innocent in this claim, because I lost my patients more than once. I tried my best to assume good faith for as long as I could, but this harassment is unlike any I've been exposed to here on Wikipedia before. I have removed myself from the abusive interaction, but I feel this needs to be addressed for the sake of future interaction with other editors. Thanks.  {MordeKyle  20:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't this issue closed in the ANI thread above because both of you were told to follow WP:Dispute?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@TheGracefulSlick:This has nothing to do with the dispute over content in the article. This is about this user's tactics of harassment and unfounded accusations of bad faith. I have no concern over the content in the article anymore, as I've left that up to other editors and an RfC and have discontinued activity in that article due to the harassment.  {MordeKyle  22:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
If you have excused yourself from activities with this editor, then what would you like done? Blocks are not a punitive measure and it appears the RfC you voluntarily left is continuing without any disturbances.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
PS - My apologies for confusing this with a content dispute. The part where you described BLP issues and quoted the article threw me off.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@TheGracefulSlick: No apology is necessary. I'm not interested in punitive measures. As I said, I have removed myself from the abusive situation. This does not resolve the underlying issue though. This needs to be addressed with this user so this behavior does not continue in the future. I fear it will fall upon deaf ears however, and continue to be a problem. This, and possibly a discussion with the user or some sort of warning would lay the groundwork for addressing future issues, if they were to arise. I'm not sure how exactly this entire process works, as I do my best to stay away from this area of Wikipedia. Thanks.  {MordeKyle  00:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
You have distorted things way beyond proportion, other than some disturbingly inappropriate accusatory tone, I see no susceptible claim made by you, so rather than commenting on it again for like nth time, its best for me to conserve my energy for some constructive work and let the admins decide. For edit dispute which you painted as some WP:BLP issue, was started off by your constant reverts of comments related to trump administration, as for dictating terms everybody can see who is dictating that article, yesterday you even moved the page without the proper consensus was reached, for which another editor, User:Kamalthebest, had to undo it.
And I again advise you to refrain from taking everything personally, as I already explained that WP:SPI was unrelated to any edit conflict.Redhat101 Talk 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Leggings[edit]

(non-admin closure) Page protected, RFC started, nothing more to be done, but to slap a trout. Admins aren't nannies. Kleuske (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2017 (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.

Due to several recent news articles in the media about some girls being removed from a United Airlines flight for wearing leggings, several editors have started edit-warring over material being added to the article. I have tagged the article with the WP:UNDUE tag indicating that more sources are needed for a proper treatment of the subject, and elevated a citation needed tag that was there to the top of the article -- although an editor removed my tags citing that I was being "disruptive". It might be a good idea for an administrator to keep an eye on the article for the next few days -- at least until the media about the United airlines flight dies down,. . . WTF? (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And here I thought the worst that article would have to deal with was Fangusu... --Tarage (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Fully protected for two days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Here's the full story that WTF conveniently left out:

I added to the lede a paragraph about the United Airlines incident. Other editors commented that it was too much for the lede. At first I disagreed, but came to see that they were right, a brief mention in the lede and moving the paragraph to the body was the best solution. There is now a clear consensus on the talk page that this is the best course of action for the time being, as we work on a section about societal views on leggings.

One editor, WTF, disagreed with the consensus, but was unable to sway the opinions of the other editors. So, instead, he added an "UNDUE WEIGHT" clean=up tag to the article, I removed it on several grounds:

(1) Putting on UNDUE WEIGHT tag on an article where the talk page consensus is clearly that it is not undue weight, is a way of editing against consensus and getting WTF's personal opinion inserted in the article, in the form of a tag. This seems to be a way of subverting a clear WP:consensus and gaming the system.

(2) Putting a clean-up tag on an article -- especially one which is essentially based on an 'opinion, such as UNDUE WEIGHT -- is no different from any other edit on Wikipedia. If it is disputed and reverted, the editor who want to re-insert it is obligated to get a consensus on the talk page to do so.

{Damn, just burnt dinner because I was writing this instead of paying attention.)

(3) Even if WTF was right about the paragraph being undue, the correct thing to do was to put an in-line tag on the paragraph, not to slap a huge UNDUE tag on the article, as if it was full of undue weight information.

I have explained this to WTF in edit summaries, on his talk page, and on the article talk page. but WTF continues to subvert consensus by restoring the tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what the purpose of full protection is, since there is already a talk page consensus, and protection is generally considered a "time out" for the editors to reach a consensus. There is no such need here - but, of course, other editors might chime in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I've started an RfC, we'll see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2017 (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.

Despite this discussion being closed, and resolved in approximately an hour - I think it's worthwhile pointing out that WTF failed to inform any of the other involved editors that he had started an ANI discussion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2148[edit]

Dealt with. Blackmane (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2017 (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.

Darkknight2150, an impersonator of User:Darkknight2149 was blocked yesterday. And this one come as no surprise. Nickag989talk 05:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 asked to be informed when there was another impersonator, so I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Beyond My Ken[edit]

I think this has reached its conclusion. El_C 06:38, 28 March 2017 (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.

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has had an animosity toward me for years. I have been on a 6-month editing hiatus, and immediately upon my return, I edit one of my regular articles about a location in my home state, Taos Pueblo, New Mexico, which I live just a few miles from when I am living at home. It is an article which BMK has not before edited, and BMK stalks me to it and imposes his self-proclaimed "superior formatting" on it, trying to start an edit war. I detest his idiosyncratic, "ignore all rules" formatting style, which usually violates a number of guidelines, such as not "dropping" an image from the end of a section into the following section. He is intentionally doing this to annoy and harass me and I request that he stop immediately. Thank you for any who respond to this. And no, I am not going to go looking for diffs of everytime BMK has edit warred with me over following image sizing and placement rules and his ridiculous insertion of "<- spacing ->" comments simply b/c he does not like Wikpedia standard formatting. BMK should have been banned years ago for his stalking and edit warring behavior over layout. Skyerise (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Skyrise ought to bone up on the concept of WP:OWNERSHIP: just because he's edited an article before, and lives in the same state as the subject of the article doesn't give him any more rights to the article than any other WIkipedia editor, especially when the layout he's pushing is so vastly inferior, in that 1 1/2 images stick out beyond the "External links" section, while in my layout they're in a gallery and integarted into the body of the article. In any case, as a content dispute, there was no reason for Skyerise to bring this to AN/I without even opening a discussion on the article talk page. As for the ludicrous idea that I'm "harrassing" him in some way, well that's simply unruee. Editing this article was part of my attempt to fix the problems created by elisa.rolle's haphazard additions of images to articles, [1] and has nothing whatsoever to do with Skyerise, whom I don't know from a hole in the ground. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
BTW, Skyrise's editing of the article amounts to 10 edits over the course of 6 years. [2]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
BTW, since Skeyrise has presented no evidence of "stalking", but has merely cast aspersions, I'd appreciate it if someone would re-title this section. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not the place for content disputes. Please avoid calling users' edits expletives. I'm afraid if you want to prove animosity of years, you'll have to do better. El_C 04:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No evidence of stalking has been presented so this discussion should be closed IMO. For the record I think the gallery layout looks cleaner. As for the dispute over the image sizes neither editor is doing the readership any favors by hardcoding the images sizes; please read WP:IMAGESIZE. Betty Logan (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to using a "upright=" form. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see any issues with BMK's initial edit to the page, nor why it was reverted, nor why you would start a section on ANI over it. Of course, BMK's revert summaries were unnecessary "festore superior layout, this one sucks" and a blatant personal attack in "I can understand your not having any visual sense, but not lying to yourself"[3]. It's a shame that the "content creators" can never be sanctioned for their dickish behaviour, but I think both parties behaved quite poorly here. Who even cares, it's image formatting on a random page. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I tend to be frank when editors make damaging edits for no discernible reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think rude is a better word for how you interacted with the user there. You could have said "this layout is better because it is more reader-friendly" or "I think this looks better instead, but we could discuss on the talk page if you disagree" instead of the quotes above, accomplished the same thing, and perhaps avoided escalation. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Haven't looked into this but I have BMK's talkpage on my watchlist for whatever reason, and Skyerise's posts there of late make it seem like they are the one harassing: [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Looking at the harassing posts on BMK's talk page here and here as well as the display of WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here IMO Skeyrise is WP:NOTHERE. MarnetteD|Talk 05:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If you'd like a confirmation for my claims, admin SarekOfVulcan was involved in multiple blocks of Beyond My Ken for edit warring with me over layout. Is Sarek still around? I believe this goes back to the days when BMK was also [redacted] and was sock-puppeting as BMK. I was very involved in SPI in those days and might even have been the one who reported the socking. That was a long time ago. Skyerise (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So your idea is to come to AN/I, bypassing the article talk page, publicly accuse me of stalking and harrassing you, and then when you're called on having no evidence, advertising for it, WP:OUTing my identity in the process? Amazing. Anyway, you would do yourself a favor by reading this, the link to which has been on my user page forever. You have also not answered my question to you on the article talk page, where you claim that galleries are no longer allowed, but have not cited where that is written. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't "out" anything. You previous identity is clearly stated in the oldest block in your block log. Skyerise (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Block logs cannot be changed - but did you follow up and see if that ID lead anywhere? When it did not, you might have considered that there was a reason for the dead end. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I did NOT claim they are no longer allowed. I said they cause problems for screen-readers for the visually impaired. Which has ALWAYS been the issue I have with your edits, they cause problems for screen-readers. Do you have compassion for the visually-impaired, or is having your own way the only thing you care about? Skyerise (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so galleries are allowed, and it's merely your personal opinion that articles shouldn't have them. Isn't that exactly what you just accused me of doing above? But it's OK when you do it, I guess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Someone making false accusations of socking and who is now WP:FORUMSHOPPING should not be using the word compassion. MarnetteD|Talk 05:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Not a false accusation, here's the record. Skyerise (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
And here's the WP:AN discussion. Skyerise (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I have never dodged the fact that I dropped one ID, because of harrassement that Wikipedia policy was not to deal with at the time, and started editing with a new identity. When a socking puppetmaster starting attacking me and filed an SPI in retaliation for an SPI I filed on them (they're all blocked now), the connection between my identities was found (because I stupidly made some housekeeping edits to some of the accounts at the same time), and I was blocked for sockpuppetry. After a discussion on AN/I, I was allowed to pick one identity and keep editing. All of this is public knowledge, as I said just above, because the link to "My backstory" is available on my user page, and has been for years and years and years. Nothing has been hidden, and I have not used my old identities since that changeover, nor any other identity or IP. Anyone can read this at this subpage Since I have taken pains to avoid publicizing my original ID, which is my real name, taking advantage of everything Wikipedia has to offer, I congratulate you on WP:OUTING me for absolutely no reason at all, as all the information could have been found by simply reading my user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
And after reviewing both, it appears that I was not involved in either the report or the discussion, but was aware of it, as was Sarek. I am not forum shopping, but simply asked an admin who was involved at the time to contribute to this discussion. What other forum have I involved? Skyerise (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Socking from over seven years ago is not relevant to the content dispute that is going on now. As anyone with an ounce of understanding would know. The only reason to mention it is to cast aspersions which is a waste of everyone's time. MarnetteD|Talk 05:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The only reason to use the phrase "false accusations of socking" is to cast aspersions which is a waste of everyone's time. Did we delete WP:POT? Skyerise (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Clearly WP:BOOMERANG time for Skyerise; they could have bowed out gracefully by now. But they have persisted in compounding the original flawed accusation with more aspersions. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 05:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Bowing out now, ciao! Skyerise (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2017 (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.

Wikilaj on Vladimir Plahotniuc[edit]

This user constantly adds PR-like statements to the article of Vladimir Plahotniuc. It looks like his activity on Wikipedia is targeted solely on this kind of contributions. He acts in the same manner as a number of other users: Wikjanna, Jedisvrais, Wecontrib (sockpuppet accounts), Wilkeborch Jonas, Dumitru123, Maxim.ascanio, Piticu21, Angeloftruth, Angeloftruth777, who as well focus on the article. It looks like an organized effort to polish the politician's image, as he is not much likened in Moldova (86.8% disapproval in March 2016). Plahotniuc is also known for promoting his agenda through his own mass-media (General Media Group) and for having his actions praised in comments on online news stories by a number of internet trolls ([5]). What the article history shows aligns very well with an organized PR effort. Please review the article talk page, especially Talk:Vladimir Plahotniuc#Preventing an edit war (2) where I proved that the information added by Wikilaj and his friends is biased. I request the blocking of Wikilaj and full protection of the page. --Gikü (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Vladimir Plahotniuc. --Gikü (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gikü: Have you opened a WP:SPI case here? --NeilN talk to me 12:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: We already know Wikjanna, Wecontrib and Jedisvrais are the same problem, but Wikilaj is most probably a separate person (per this check). The rest of the accounts are probably too old to investigate. --Gikü (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked the three socks identified at Commons Meta and semi-protected the page to prevent other socks from showing up. Wikilaj needs to read WP:EW and WP:MEAT. --NeilN talk to me 18:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gikü (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick block...[edit]

There was neither any need nor any good reason for asking the block.Was a bit over-reactive asking for the same.Winged Blades Godric 13:02, 28 March 2017 (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.

Can somehow block Jeetu7877's at least for the time being.His incompetency seems way too much and the effects are terrible-creating dup. pages, redirecting his own user-page, bad loops in WP-space etc.Winged Blades Godric 12:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Blocks are preventative, not intended to be used as punishment. He has stopped after the speedy warning. There is no indication that a simple talk page message explaining why he should not create such pages won't work (something you have not even tried!). Regards SoWhy 12:37, 28 March 2017 (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.

Cultural history of the buttocks[edit]

(non-admin closure) Content dispute. Advice dispensed, nothing more to do. Kleuske (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2017 (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.

Can an admin or experienced user keep an eye on that article. I repeatedly removing a section that is called "buttocks in popular culture", which is a list of names in which their buttocks was discussed in media, many without sources and many of the remaining sources are tabloids. I'm certain that falls under WP:BLP but I keep getting reverted by SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs) saying that the article isn't a BLP so it doesn't qualify. Prevan (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This looks like a content dispute to me. Take it to the talk-page. If you have BLP concerns (poorly sourced material) you might want to try WP:BLP/N. Editwarring or section blanking is not the proper way to handle things. On a personal note, a 'Buttocks in popular culture' doesn't seem out of place in Cultural history of the buttocks. Kleuske (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Lest I forget. You are required to notify users if you start a discussion about them. I have done so for you. Kleuske (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me. I have asked the complaining user to remove anything that is poorly sourced. Several items are not. Hope h/s will consider that rather than continuing to rm the whole thing - it's been there for quite some time. I agree that this should be continued on the talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The page is on my watchlist, so Prevan's wish is granted. Kleuske (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2017 (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.

I won't re-open because I'm not sure anything else needs to be done right now - I've fully protected the page for a week and commented on the talk page - but it's probably worthwhile to say here, where people who like to close threads might see it, that BLP enforcement is not just a "content dispute". Prevan, I think Kleuske is right that WP:BLP/N is probably a better place to raise this if you want more BLP-informed editors chiming in on this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Apologies. I was trying to be helpful. I agree I should have taken the WP:BLP issue more seriously and not close so hastily. Kleuske (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Abusive/threatening IP[edit]

See [6] and related edits at Talk:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Looks like time for a block, and RevDel of the edit summaries. Page may need brief semiprotection. I don't think the threats are credible enough to require notifying the WMF, but I might be wrong. This has been going on for a while, several IP addresses seem to be involved and the abuse is escalating. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators should block this IP at once. Such a threat and loss of self-control is clearly unacceptable, and potentially revdel worthy.DarkKnight2149 23:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I've issued a block for the personal attacks and I've rev-deleted the edit summaries. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've put a short semi-protection on this page - perhaps someone who does such things can impose a range block (see recent history). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Boing! said Zebedee: Good call on the longer semi. I looked at a rangeblock the last time this happened but the IPs are all over the place. --NeilN talk to me 04:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Users forcing edits through[edit]

Wren_Jago (talk · contribs) is forcing edits through on the article Infinite Flight after the article started receiving attention from some members of the game's community due to a forum post directing members to its Wiki article. Their edits have been largely non-constructive in the sense that they violate various parts of WP:VG/GL, and they are now forcing the edits through with some minor changes even though I've explained this in edit summaries and in great detail on the article talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the article to suit your requests and was trying to reach a a civilised discussion. The edits I have made now suit all of your requests and the remodelling of the page was requested by the developers of the app - I don't see a problem now. - Wren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren Jago (talkcontribs) 14:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wren Jago: If you have a conflict of interest, you shouldn't be editing the page at all. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Read the post - I addressed all complaints from Eik. As for the conflict of interest I wrote impartially and all opinions are cited from other sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren Jago (talkcontribs) 14:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You have addressed the guidelines I cited by dismissing them. For example, you responded to me mentioning #7 of WP:GAMECRUFT with special pleading. Eik Corell (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

How else would I have addressed them other than getting rid of any anti-guideline text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren Jago (talkcontribs) 15:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Also can you stop deleting it all before we reach an agreement here - maybe you are the one forcing edits through? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren Jago (talkcontribs) 16:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm responding on the article talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean the IF page - if you can give an exsact improvement to my draft (I can send it to you) I would be happy to accommodate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren Jago (talkcontribs) 18:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced claims on Sofia airport[edit]

Sofia airport article had this version where you can clearly see them claiming having almost 5m passangers and then down at the table a number for 2016 saying 4,980,387[41]. The source says nothing of the kind.

I removed the unsourced info, asked for a source at article talk-page, and no answer was given rather than being reverted with the accusation of me (!!!) doing vandalism. Can someone please help so the unsourced information doesnt get in again and warn User talk:Mashine1984 not to iinsert unsourced information back to the article? FkpCascais (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You were bold, someone reverted you, now discuss. I see you posted at the talk page, why not go to WP:RFC or get a third opinion. --Darth Mike(talk) 17:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I think you've got it wrong. The info in the article did not match the source. It's not that it's unsourced. However, why not just change the values to match the source rather than removing it altogether? Blackmane (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

SoyElCapricornio and Wrestling: A Poorly Sourced, and Poorly Written Love Story[edit]

SoyElCapricornio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) SoyElCapricornio keeps writing poorly written articles that are all stubs, and have no reliable sources, most of his articles have been nominated for a deletion process of some kind, see User talk:SoyElCapricornio that is only filled with just deletion nominations. All of his articles look like the beginning of the drafting process and they stay like that and other editors have to do all of the work to make sure the articles are up to par. This issue needs to be addressed, it is annoying and irritating. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The articles mostly seem to be unsourced biographies of professional wrestlers. It doesn't look like anyone left a non-templated message on his talk page yet. I'll try to briefly explain how BLPs, sourcing, and notability work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Magioladitis deletes thousands of user talk page edits and doesn't get the problem[edit]

Resolved: fixedper the user's request. Graham87 13:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Magioladitis has reshuffled his talk page archives, and in the process has deleted literally thousands of edits to his user talk page. This is a serious misuse of the admin tools. Multiple editors have tried to discuss this with them on their talk page, but we are not able to get them to realise or correct the problem. I think this is extremely worrying in a long-term admin, and shows that they can't be trusted with the tools (either they don't know what they did wrong and are unable to understand even such a basic concept, or they do know what they did wrong but can't give an honest answer and are unwilling to correct it).

Solving the technical issue of the deleted edits may not be hard (although perhaps things may have been lost indefinitely due to repeated delete / move / delete cycles), but how to deal with the personal issue of an admin not knowing that they shouldn't delete their own user talk, and are unwilling or unable to correct it? Fram (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK. Moreover, anything it in place in less than 3 hours after I was contacted. You message in my talk page was unclear and a bit offensive. After a talk page stalker contacted me I spotted the issue and fixed it. If there is anything else I would be more than happy to help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK is about removing or archving edits from your userpage. It is not about deleting them. At the moment your talk-page indicates the earliest edit is 2013 - since you have been editing since 2006 this is a large gap in talk-page interactions. The fundemental problem of 'they are visible in the archives' is that if you edit the archives (which may not be watched and have a history entirely technically divorced from the original talk page posts) it can easily misrepresent past discussions on the talkpage. Given that you just had an ARBCOM case where your extensive talk-page history was used as evidence of problems with your behaviour over the years, I cant see these recent actions as anything other than a deliberate attempt to obfuscate your user-talk history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh ffs, you didnt even remove or archive edits from your talk page, you moved/renamed the entire talk page to an archive page, have now copied and pasted those archives into a new archive, and deleted the moved/renamed archived pages with all the original revisions!. While technically page-moving was used previously to archive, the relevant help pages make it very clear the pages do not qualify for speedy deletion. Let alone under G6 - which in now way allows for the revision history of a user-talk page to be deleted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Only in death: I responded at his talk page to similar effect. Also see this link (admin-only), that lays the problem out. Graham87 12:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
From WP:OWNTALK:User talk pages are almost never deleted. Are you sure you want to refer to that? --Calton | Talk 11:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I can verify that there are indeed thousands of deleted revisions in the talk page and various archives. If Magioladitis does not act shortly, I will go through and undelete any that I can find. It is troubling that Magioladitis apparently does not understand that this is not allowed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

From WP:DELTALK: "User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted; they are usually needed for reference by other users ... Exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason." If no good reasons are given, they should be undeleted. --Darth Mike(talk) 12:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to history-merge the assorted deleted archives back into the main user talk-page history? Generally no one will care what Magioladitis does with his archives as long as the original revisions from his talk page are still visible in the talk-page history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If anyone can perform the merge in a better way so that all edits are in visible edit history place, I would be more than happy to get that help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

All done. Graham87 13:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It turns in the early years I was performing the archiving by myself by moving the page. Later I trusted a bot to do the job for me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The technical issue is resolved. The disturbing issue of an admin not understanding that they may not delete user talk page edits, and unable to see that there are thousands of deleted edits even when a) pointed to deleted archives and b) presented with individual examples of missing edits, but still repeatedly claiming that all is fixed and that they did nothing they weren't allowed to, remains though. This is the same admin who just had an ArbCom case closed which happened after for years, they didn't understand what they did wrong and why people complained, and who continued with similar problematic edits during that case. I don't know what the exact cause of the problem is, but the end result is an admin / bot operator who is way too often unable to understand problems with his edits even after multiple people have tried to explain them, and (like here) is apparently not able to undo his own mistakes (and has not acknowledged anywhere that they did anything wrong or misinterpreted policy rather badly). Closing this zas "resolved" simply because the technical problem is solved seems a bit too easy and ignores the root problem. Fram (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't expect an Admin to know every policy off-hand, but when an Admin refers to a policy that is only 15 sentences long and directly contradicts their claims, there is a problem. When an Admin doesn't understand what they were doing is wrong after it being pointed out by many users (especially when they provide examples), there is a problem. How can we trust an Admin with the tools if they aren't able to responsibly use them? --Darth Mike(talk) 14:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
What steps are required for a de-sysop?--WaltCip (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The only way that actually works is for the admin to request it at WP:BN. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It does not contradict my claims. All entries are visible via edit history. Moreover, "almost never" does not mean "never". For example, I have hidden some disruptive material in the past. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Fram I replied to you in very short notice. In contrary to other messages your message was unclear. You pointed to a page that has been moved and nothing else. Even the example provided to me it showed the page to be in the edit history. Maybe if you use better text next time you get better results. PS The "thousands" is an overestimate the same way that you multiplied the size of my archives by 1,024. Discussing the problem is not unwillingness to solve it. I took action within a few hour despite the fact that I was in the middle of something else at the moment and that I was already online for a long time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • What is unclear to me is, really, wtf was going on. I am glad that Graham took it on himself to fix what shouldn't have had to be fixed in the first place. For better or worse, us admins owe it to the rest of the editing corps to have our #### accessible. "Hiding disruptive material" is just not something to pull into this discussion; that's not what's going on. I tend to think of Fram as someone who may occasionally come down too hard on people, but... but... yeah, we shouldn't have to be here again. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Drmies The problem is that judging by Fram's comments I understood they only meant that the entries have been removed/deleted by the Archives. They never mentioned the revision history. The problem was fixed in a short time. Take note that when the bot archives the pages the edit history remains for the main talk page. I have forgotten that for some years I was moving and recreating the talk page. Everything is in place. I could have done it by myself but Fram was pressing for faster response. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
      • From the first message on your talk page about this: "Can you please either indicate where the hundreds of deleted edits in the history of e.g. User talk:Magioladitis/Archive 7 (and the other archive pages) can be accessed by non-admins, or correct your error and make sure that no talk page edits are inaccessible any longer?" I gave an example (which wasn't moved at the time, only deleted, specifically told that it was about "deleted edits in the history" and that they were inaccessible to non-admins, and that it was about hundreds of edits (later turned out to be thousands of edits). The problem was repeatedly re-explained to you, to no avail. Even in your previous response here you still didn't beieve that it was about thousands of edits. "The problem was fixed in a short time. " Yes, but not by you, only after I brought it here, and even then you still don't get it. "Everything is in place. I could have done it by myself but Fram was pressing for faster response." That's simply a lie. You were not able to do it yourself, but claimed repeatedly to have fixed it anyway. You could have said "oops, I need some time to correct this, it will be corrected by Monday" for all I care, but instead you rushed off to do some edit that you claimed fixed the problems, so you could go on with your AWB edits instead of slowing down and actually looking at the problem. I never said that you needed to immediately solve this or posed any deadlines. What I did have a major problem with was that you claimed to have fixed it when it wasn't true, and that you are still spouting nonsense about the whole issue and don't seem to understand what really happened. Fram (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Propose desysop for gross incompetence. After all this, Magioladitis' latest reply here is full of errors and untruths, either deliberately or because even after all this he still doesn't understand the actual problem. Looking at what Graham has done to resolve the problem, I see that he restored 783 revisions (archive 5), 721 (6), 596 (7), 701 (8), 910 (9), 1056 (2), 377 (3) and 696 (4). Or more than 5,000 edits. So why does he claim "PS The "thousands" is an overestimate"? "I took action within a few hour despite the fact that I was in the middle of something else at the moment and that I was already online for a long time." Yes, you claimed multiple times that you had solved the problem (which was in each case wrong, but since you still don't understand the problem and size of it this isn't a surprise), so that you could go on with your "something else", making many many AWB edits. And you think that not doing your admin duty and thoroughly checking why you are accused of policy violations and dragged to ANI is somehow commendable? "You pointed to a page that has been moved and nothing else." is just wrong on so many levels. I pointed to User talk:Magioladitis/Archive 7, which at the time of my comment had a log consisting of two deletes and a message at the top that it had 596 deleted edits. The first of that page was at 11.26, i.e. hours after I had given that example. Fram (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Fram The problem was resolved now. If your messages were clearer I would have acted more accurately and faster. You were unclear. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Answered above. I guess everyone who reads the interactions (here and at yur atlk page) can judge for themselves where the problem lies. Fram (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
True. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Really, there needs to be a system put into place in which users are allowed to do just this. Sadly, as I have seen numerous times, this is completely unwanted by the administrative staff. --Tarage (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
What, a system by which users can delete thousands of talk page comments made by others? Essential aspects of enwiki are collaboration and accountability. The possibility to delete unwanted comments (warnings, disputes, block discussions, ...) so that only admins can still see them is a bad idea on many levels; and an admin exercising this, when it is impossible for non-admins and not allowed for admins, is problematic on many levels. Anyway, the reason I propose desysop is not so much the deletion of these, but the complete ignorance of what they did wrong, how to correct it, how to even see how many edits were affected, coupled with the many attempts to claim it was fixed, claiming that the problem was not with them but with the report, claming that the page given as an example of hundreds of deleted edits was not obvious because it was moved (which, at the time, it wasn't, the log clearly indicated only two deletions and many deleted edits but no page move), and so on. An admin, who just came off an Arbcom case about their bot edits, their unresponsiveness, the use of the tools to unblock their own bots, and things like that, and who then within days produces this kind of ####, isn't fit to be an admin any longer. I'll probably file it at Arbcom on Monday, when I have a bit more time. Fram (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I meant there needs to be a system in place to desysop people that doesn't involve an Arbcom case. --Tarage (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Fram I used the move button too. What do you mean by "no page move"? Moreover, you overestimated the size by a size of 10^3 haven't you? I think a part of the problem is the way you keep contacting me. Your messages in my talk page are constant. The mess you describe affected my talk page archives but it was easily handled within a few hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I overestimated the size of one of your resulting archive pages by a factor 1000, someone alerted me to the mistake, and I said "oops" and acknowledged that mistake. I did not overestimate the "size" of the actual problem by a size of 1000 though, although for some reason no amount of explanation seems to get through to you. Do you still believe that only a handful of edits were deleted? As for "Your messages in my talk page are constant.", the last time I posted to your talk page before this was in December, so hardly constant. In this episode, I posted (after my initial post) in response to posts (claims that you had fixed it, or that you hadn't had an example of the problems). Please explain how my "constant" posts actually contributed anything to the problem. Finally, "it was easily handled within a few hours.", yes, because I noticed you made the mistake, and noticed your claim that it was fixed was incorrect, and noticed that your second claim that it was fixed was incorrect, and finally another admin did the work you were unable to. I never claimed that the mess wasn't easily handled, it was, for any half-decent admin. But you were unable to recognise the problem, acknowledge the problem, or fix the problem. "What do you mean by "no page move"? " Perhaps that the page I gave as an example of your screw-up, had never been moved, only deleted, which you would have noticed if you had actually looked at the link I provided instead of simply assuming that you were infallible. You can still access the logs for that page, and look at the timestamp for the first move (and the two deleted before the move), and compare that timestamp with the timestamp of my initial post to your talk page.
But the fact that I have to explain this, after all this, is evidence enough that you are not fit to be an admin. You don't know how to read timestamps, page logs, ... you don't know how to undelete or histmerge pages, you don't even know that you aren't allowed to delete talk page edits, and are unable to actuallyunderstand that policy when yuou link to as justification. Fram (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Fram Unblocking own bot is not disallowed by any policy. Moreover, I am already restricted from doing this. So, WP:DEADHORSE. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED / WP:TOOLMISUSE are policies. How can you not be involved if another admin blocks your bot and you unblock it? Fram (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
This has been discussed at length at multiple venues. Consensus has consistently been that unblocking one's own bot when it has been stopped for a now-resolved technical issue is within policy.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC).
I don't think you are the best judge of this, but whatever, the main issue here is not about the old bot unblockings but about the current behaviour. Fram (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom request filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Magioladitis user talk page deletions. Fram (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice[edit]

Withdrawn. ―Mandruss  17:21, 29 March 2017 (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.

Is becoming a problem, it started here [7] with off topic discussions about other pages and wider policy [8], odd attempts at gotchas [9], refusal to understand that talk pages are just for that article [10]/.

I asked his top stop discussing off topic comments and to stop talking about editors (as well as what I felt were (and are) indicators of a soapboxing attitude) [11].

He is now at it here [12] now with him saying that talk pages are for disusing the article is silly [13], insincere threats to call an admin [14], disrespectful responses [15] (see also [16]). The user clearly has some POV pushing issues with SPLC, and CIS and has a decidedly battleground mentally. In addition I think his debating style is dishonest, as he seems to contradict himself.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Uhm... OP has not exactly given a straightforward presentation of events. For example, the diff labeled "insincere threat to call an admin" was obviously not a threat, but rather it's me making fun of him for threatening me with admin action less than 24 hours earlier, based on a claim that I was making the discussion "personal", when actually I was just trying to get a clearer statement of what he was trying to say about the article content (in my frustration, I said "All right, wise guy" which, I guess, is the basis for him saying it was "getting personal"? Seems quite a stretch.)
As for the using the wrong talk page accusations, the two articles are very closely related, the two content questions and underlying policies are very closely related. A simple answer would have cut the discussion short, and the question was reasonable.
Finally, I'm not sure how it is POV pushing to insist on tracking secondary sources when dealing with accusations of racism about living people, and I don't see a whiff of dishonest discussion on my part, nor has Slater offered any diffs of my supposed dishonesty. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Factchecker, re: As for the using the wrong talk page accusations, the two articles are very closely related, the two content questions and underlying policies are very closely related. A simple answer would have cut the discussion short. .... 1) No they are not (closely related), for many reasons, but mostly because 'that is not how it works', one article is discussed in one place. 'We say this about x, so why don't we say it about y', is simply a time-waster most of the time and usually involves OR about x or y, everything on WP is resolved on its own merits. ... 2) You did get a clear simple answer (not here please), you ignored it and intentionally misrepresented it as "I'll take it you don't object then" .... btw, making a rhetorical call for an admin is not threatening admin action. Pincrete (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems like more of a threat than the subsequent joke by me, which was pretty obviously a joke and followed by the words "Seriously though..." He called for an admin with a clear suggestion that I was engaging in personal attacks.
I'm not sure why you don't see the articles as closely related, it's two organizations with one criticizing the other, and the question involved how to source and write prose for the criticism, and involved policy issues already being discussed at the first talk pages. I didn't say anything about having similar content on both pages. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe not, but here you seem to ask how I would edit another page [17], here you seem to ask if materiel should not be allowed in another page [18]. As far as I can tell no one has accused you here of "anything about having similar content on both pages." you are being accused of wanting to talk about editing page A on page B's talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually Pincrete did accuse me of that just above and that's why I responded to it. As for the asking questions on the wrong talk page accusations:
I made precisely two comments over the span of seven minutes 12 about the "wrong" article before you complained about it, after which I stopped and all the remaining comments were simply responses to your accusations.
That was nearly three days ago.
I note also that you then followed me to the other Talk page and continued demanding that I take the discussion elsewhere 123 even though we were trying to figure out the best way to source and write that exact article. Then you asked an admin to "close" the discussion while also accusing me of ill intent.
Yet you won't answer a simple question: Shouldn't we use secondary sources for this material? Instead, you came here to try to get me sanctioned. Factchecker_at