Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 83 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Infobox image

(Initiated 54 days ago on 7 September 2024) Survey responses have died down in past couple of weeks. CNC (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 42 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Assassin's_Creed_Shadows#RfC:Should_Assassin's_Creed_Shadows_include_the_Re-enactment_flag_controversy_and_Japanese_reaction?

(Initiated 36 days ago on 25 September 2024) Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	0	0
TfD	0	0	8	0	8
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	15	0	15
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

Other types of closing requests

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 157 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I haven’t accomplished anything on this. I couldn’t find a way to save a readable copy of the discussion to my iPad, and the government of Cuba has disabled the Internet nationwide to suppress news of the ongoing blackout. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Suga#Requested_move_21_October_2024

(Initiated 10 days ago on 21 October 2024) Could an uninvolved editor please close the discussion :) 52-whalien (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done by BD2412. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nasser Hospital mass graves#Merge proposal

(Initiated 191 days ago on 23 April 2024) Opened for more than six months now, no new comments. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (39 out of 8768 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin 2024 Tyre airstrikes 2024-11-01 02:48 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Mahmoud Bakr Hijazi 2024-11-01 01:52 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade 0404 News 2024-11-01 01:50 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Assassination of Imad Mughniyeh 2024-11-01 01:47 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Rashad Abu Sakhila 2024-11-01 00:09 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Israeli airstrikes on Al Qard Al Hasan 2024-10-31 23:51 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade List of best-selling boy bands 2024-10-31 22:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Sporting CP 2024-10-31 20:23 2025-05-01 12:37 edit,move Well, that didn't take long. Black Kite October surprise 2024-10-31 18:52 2025-10-31 18:52 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement of WP:CT/AP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Sadh 2024-10-31 18:22 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Kamala 2024-10-31 17:02 2024-11-14 17:02 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba Hebraization of Palestinian place names 2024-10-31 09:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Beit Hanoun wedge 2024-10-31 09:39 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Baalbek 2024-10-30 22:09 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Ada and Abere 2024-10-30 21:55 2024-11-03 21:55 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Susanna Gibson 2024-10-30 19:58 indefinite edit,move WP:BLP issues. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson (2nd nomination). Asilvering 29 October 2024 Beit Lahia airstrike 2024-10-30 19:00 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Ganesha811 Hwang Hyun-jin 2024-10-30 13:09 2024-11-06 13:09 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Goodnightmush Khushali Kumar 2024-10-29 21:30 indefinite edit,move Restoring some protection after creating redirect Liz Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism 2024-10-29 20:05 2025-01-29 20:05 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/AP Ingenuity Orakzai 2024-10-29 19:32 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Bangash 2024-10-29 19:29 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Bengalis 2024-10-29 19:24 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Zaher Jabarin 2024-10-29 19:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Killing of Shaban al-Dalou 2024-10-29 18:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:MusicBrainz release group 2024-10-29 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, My Life for Iran 2024-10-29 17:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Palestine and the United Nations 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Israel won't exist in 25 years 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Down with Israel 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Donald Trump and fascism 2024-10-29 17:20 2025-01-29 20:05 edit,move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Tim Sheehy (businessman) 2024-10-29 17:03 2024-11-12 17:03 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: restrict BLP violations from non-XC until after the election OwenX Mykolas Majauskas 2024-10-29 16:25 2025-04-29 13:09 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/BLP -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Tony Hinchcliffe 2024-10-29 01:19 2025-01-29 01:14 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/AP ToBeFree Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon 2024-10-28 20:37 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Kurdish–Turkish conflict 2024-10-28 19:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/KURD; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Macrobiotic diet 2024-10-28 16:00 2024-11-28 16:00 edit,move Persistent spamming: Per a complaint at WP:AN3 EdJohnston User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 34 2024-10-28 13:58 indefinite edit,move Fish and karate Fusion power 2024-10-28 03:46 2024-11-04 03:46 move Liz

Thousands of Portals

The purpose of this posting is to discuss portals, hundreds of portals. There is already discussion at Village pump (Proposals) (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: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)

Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals

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 [1]). 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" [2] 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)
• 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)

Proposal 2 - Indefinite ban on page creation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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 [3] 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)"[4] 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal 3: Relax tagging and notification requirements for Grouped Portal MfDs

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 [5]. 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)

Concerning further proposals

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)

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)

Proposal 4: Provide for CSD criterion X3

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)
• 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)
• 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 [6] 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)

• 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 [7] 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)

• 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)

Thousands of Autogenerated "Quantum Portals" with no human curation?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. 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

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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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: #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.

1. You must not make any GA nominations.
2. 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. 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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Persian ) And ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Latin ) to check this ( ČERĀM ).

Please change name of this article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charam,_Iran ) to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheram). Also please change name of this article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charam_County ) to ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheram_County ).

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

This name ( https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

User:SMcCandlish/It

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

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)

Change to blocking policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. 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)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

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)

BMW 3 Series (E36)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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.wikipedia.org/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[8][9][10][11] 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock assist

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

Removal of user rights

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

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE

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. 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)

User:TenPoundHammer making uncivil remarks

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. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

Warnings

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]

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

Discussion

Here are some recent, not-so-kind edits: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. 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)

• 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)

• 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)