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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	11	6	17
TfD	0	0	1	2	3
MfD	0	1	0	1	2
FfD	0	0	0	15	15
RfD	0	0	4	13	17
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 8 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 116 sockpuppet investigations
• 10 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 6 requests for RD1 redaction
• 25 elapsed requested moves
• 5 Pages at move review
• 21 requested closures
• 85 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 40 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (30 out of 8005 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Template:Current event 2024-07-14 07:39 indefinite edit,move High risk template Zzuuzz File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp 2024-07-14 02:07 indefinite edit,move,upload Irrespective of whether this gets kept or deleted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 14, it is a risk to have it unprotected on such a high visibility article. Protecting in line with the main article. Daniel 2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally 2024-07-14 00:01 2025-01-13 23:20 edit Immediate risk of move warring Fences and windows 2024 assassination attempt of Donald Trump 2024-07-13 22:56 2025-01-13 23:20 edit Persistent vandalism ScottishFinnishRadish Death Shelters 2024-07-13 22:55 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan 2024 targeted assassination of Muhammad Deif 2024-07-13 19:54 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan 13 July 2024 Al-Mawasi airstrikes 2024-07-13 19:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Aaron Maté 2024-07-13 18:09 2025-07-13 18:09 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Hruso people 2024-07-12 21:05 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will log at WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Koli Samaj 2024-07-12 14:06 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry by warring sock-farms including Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Levantine Arabic 2024-07-12 12:30 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: Arab–Israeli conflict K6ka Antioch International Movement of Churches 2024-07-12 02:37 2025-01-12 02:37 edit Persistent sock puppetry The Wordsmith Mohsin Hossain Bablu 2024-07-12 00:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Adult Swim (Latin American TV channel) 2024-07-11 20:54 2024-08-11 12:00 edit,move persistent disruptive editing & block-evasion JBW Draft:Suck my dick 2024-07-11 16:31 indefinite create Offensive name BusterD Draft:Ari 2024-07-11 16:24 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Saeed Khan Bozdar 2024-07-11 12:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Amortias Zionism 2024-07-11 04:39 indefinite move Edit warring / content dispute: Time to stop editing the article and discuss on the talk page. Just noting that I've made this indef to prevent the article auotmatically becoming unprotected and it's a normal admin action so any admin can change it back to ECP. Callanecc China–Israel relations 2024-07-11 00:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan 1st Tank Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-10 22:05 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Death of Nex Benedict 2024-07-10 19:31 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/GG; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Module:WritingCredits 2024-07-10 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3656 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Non-album single 2024-07-10 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Film lists by country 2024-07-10 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2789 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Fa bottom 2024-07-10 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Al-Awda School massacre 2024-07-10 17:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Pppery Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts 2024-07-10 16:44 indefinite edit Move warring Robertsky Channel 14 (Israel) 2024-07-10 15:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP CambridgeBayWeather June 2024 northern Gaza City airstrikes 2024-07-10 14:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather 9 July 2024 Gaza attacks 2024-07-10 14:49 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather

An update on and a request for involvement at the Medicine MOS

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

---

A month ago I closed an ANI thread which was a mixture of behavioral concerns and content concerns. That thread reached no consensus of sanctions against any editor but did arrive at a strong consensus for how to handle the content dispute - by conducting a formal Request for Comment (RFC). Basically by default I have found myself as an uninvolved sysop attempting to see through the ANI consensus and mediate a way towards an RfC. We are at a moment where additional editor attention would be helpful and in some cases essential to this process. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS RfC

• The discussion has been voluminous despite only a half dozen or so editors, including myself, participating. (Fun fact, with a hat tip to EdJohnston, but the discussion is longer than AN and ANI combined). I should have worked harder to limit this output from all participants (including myself).
• Most editors who have been participating in the process have gravitated towards this RfC question (option 1) and format with the belief that only minor changes are necessary before launching. Tryptofish feels that the other RfC format will not be successful and has offered an alternative (option 2) which so far has not garnered any support from participating editors. If you wish to comment about either RfC and/or the potential launch of Option 1 here is probably the best place to go.
• Note there is an ongoing RfC

According to the ANI close this should be done by an uninvolved sysop. While I remain uninvolved someone with fresh eyes agreeing that the RfC is neutral would be for the best, in my opinion and so I am looking for that uninvolved sysop. Additionally, I would love to line-up an experienced and capable editor (or panel of 3) and who would be willing to act as closer(s) at the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I can act as a closer (or be a member of the panel). I am totally uninvolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Sorry, got unexpected real-life emergency issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there no chance the differences between Tryptofish and others can be resolved without a lot more participation? Might an approach where Tryptofish highlights one part of the proposal and explains how they would change it and why, and the participants discuss this and try to come to an understanding work? Or has this been tried and didn't work or is not possible since Tryptofish feels the nature of their concerns mean they can only be understood by changing the whole RfC? In any case, Doc James seems to be one of the biggest proponents of one "side" and Colin and to some extent SandyGeorgia the other. Are they at least all on board with the current proposed RfC? This doesn't guarantee the RfC will work or product a clear outcome and I'm no means suggesting other's views aren't also very important, but it would I think reduce concerns that the RfC may have ended up one-sided. P.S. Other participants highlighting a part of Tryptofish's RfC proposal and how they will change it an why is another possibility but since it sounds like there is significantly more support for option 1, it makes more sense in the other direction IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the differing proposals, I understand why what I suggested probably isn't going to work as it is indeed a difference in how the RfC should be approached that affects the whole RfC so I've struck that suggestion. IMO "option 1" doesn't preclude something like Tryptofish's proposal in the future. I already sort of said this yesterday but IMO if most editors feel a more open ended approach is preferred, it may be better to let them try provided they understand that sometimes it just means limited participation and also no clear outcome, and there is probably no way to word an RfC to prevent that. And so it's possible this RfC will provide little help in drafting the 2nd RfC and in addition, the 2nd RfC may also have depressed participation. And in the mean time, the issues will be unresolved and likewise any concern they have over articles, as the moratorium/embargo may remain if there's no clear direction of the community. Of course it is also possible there will be a clear result from the first RfC maybe not even requiring a second 2nd RfC or at least convincing everyone of the right course of action for articles before it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The first RFC is laughably POV. I find very little chance that it will be NPOV before it is launched. Trypto was only being fair when they explained that it will probably end in failure due to this POV, for which they were threatened with interventions. When Barkeep talks of most editors they are mostly talking about the ones who have not been bludgeoned out of the discussion, which are two on one of side of the argument and another paid to be on Wikipedia.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't share your view that the first RfC is biased towards a specific point of view. In fact, I think it may be trying too hard to just present examples without going through the pros and cons of how the data is presented. I suspect most people who aren't highly familiar with the competing concerns will just take a cursory look at the text and give a gut-feel reaction, which won't help move the discussion forward.

On a more general note regarding multi-phase discussions: the sticking point for many Wikipedia decision-making discussions is maintaining engagement from a broad set of editors in order to establish a true broad consensus view. There are a few issues that have addressed through multiple phases of discussion, such as pending changes (for example, Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012) and the request for administrative privileges process (for example, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC and Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform). Even with these highly popular topics, the degree of involvement by the community diminished as the phases went by. For topics with fewer interested parties, it can be a challenge to ensure there is enough input at the end to determine an unassailable result. The benefits of expediency need to be weighed against the advantages of gaining more information to better shape discussion.

That being said, sometimes it is necessary to have a workshop phase to collect data and work through ideas, refining them further. Establishing a consensus view requires patience. isaacl (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Isaacl, you're correct that I'm going a bit out of my way to make the question feel neutral, even though the two sides aren't really equal in the type or strength of their arguments. Also, on some points, there just aren't two sides. For example, the price given in the first example is mathematically incorrect. Despite the recent request from User:AlmostFrancis to hear the other side, ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal the price in the first example. There is no other side here: everyone already agrees that it's impossible to multiply three numbers together and end up with a prime number. That said, I don't really want people to go into the RFC looking at trivial points like the occasional typo in a price, or with nothing but vague enthusiasm for Doing Something, without helping us figure out what can and should be done. I want editors to think about the important points: What claims do we think this database can support? We need to re-check all of this anyway (see: typos), and we might as well make any other recommended changes at the same time. I'm thinking that we need to invite the data geeks and stats folks to this phase, so we can talk about what is realistically possible with this database.

But to do that, we need to actually get the RFC open, and ANI said that we need an uninvolved admin to opine that it's neutral enough before we can start an RFC. If any admin would please look at it and express an opinion (either way!), that would be really helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Note I didn't use "neutral", as that is tangential to my view. I think it would be helpful to actually go through a list of the advantages and concerns for each example, so potential commenters can be made aware of them up front. I strongly suspect that all key issues have already been identified and so as I see it, the goal is to gather viewpoints on how to best manage these considerations. I believe there will be more engagement with an explicit list of items to consider. isaacl (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, and you aren't an admin, which ANI required for this bureaucratic step. We've been talking about it. The identified problems in those lists (not all of which apply to any given statement, of course) is lengthy, policy-focused, overwhelming, and damaging. And, yes, the group has identified valid problems, and everyone's already agreed that some of these truly are problems, but I think that the overall effect of listing all the problems at the top would be running down one side unfairly, because the "pro" side is pretty much left with little to say beyond apologizing for not magically having done a perfect job on the first try at an unexpectedly complex task. I don't think that will *feel* neutral, even if it technically is.

The problem with your suggestion in terms of what I want to learn is that if I post a list of identified problems, I won't find out what's right, or what could be done right, or which categories of problems seem most salient to editors. I'll just get a bunch of editors dumping drive-by vote on the page that say little more than "Me, too, because All True Editors are always opposed to all problems". What I need is editors saying, "Okay, maybe that first effort wasn't perfect, but this is complicated, and let's see how we can build on it. Do we need WP:INTEXT attribution for that database? I think you should try..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that the pro side is just apologizing for flaws; there are reasons why people support certain ways of presenting the data, such as conciseness and use of (I know, hotly disputed behind the scenes) standard dosages. Just because they're not perfect doesn't mean they don't have advantages. I just think it's asking too much for commenters to replicate the analyses that have already been done to isolate key issues, rather than just getting them to grapple with the issues and work on ideas to deal with them. I agree that this is better discussed elsewhere. isaacl (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

There are good arguments for including information about money. (I've made them for years and years now.) There are no good arguments for reading a source that gives you the average unit price for a single country and writing on Wikipedia that the one country's price is the price throughout the entire developing world. Although that has happened in some articles, it did not happen because someone sat down one day and said, "You know what? The best thing for Wikipedia would be for me to take this single data point about 1% of the world's population, and claim that it's how things are for 80% of the world's population, because concision matters more than accuracy". These were not intentional choices. Nobody was trying to do that. Editors were just trying to do their best, with the limited resources they had at that particular moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding one sides original research to the background section isn't neutral. Using one example as a basis for judging the entire group isn't neutral. The tone of the background is that something "serious must be done" which is not neutral. Of course you can multiply three numbers and get a prime number in fact every prime number has an infinite number of inverse pairs they can be multiplied by to make a prime number AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Noticing that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal 27.77 is not "one sides original research". Everyone else has already agreed that is just plain incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

And do the links you added only say ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal 27.77 or do they have more text and research at them? Are you claiming the research wasn't done by one side of the debate? Are you claiming you are not using this research to implie the prices are broadly incorrect in the background text? Are you ever going to explain what prime numbers have to do with anything?AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

2,777 is the 404th prime number. If you multiply three numbers and end up with a prime, you should check your work. I cannot imagine why you would even bother trying to defend this error. Anyone with a calculator can discover that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845=27.675}$. That's what should have been in the article, not $27.77, assuming you're going to use that database record with that method.

I don't know which links you're talking about, but I can tell you that multiple people, on at least three different pages, over the space of two months, have been begging for examples of high-quality, well-sourced drug prices in our articles, and nobody has been able to find a single example in any article about a small-molecule generic drug that held up under even a moderate amount of scrutiny. I wrote originally that many (N.B.: "many", not "all" or "most") of the examples in a specific list were "outdated or otherwise incorrect". Doc James changed the statement later, but I'm still comfortable with what I wrote. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing that all (or almost all) of the examples in that specific list are both up to date and also entirely accurate. Even providing a single really solid example of the ideal way to source and describe this type of content would be helpful. Nobody else has been able to do it yet, but you seem to be really confident that it can be done.

BTW, when you're talking about "sides", you really ought to count me on the pro-inclusion side. I've been encouraging the inclusion of a wide variety of financial content in medical articles for many years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually anyone with a calculator would know that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845=2.7675}$ not 27.675. Also if you could tell me how ${\textstyle 5\times 10\times .1=5}$ is wrong I would appreciate it. Or are you saying that 5 is not a prime number? AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: If you're still looking to line up some help closing, I'd be willing to be part of a panel if you need me. I haven't participated in the previous RfC and don't have plans to participate in the upcoming one. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, so far no one has raised their hand and I appreciate you doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A problem of logic: the ANI concluded that a) we needed an RFC on pricing, and b) we needed an admin to concur it was neutral before launch. In the course of looking for an example of an article with policy-compliant drug pricing (excluding NOTPRICE) that could be used in that RFC, separate problems were uncovered, such that no example was found, leading to this different RFC, to be followed by that RFC on pricing in general. We posted to the No Original Research noticeboard, and got not a single response about the concerns raised, hence we need to go to the community for feedback. We have a problem that has to be sorted by the community regardless of what we eventually do with that RFC on pricing. This RFC is not that RFC, and interpreting the ANI to read that we can not now or ever independently address a separate issue without meeting the "neutral admin" requirement is overly strict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Conduct concerns around MOS:MED and WP:MED

In the last month I have witnessed sincere efforts by all involved to put the past aside and work together. Despite these efforts, what had been a fragile peace immediately following the ANI discussion has not held. Over the last 10 days or so there have been a steady number of behavioral concerns brought forward by a number of editors about any number of other editors. We're at a point where some sanctions are probably required and I have directed the two most recent people towards WP:Arbitration Enforcement. However, not all the misconduct is of the type that fits with the strengths of AE which is why an Arbitration Case has been mooted by multiple people. I write here in the hopes that can be avoided either through additional uninvolved sysops taking interest in the topic or through community discussion and consensus to resolve the conduct concerns. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I wish for Wikipedia discussions to be friendly and objective. All sorts of editors, including newcomers, should feel welcome and invited at Wikipedia. There is a negative and antagonistic environment at WikiProject Medicine right now which I wish to reduce to eliminate. I want people to express themselves in a positive way and avoid expressing themselves in a negative way. There is no particular Wikipedia protocol for determining what is a good versus bad environment, but I wish we had one, and I wish that we could apply it. As a human I can identify words which are negative and hostile, and I can see when certain user accounts use those words more frequently, and it might be the case that some user accounts use hostile negative word choices very frequently in many conversations. I wish that such accounts could get guidance to be more objective and less emotional, because Wikipedia discussions ought to be on the basis of merit of the arguments and not on emotional rhetoric. I appreciate Barkeep49's mediation here, but the situation is growing. If we were all together in a physical workplace then the human resource department would bring in a social worker to provide emotional mediation at this point. We have no such equivalent in place in Wikipedia and I wish that we did. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Huh, I have almost the opposite view. There's been a certain amount of bickering. That should have been expected, since this is a family fight. But I've found good information and good views, and I'd say that on average, the more "emotional" the editor, the more useful feedback they gave me.
    Also, my advice for improving Wikipedia's culture wouldn't involve telling people that the best way to communicate with humans is to be objective and unemotional (wow, what a culture-specific notion) or to think about individual words. If you are afraid that that there may be some significant math-and-statistics-type errors in a few hundred high-traffic articles, then "being positive" doesn't sound appropriate. Sure, there's no need for profanity (and there has been basically none of that), but good Wikipedia editors should ring the alarm bells when they think that hundreds of articles might have serious errors. "Word choice" isn't where the tension comes from here. Recognizing that a respected, experienced Wikipedian really does fundamentally disagree with you about what Wikipedia ought to be is where the tension comes from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with WAID that the tension is probably healthy all things considered. Has the conflict that's resulted from that tension always been healthy? I think the answer to that is no. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, WAID right again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed she is. As is so often the case, she is a breath of fresh air and sunshine around this place. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Help us, uninvolved admin, you're our only hope!

Carrie Fisher would've been proud of that subsection heading. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wanted: uninvolved administrators to assist with the MOS RfC discussed above in this thread. The lucky administrators who volunteer for this task will be rewarded in the following ways:

• Fame, fortune, and glory, beyond all human comprehension
• Your name whispered reverently for generations to come
• Temples built in your honor

Actually, you'll get none of these things. But, this is a content dispute that has the potential to affect many, many articles, and they're medical articles, which for obvious reasons are particularly important to get right for our readers, and it's a situation where the pressure resulting from the content dispute gridlock is generating conduct disputes between highly experienced veteran editors. One has already resigned (which everyone is hoping will be just a wikibreak). The foolish brave admin who closed the ANI thread that preceded this has been doing a stand-up job, but it's really unfair to put all this on one person's shoulders. Barkeep49's talk page is quite active, and in my opinion, they could use help from additional administrators, both for Barkeep's sake (so that they're not held singularly responsible for the outcome of this RfC, nor for "policing" it), and also for the sake of ensuring that the outcome is credible, broadly accepted, and not subject to future claims of an unfair process. This could really use a panel of admin if possible, but at least one more to help take some of the load off of Barkeep's shoulders. So if any admin could swing by Barkeep's talk page and ask how they can help, you'd be doing a huge service not just for your colleagues but also for our readers. Thanks in advance. – Levivich 05:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We asked for help 11 days ago, and we've still had zero responses from admins. Levivich is correct that the budget doesn't run to temples built in your honor, but the following barnstar is offered to any admin who resists the bystander effect, spends five minutes reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices, and tells us whether it sounds neutral to you. That's all you need to do: click it, read it, and post here.

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For responding when we needed an uninvolved admin to read an RFC before launching it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what we'll do if no admin chooses to look at this. ANI said to find an admin before starting the RFC, but we can't make you volunteer to do it. Maybe just invoke WP:IAR, on the grounds that we've made multiple requests for review, and no admin has (yet) told us that it's not neutral? I'd really rather have someone look at it, though. Please be that person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, we could launch an RfC: "Is this RfC question neutral?" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Levivich 02:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, My watchlist notice is showing that we have three admin candidates going through RfA right now with >90% support. How about asking each of them to be the panel? One almost-admin should be good enough to meet the spirit of the requirement; two or three would be even better. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Clayoquot, we need two things:

1. Any single admin to spend five minutes reading the question and deciding whether it's a "neutral" question (i.e., not an obviously biased question; RFC standards for neutrality are lower than NPOV standards for Featured Articles). Biased questions are fairly rare in RFCs, but a couple of times a year, someone who is worried that his side is "losing" makes a big stink about the question. It usually amounts to "It must be biased, because otherwise everyone would agree with me!" I don't think that's a likely response from any of the experienced editors in this case, but I can respect the request as a gesture to ward off drama.
2. Some poor sucker(s) to read everything sometime during February, and to write a closing summary. This is a much bigger request. It is also not a request that I'm making, and unless the result is very simple and obvious, I'm not sure that I'd want to inflict on a new admin. I don't want them to quit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved admin that has read the discussion in this section, both RfC proposals and skimmed the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Ready,_steady,_go, I think that some minor revisions to RfC 1 should make it unimpeachably neutral. I think that the "In the real world" and "What we've got on wiki" sections should be removed, and can be raised as actual arguments in the discussion. I don't think that the question statement at the beginning has any neutrality issues. I think that the listed examples of drug pricing are both useful and neutrally presented, but I could see how editors could object to potential cherrypicking of examples. Thus, I think that if editors object to the current selection of examples, we could use a random number generator to choose three new example drugs. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Rosguill thanks for looking. I think that before any fact-based sections are removed, we need to consider if there is content in them that is contentious, biased or leading in a way that isn't neutral. I think the fact have had had a dispute over drug prices since October (and documented issues of prices being removed and restored for may years) that "Editors have raised concerns about prices being outdated or having other problems" is undeniably a fact, and why we are here. It would be wrong to suggest this RFC sprang out of nowhere or suppress that faults with prices have been found, or hide that nearly all prices are now five years old. I think the link to User:Colin/ExistingPrices hugely important (I have offered to move it to another namespace). It quickly helps editors see 530 drug prices in article text, without having to try to lookup some random drug and find the relevant text. It also helps avoid accusations of cherry picking examples, because editors are welcome to pick from others for discussion. A good reason for moving those sections into "argument in the discussion" might be that the text was biased or rationally disputed. A bad reason would be simply that one editor wants facts removed, because they don't help their case. We have at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Polishing the draft a request for editors involved to argue for adding or removing text from the draft and those who have in the past raised an issue have not responded. Perhaps someone could ping Doc James to request his involvement in arguing for final changes to the draft.

Wrt any objection over the examples chosen, I'm not aware any objection has been made, and they were carefully chosen to represent different issues that editors may want to discuss. I think randomly picking ones would be a bad idea and less likely to lead to three useful examples. For example, diazepam has many indications and doses and formulations from tablets to injections, whereas ethosuximide has one indication and usually taken by tablet. The unit of each three examples are different (per day, per month, per dose). One example gives a price range and the others do not (and they do not for different reasons). -- Colin°^Talk 09:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Colin, I don't dispute that it is a fact that editors have raised concerns with the drug prices, but I think it could be considered a leading question to highlight that for readers in the opening prompt. In my experience, RfCs rarely open with a nuanced background of the conflict, but rather cut straight to the chase (e.g. "Do you prefer A or B in section Q", "Should the following paragraph X be added to the lead"). As for User:Colin/ExistingPrices I agree that it is a very useful resource, but am concerned that due to your involvement in the debate, editors who disagree with your position in general may cry foul if the page is given what is essentially an endorsement from the RfC framing (as at least one already has). Finally, regarding the examples, if no one has objected then we don't need to do a random draw, I just wanted to leave that option out there in case I missed something from a relevant side-discussion.

As a side note regarding a comment made by WAID above, I'm not sure that RfC neutrality standards are comparable to NPOV in articles (featured or otherwise). An article needs to report the consensus of reliable sources with attention to due weight, whereas I think it's reasonable to expect an RfC to stake out a totally neutral ground between the disputing positions, regardless of the level of support a priori. Moreover, the prime concern in RfC framing is to avoid leading questions, which aren't really a thing that exists in an article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: thanks for pitching in (and congrats on the tools). On the idea of needing other samples, some background might help. I have been asking for examples for six weeks, and none where drug price text appears to comply with policies other than NOT (meaning V, NOR, WEIGHT) have surfaced. Discussions are long, but you can see here and here (where one sample is off by at least a factor of two, and the next random sample thrown out was off by a factor of 100). So, I suggest we have good enough samples, and after six weeks, nothing else is likely to surface.

Another factor to be aware of is that about a dozen editors worked for a month through the holidays to put together an RFC, with a couple more editors appearing only in January.

I'd like to suggest, though, another area where Barkeep49 deserves more help. He has been the only admin trying to corral this mess, and has taken unnecessary heat and criticism, even after being a very fair moderator. He has had to ask several editors to walk back some comments here and there, and almost everyone has complied, yet having taken no extreme admin actions, he is nonetheless criticized unfairly, IMO. It would be most helpful if you, and other admins, would follow the discussions closely to pitch in as needed. I specifically suggest looking at this very moderate suggestion in relation to what is going on here, and whether there is any "poisoning of the well" occurring. Also, this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: thanks for your reply. I think the only objection possible to User:Colin/ExistingPrices is that it is in my userspace and hence I have some privilege over editing rights, and I'm happy to move it if that helps. One editor objected to it on the grounds that I created it, which imo is the very definition of a personal attack (contributor vs content). The actual content was not created by me and is simply an automated extraction of article text written, mostly by one other editor. I really do protect most strongly to censorship of existing drug prices on such objectional grounds. Let's agree whether the content of that page is a fair extraction of 500+ drug prices on articles, and leave aside who's name is on the history contrib list. Appeasing those who make personal attacks is not neutrality. I don't think we should place weight on attacks on the RFC have no content-based or rational justification.

Wrt whether the RFC should up-front note that some editors have raised concerns, there are pros and cons to both inclusion and suppression of this incontestable fact. To "cut to the chase" as it were, and hide the fact that there are problems with the text and sources, is biased towards mainly considering whether Wikipedia should (ideally) include drug prices, rather than whether Wikipedia can (practically) include drug prices. We've compromised an awful lot. Anyway, that's my 2p and it's WAID's RFC so I'm leaving it to them to agree to cuts or not. I think the current very very tame note that "some editors have raised concerns" is extremely watered down from what could be said. Like "Wikipedia's drug prices are essentially random numbers and the original research that invented them would make any high school statistics teacher faint with mortification". -- Colin°^Talk 22:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of the formulation of the RfC is per ANI consensus really best done at WT:MEDMOS and so I will be posting my reply there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not an admin. Gave my two cents. Hope it helps. Buffs (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Um, Buffs, you entered a statement on an RFC that has not been launched. Perhaps you can remove it, and wait for the RFC to open? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok...Here's what I wrote. Feel free to put it where it needs to go:

Well, you asked for an opinion, so here it goes...

The problem I see with this is WP:NOTPRICES. Neutral view or not, it cannot override policy.

"An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers."

Accordingly, I don't see a reason to override policy here. If we're going to include prices (which is an inherently political issue when it comes to medicine), it's just plain too unclear to be accurate. I can't see a single instance where such a quote wouldn't have to have an in-depth explanation. The only instance I can see its inclusion would be where the price was in the news for some reason (very high or very low). Moreover, per policy, it doesn't belong here. Without addressing this issue at Wikipedia Talk:What Wikipedia is not, neutrally phrased or not, such a change to this guideline cannot override a policy. Anyway, you asked for an opinion.

(adding here) Moreover, the breadth of this RFC is immense and I don't think you'll be able to clearly establish a consensus based on discussion anyway. This level of bureaucracy is what's driving away editors. People want to add prices to articles on medicine. Fine. After LOTS of discussion, an admin simply needs to say yes or no and end this. An RfC for 2-3 more months is insane levels of bureaucracy. Buffs (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The normal course of action (a post to the NOR noticeboard) received zero feedback. Admins are not empowered to determine content disputes any more than regular editors, so the only course left is an RFC on the text--> source integrity concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators have no special powers over content decisions. Consensus is at the heart of our project. I'm not willing to dispute your overall assessment of our bureaucracy though I've been puzzled how we pare it back down given that each additional piece of bureucracy had some reason for which it had broad community support before it was enacted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, my emergency so far is over, I can start looking at the ongoing RfC starting from Friday evening. Judging from the activity here, I will likely be the only closer.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The RfC has been launched. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

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

AfD discussions that are fully protected from the get-go

Last month, there was an AfD on the Kyle Kulinski page.[1] The AfD saw insane amounts of canvassed votes, as the subject of the article and some fringe-left forums directed people to the AfD discussion. The closer concluded that there was "no consensus" and suggested that we might re-do the AfD and have it protected from the get-go to avoid interference from outside actors. Would it be possible for an admin to start such an AfD or to immediately protect it after I myself start one? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Concur with a new AfD being fully protected. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You want an AFD only admins can participate in? Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected from IPs. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That's semi protection not full protection. (Well close to it. There's no such thing as only protecting from IPs.) It may be helpful to check out Wikipedia:Protection policy#Types of protection especially if you are going to comment at AN. Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops, that's correct. Concerning registered editors, how do we determine who's been canvassed off Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not using the correct language here: the amount of protection needed to prevent IP numbers and very recent accounts with few edits from participating?. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is fine as you didn't ask for full protection. It was not possible to clearly indicate I was replying to GoodDay since they failed to follow normal WP:Indenting rules. Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Please let me know when this happens. KidAd (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for being grumpy above, it mostly came about because I made a significant mistake myself. I conflated Kyle Kulinski with the similarly named Kyle Kashuv. Given what I've read before, I felt an AfD on Kashuv would either be keep or at most no consensus. Therefore it seemed a waste of time to open yet another AfD. Still if the previous one was tainted by canvassing and an editor genuinely felt there was chance of reaching a consensus to delete, I also couldn't object to the suggestion. I see now my error and can understand the desire to open another AfD. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Having reviewed the situation, I agree that a fresh AfD is appropriate and it should be semi-protected from the beginning, because of the history of canvassing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Getting older, waiting for AFD-in-question to be opened. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have started a new AfD.[2] Can an admin please semi-protect it? Or protect it in whatever way is necessary to make sure that IP numbers and new accounts can't participate. Pinging Cullen328 and Nil Einne. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

ECP in place. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Related AfD: Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

Would it be possible to also give protection to this[3] AfD for Media coverage of Bernie Sanders? The last AfD was complete chaos due to canvassng and ended by "no consensus".[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, so far I don't see any disruption that would warrant protection. If there is disruption, you can ask for protection at WP:RFPP. Sandstein 21:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, will admins still be able to access these four policy violations once the page is deleted? #1 violates WP:LINKLOVE & WP:OUTING, #2 violates WP:FOC,#3 violates WP:FOC and WP:EW, #4 violates WP:FOC and WP:EW. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle and speedies

Looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth, it seems to me that perhaps we should ask the Twinkle devs to change the default for TW/CSD to "tag only" unless there's an existing CSD template. We should probably not summarily delete by default - there's no reason not to invite a second admin to review before an article is nuked, especially since we could simply uncheck the delete box for egregious cases such as attack pages. Guy (help!) 01:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about this topic at WT:CSD, for which there was no consensus for such a thing (if not consensus against the idea). --Izno (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Izno, consensus there is that an admin is allowed to delete without tagging. That doesn't answer the question: is it a good idea, and certainly not the question: should it be the default. Best practice should be that no article is nuked without two sets of eyes, unless it's blindingly obvious, abuse cleanup or whatever. Guy (help!) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Changing the Twinkle default on this is an excellent idea. While tagging should not be required (as I also said at WT:CSD), our standard tool should encourage it. —Kusma (t·c) 22:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes an admin does need to delete immediately, but for most of what almost all admins do, two people should deal with a deletion. So this change is a very good idea.-- DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I often tag untagged CSD candidates rather than deleting myself. (depends) This is not a bad idea.-- Deepfriedokra 01:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It's not like an extra click to insta-delete is that much of a hardship. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in the 4 eyes principle in most cases, but as both DDG and Guy have noted, there can be exceptions, notably attack pages which should be removed as quickly as possible. I actually adopt a standard a little stronger than "blindingly obvious". I do a lot of copyright work, and I think I could argue that a brand-new article which is a 100% match to the "about us" section of a corporation's page constitutes blindingly obvious, but I still tag that, rather than delete that. (If somebody else has already tagged it, I will delete.) I think it's worth that to have another admin take a look. However, attack pages ought to be removed as soon as possible, and I vaguely recall I deleted something that was millions of bytes on the assumption that it would clog up the works to have it sitting around very long. The problem with removing the delete button may make it difficult to deal with those exceptions. I'll offer an alternative — if the article doesn't already have a CSD template, clicking on delete pops up a message saying something like "it is generally considered a best practice to allow two admins to take a look at an article before deleting. Does this constitute an acceptable exception?". I trust admins to make that assessment, and the purpose of the pop-up is to make sure someone working quickly doesn't accidentally delete something when they intended to tag it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No one (that I've seen) is suggesting we remove the ability for a sysop to delete in Twinkle. Only that the default behavior would be for tag when a sysop goes into Twinkle (except if there is an existing tag). Which I would definitely support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Take this with a grain of salt, but speaking not as the dev but as a user, I'd be against it. If sysops are abusing/misusing CSD policy, that should be dealt with swiftly, but in general part of being a sysop is being trusted not to do that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Just want to chime in here and say this is quite doable, but I'd prefer to see a little more consensus or discussion here before I write it up and make the change. There's a Twinkle preference option to default to tagging, but only 40-50 sysops have turned it on, so this would affect a lot of people. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

99.228.212.200

• 99.228.212.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User:Mwiner emailed my university. Their main goal has been to list the main action of venlafaxine as an opioid.

I have thus blocked this IP as a sock of Mwiner. Let me know if anyone has concerns. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You need to find them a new hobby.-- Deepfriedokra 17:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

2607:fea8:3ca0:3cd:247f:54cf:d553:4d05 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) May need a range block. Or simple protection of the page in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request from User:Ear-phone

Hi all,

We have received this unblock request from user Ear-phone via UTRS. I'm going to copy and paste the unblock request from UTRS below so those without access can see it.

"Why do you believe you should be unblocked?

I was blocked for being a socket puppet, more than a year ago. I was asked to apply for an unblock after six months. I did this and I was unsuccessful. I tried again after one year and I was again unsuccessful because I could not re-word substantially (English is not my first language). As I have said before, I reflected on my actions and understood it was wrong to be a socket puppet. I pledged and pledge to use only one account to edit and contribute positively.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?

Articles related to my interests, mainly science-related including biographies of scientists.

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.

In my view, the block was warranted but unfairly long. I have openly admitted to using socks in the past. I have mentioned that I will not use them again and will contribute constructively as I have now read the guidelines. The block has the effect of denying me voluntary participation in a worthwhile global movement.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?

Justice and fairness. English not being a primary language - therefore a limited ability to convey and re-word sentences."

I emailed Bbb23 regarding this as they're the blocking administrator. A CU check was ran and Bbb23 found some obvious logged out edits by the user and some less obvious ones. Bbb23 has said as far as they're concerned that would preclude an unblock. However, if we overlook the logged out edits they would permit an unblock after a community discussion. Bbb23 found another possible sock of User:Lucas-O'D but was reluctant to confirm the account as there's only 2 edits, the medical stuff Ear-phone is more interested in is African related and they don't think it's the same style.

Would the community be willing to accept an unblock?

I'm going to give them TPA again to allow them to respond to any questions here if someone would like to add that to their watchlist so any answers can be copied and pasted.-- 5 albert square (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking I'm glad to see that they want to turn over a new leaf and edit constructively, but part of being a constructive editor is in respecting the policies and practices of the editing community, including the sockpuppetry policy and blocking policy, which prohibit IP editing while blocked. If this user can stay away from Wikipedia without socking or IP editing for 6 months, I think that they would be a perfect candidate for the standard offer. (Non-administrator comment) OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking I am usually well disposed towards unblock requests for editors blocked long ago who promise not to do again what led to their being blocked. Over the years I have far more often found myself to be in a minority (not infrequently a minority of one) in supporting an unblock in this kind of situation, while others oppose, than the other way round. However, this time there are several things which give me pause. In connection with previous unblock requests, the editor lied about what sockpuppet accounts they had used. (That was clear from reading the editing history, and also confirmed by a CheckUser.) The editor is now denying any further block-evasion, but Bbb23 has "found some obvious logged out edits by the user". Why should we unblock an editor who is known to have been lying about their block-evasion for over a year, and is known to be still lying? At the very least I would want the editor to come clean now about their dishonesty in the past and recently before considering an unblock. Unless they can produce a pretty convincing explanation I am inclined to agree with OhKayeSierra, who suggests a standard offer if the editor can keep off block-evasion for 6 months. I also agree with Bbb23, who has said that as far as they're concerned the IP block-evasion would preclude an unblock. (I can see no reason why a community discussion might "overlook the logged out edits".) As for Lucas-O'D, I'm not sure. Bbb23 rightly points out that there are differences, but there are similarities too. With only two edits there is not much to go on to judge either way, so probably we should not attach much weight to that account, in view of the doubt. JBW (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Incidentally, the comments above about an unblock request being unsuccessful "because I could not re-word substantially (English is not my first language)" and "English not being a primary language - therefore a limited ability to convey and re-word sentences" are missing the point. The rquested change of the unblock request was about substantially rewriting it because it did not address the reasons for the block, not, as Ear-phone apparently thinks, about rewording sentences so as to improve the English. JBW (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC))
• If these logged out edits were made in the last 90 days (from the tracked IP logs) then I'd be an oppose. If they were determined by the current IP against IP-edits made more than six months ago, then I might be a weak support. Are CUs only run off the last 90 days, or can account/IP checking be done on a longer timescale? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CheckUser data is kept for only 3 months. I suppose it would be possible for a CheckUser to check an account's current IP address for edits from longer ago, but even if a CheckUser did so, it would provide no technical evidence of its being the same editor beyond being the same IP address, and I wouldn't have expected Bbb23's reference to "obvious logged out edits by the user" to be based on no more than just the IP address. However, Bbb23 may like to clarify that issue in response to Nosebagbear's query. JBW (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, @JBW:, not least because the CU tool is apparently particularly clunky, even by wiki standards, and I've not heard a mention of its ability to compare current IP data in the logs and IP data that's only associated with non-account edits (but has left the stored logs as too old). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• I am copying the following message from User talk:Ear-phone. Bbb23, would you care to comment on it? JBW (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you say obvious logged out edits. I give my consent for the IP addresses to be released in public so that the community can see for themselves and verify. I categorically did not edit Wikipedia. I did not lie and I addressed that previously. Ear-phone (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ear-phone: - I, and pretty much the entire community, are happy to accept a CU's statement on these matters - I can't see any benefit in you releasing private information onto the site, it was just a request for clarification. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CheckUser policy permits me to disclose IPs "With the permission of the affected user". I have never done so and find myself strongly rebelling against doing it now. I believe the community should exclude the obvious logged out edits. The only thing that gives me pause is Ear-phone's categorical denial, but it's possible Ear-phone has forgotten or thinks I'm referring to something else. As for the non-obvious edits, the IP edited a non-medical, science article. Finally, another thing that makes this tough from a technical perspective is Ear-phone's very common user agent.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ear-phone has qualified their denial of editing logged out on their Talk page: "I did not edit Wikipedia when logged out or logged in (besides my talk page)." I tend to be very skeptical about what socks say, but in this instance, without endorsing an unblock, I urge the community to treat Ear-phone's unblock request based only on their reasons and history, and assume that they have not socked in the 90 days before my check.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

My understanding since the orientation is that we're not allowed to disclose an account's IP address, even with permission from the accountholder, because the local policy differs from the global policy and overrides it in this aspect. I was told that by someone (don't recall who) but I don't see that wording in the policy as of right now. Personally I also would not reveal it from the user's private data even by their request, but also it's very obvious to anyone who looks at Ear-phone's talk page history (I did not run a check). I wouldn't consider those edits to be a violation of the policy. I don't have an opinion on what else you might have seen, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblocking - I feel that we should take the user's word for it. CheckUser has been proven to be inaccurate before, and this could easily be one of those instances. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not. The results require interpretation, but they're not wrong. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblocking the editor said that they are not going to use sockpuppets again and has appealed twice but got denied. I think the time this editor has spinned blocked is enough "punishment" for the sockpuppetery they did. Indefinite block is really too much.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

User:BOZ

There are some problems with many of the edits and actions by User:BOZ. They mainly belong to three categories:

• Creation of articles on non notable subjects. This has been going on for more than 10 years now, and the number of AfDs and Prods that already ended in a delete or redirect is quite impressive (with many, many more articles to be checked yet). I don't know of a tool to check how many creations by an editor have been redirected afterwards, they are not included here[5]: at the moment, of his 3600 creations (about 750 in 2019 alone), 180 have been deleted, and many others redirected. Many more are at AfD now, and new ones are started almost daily. This includes not only his oldest creations, but also a lot from late in 2019, things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dankendismal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis: A Twisted Laugh at Life, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossroads (role-playing game)...
• AfD votes stating "Keep or merge to X" without any reason for the "keep" given, or without addressing the arguments from the nominator or other delete votes. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanny (comics) (where they then created a redirect which was discussed and deleted immediately afterwards as well, see here), but also all his other recent AfD comments: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
• Restoring articles which were deleted after AfD, and where they were involved either as part of the editing history, or by having voted "keep or merge" in the AfD. E.g. they voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fathom Five (comics) as the lone "keep or merge" vote, so when that article and its redirects get deleted, BOZ restores the deleted redirects[20][21]. BOZ has extensively edited Lathander, which gets deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lathander (2nd nomination). BOZ restores it. Karsus was deleted in 2008 a a copyvio, then recreated, and deleted in 2019 after AfD. BOZ restores the page, with inclusion of the pre-2008 copyvio parts[22]. The same happens with Angharradh, repeatedly deleted including for copyvio, restored completely with the copyvio. This was a page (re)-created by BOZ in 2008, so not only restoring copyvio but also a clearly involved action to restore the history of a page, deleted at AfD, which they had created in the past.

All the above is from his very recent history (last month or thereabouts), but the pattern continues through the years. I first contacted BOZ about this last year, in User talk:BOZ/Archive 2019#Notability of your creations, which had only some temporary result, as can be seen from the AfDs for recent creations. So I started User_talk:BOZ#Notability of your article creations two weeks ago. This improved for now the creation of the articles, but seeing the problematic behaviour at AfD, the problematic use of his admin tools as described above, and the thinly veiled canvassing by listing all the AfDs for his articles at the user talk pages of others[23][24][25][26], ... I would like some uninvolved admins to step in and make it clear what is acceptable and what isn't for all these areas. Fram (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

One can sort this list by the size of the page at creation and thus distinguish a redirect that was a redirect from the get-go from a redirect that started out as an article. It doesn't seem like many of the articles were redirected, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) Unless I'm misreading something, content was merged out of Bloodtide into something else. That would make restoring the history appropriate for attribution purposes. I completely agree that reversing the other AfD results by fiat was completely inappropriate since there's no attribution history to preserve for those. The Ctrl-C Ctrl-V "keep or merge" nonsense is annoying but benign since nobody pays attention anymore and AfD is not a vote. As for the canvassing, yeah, I agree that it is. Reyk _YO! 12:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Asking for help to find sources and edit an article that is at AfD is not the same as asking for votes. While canvasing is always a concern, getting help to improve an article that is at AfD isn;t a problem in itself. - Bilby (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

If I have restored content inappropriately as outlined above, then I apologize for my error; let me know what needs to be done and I will fix that and try to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. I do not believe I have violated WP:CANVASS after reviewing the policy, as I have never, and will never, ask or expect another user to participate in such AFDs, and I have only ever asked people for assistance in finding sources who have proven skilled and interested in doing so on similar topics. Note that under "Appropriate notification" it mentions that a user can place a message on the user talk page of "concerned editors" and gives examples such as editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article, who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), and editors known for expertise in the field, and I believe that both User:Guinness323 and User:Sariel Xilo qualify for some or all of that. If I am incorrect in my reading of the policy, then I will cease asking for help in finding sources.

As for the rest, well I am and always have been a prolific content creator. I am not as attached to articles I created as seems to be suggested by Fram, in fact I do not always !vote in AFDs on them (see the second two of the three mentioned in the first paragraph). I also edit many other articles that I did not create, and I do not personally consider those any more or less "mine" as the ones I started. I have had a feeling in the last few weeks of a growing hostility towards me from Fram, and I have mostly tried to ignore his comments, but it seems hard to avoid him escalating what could be a non-situation resolved simply through discussion or by avoiding unnecessary conflict. I have had a growing dread that I was being set up to be the next victim of a WP:FRAMming (that's not a verb, is it? Maybe it should be?) and I hope that I am wrong about that. I would like to think that my contributions have been a net positive to the encyclopedia, but if you listen to Fram that would seem not to be the case. For the past two weeks or so he seems to have been aggressively focusing on me, possibly to the point of WP:HOUNDing, but again I am hoping that is not the case. BOZ (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• And then you went and voted the same "keep or merge" here, here and here. Your actions are not a "non-situation", you have created hundreds of articles on non-notable topics over the course of a dozen years, and don't seem to know or care about major aspects of the notability guidelines, admin policy, AfD expectations, ... I am not hounding you as in involving me with everything you do, I have only started AfDs (or redirected similar articles), made a few comments on your talk page, and now started this (I have !voted in 1 other AfD about an article you created IIRC). But when I notice a persistent problem, spread over many articles, then I will usually not ignore it and leave it to others to clean it up. WP:SOFIXIT and all that. That you have made many good contributions is not disputed: but this doesn't mean that a blind eye should be turned to the many problematic edits. Fram (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I create articles based on the sources I have on hand. I go back and add more sources later after I find them. Maybe someone else will add sources to the articles I created. I add sources to articles that other people created. Sometimes those articles I find have only 1 source, sometimes 0, so I improve them to the best of my ability. If articles created by me or someone else do not get improved, they may deleted. I understand that well, and that is how notability works on Wikipedia. I am not upset by you wanting to delete articles that I created, but if I have another suggestion such as merging then I will make a recommendation. If you feel that going through all of my contributions by yourself is a monumental task that makes you upset or angry at me, then that is a matter of your perspective. I do not do anything on Wikipedia with the intention of upsetting Fram (or anyone else). Badgering me will not change my perspective, nor will trying to publicly shame me. I work on what I like, and what makes me happy, and I would like to think that everyone does the same thing, but I see negative attitudes from time to time that leads me to think otherwise. BOZ (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "That is how notability works on Wikipedia". Uh, no. You, as the article creator, are responsible for the articles you create wrt notability. Creating articles about subjects where you don't know if they are notable or not is irresponsible (at least for experienced editors, we all have a learning curve). Your pages are autopatrolled, since you are an admin, which means that they get less scrutiny than most other new pages. But creating pages which are not suitable for enwiki gives a bad example and creates additional work (AfDs, DRVs, deletion, ...) and sends the wrong signal to other editors as well. Continuing to add material which you know (or should know) not to be suited for enwiki is disruptive editing. Restoring thousands of pages without caring whether you are "involved" and/or going against consensus, and without taking care to only restore appropriate revisions, is disruptive as well. Fram (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Here we have rather bold generalizations based not on policy, but on an IDONTLIKEIT rationale. There is no evidence of a pattern of BOZ consistently "creating articles about subjects where you don't know whether they are notable or not". Of the hundreds of recent creations, all have at least one RS attached - often print era sources such as Dragon reviews - which suggest at least a reasonable probability that there are other RS reviews in print and therefore notability. These are not BLPs and so, per NODEADLINE, there is absolutely nothing wrong, per policy, in creating such articles - stubs even. That Fram refers to policy-compliant content creation strategies with which they happen to disagree as "disruptive" is a deep violation of AGF and civil, and while restoration of COPYVIO or PA versions of pages is potentially a serious matter, neither "creation of articles on non-notable subjects" nor poorly explained votes at AfD would ever be considered "disruptive" or policy-compliant grounds for censure.
      • On the other hand, CIVIL violations and poisonous conduct are potentially quite a bit more serious. And Fram has engaged in a consistent pattern of bullying towards BOZ (as in previous instsnces), such as the condescending dismissal of Space Gamer as a source here and the scathing dismissal (while failing basic reading comprehension) here of the notability of articles that were subsequently Kept at AfD. This at a time when User:TTN is sending five articles to AfD from BOZ's area of contribution each and every day. The overall affect of Fram's attitude will undoubtedly be felt, adding to the "body coubt" of contributors previously driven away by Fram's expressions of attitude. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Not sure if I was tagged because you wanted a comment or just out of courtesy, but I'd say this is ultimately the culmination of what I'd describe as a "hoarder house" style situation. I believe BOZ in good faith just wants to document D&D on Wikipedia, but many of his actions are in line with keeping the standards of 2006 Wikipedia. The space has mostly refused to evolve outside of some standout articles. He does seem to do plenty of good work in the supplement book articles that are actually improved to current standards. The D&D space has been plagued by years of back and forth swings of article removal and restoration by both himself and anonymous users. The only actions I'd note that seem less than honest are that he either logs out to restore a lot of these articles to avoid attention, actively works with the person who restores a lot of these articles anonomlously, or tacitly approves of the person restoring the articles without taking any editorial action to follow WP:N. The editing style of the logged out IPs are fairly consistent with how he edits. He clearly wants to retain the status quo. TTN (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Fram You mentioned above that BOZ left me a list of AfD articles. I'm a relatively new editor but if you go back to June/July 2019 on my talk page you'll see that BOZ doesn't just leave me AfD article suggestions. Since Summer 2019, they've been suggesting all sorts of RPG/game articles that need help (mostly with sources) that they thought I might be interested in. I'm fairly decent with research if a topic has an internet presence or at the very least finding the names of obscure out of print titles that I can direct an editor towards if they want to take the time to find them offline. You'l also notice that I don't follow up on everything they suggest. I pick and choose based on interest, time and what I find when I do a basic research sweep. If I think I can contribute to an AfD or another article, then I do. I'm not a short order cook for BOZ blindly voting in AfDs nor do I think BOZ is canvassing my vote. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to say that I think this is my first AN or AN/I thread, thank you, thank you very much, happy to be here. ;) If I have erred in my judgement in any areas it could be that I have not been called out on it enough yet? I am open to addressing legitimate concerns, so thank you to anyone willing to discuss. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If nothing else. WP:INVOLVED is a pretty bright line, occasionally even ArbCom material. And although much of the other stuff (canvassing, ATADD, etc) is merely behavioral, it all adds up to being BIZARRE. ——SN54129 13:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I see what happened with Lathander, and some of the others. The List of Forgotten Realms deities was deleted after AFD, and many articles has been previously merged into that list, so their edit histories were deleted along with the list. I restored the edit histories of those deleted articles and merged them into Forgotten Realms, and I will admit that I probably did not check to see if any of them had been deleted for legitimate reasons, and therefore I created an appearance of impropriety through carelessness. I went ahead and deleted the edit histories of the ones mentioned in the initial post, and I again apologize for that.

As for the two articles that were previously merged into Fathom Five, that was a similar situation when I restored those histories, and I do not see a problem with those unless I am missing something. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that you seem to do this all the time. Zann: it was created in 2005, and deleted (correctly) as patent nonsense then (full text: "No lo conosco... "). You created it again in 2013 as a redirect (no problem there). The redirect target was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms deities though, in which you voted "Keep or selectively merge" (of course), and the redirect was deleted at the same time (as is usual). So you restored the page (which violates WP:INVOLVED since you created it in the first place), including the three revisions speedy deleted as nonsense. You restored dozens of pages which you had created or expanded. You restored Akadi, including the copyvio first edits. Fram (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Zann and Akadi would have been part of the same set of articles I mentioned above, so I deleted the edit histories of them as well. Again, I am sorry about that. If there are others, I will do the same with them. BOZ (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Then please go through your contributions and correct them. It shouldn't be up to others to fix (or even find) your mistakes once you are made aware that they happened repeatedly. Fram (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am making my way through all the articles I restored, and deleting the edit histories of any articles that were previously legitimately deleted prior to that AFD; so far, I have found that most had never been deleted prior to that point. BOZ (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I had to delete the edit histories of several more. I am pretty embarrassed there were that many. BOZ (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you continue this effort, as there are still more of the same, like here where you restored an article where all revisions were deleted as copyvio. Or this one, right before that, where you restored seven revisions which were an A1 deletion, a G11 deletion, and again a G12 copyvio deletion. Other ones are less problematic but still completely pointless, like this one, restoring an A3 deleted page (full text: "lol"). These three are consecutive entries in your restoration log, so it seems like there is still a lot to be rectified and that this carelessness has been a constant factor for months or years. Fram (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I redeleted the bad edits from those. BOZ (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I will find time today to continue in my log and see if there are more problematic restorations like those, and eliminate the bad diffs. BOZ (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW just talking about the particular content created (the first point) - I think BOZ makes lots of good content - BOZ has created 11,588 pages, with 520 since deleted. 3,597 of which are articles, with a 5.1% deletion record of 185. From my experience working with BOZ, they look through a particular entry of an old magazine, and then see which games or other items don't yet exist on wikipedia, and create a stub. Would this be better if it was a fully fledged article? Yes. Would it be just better with a couple more sources? Absolutely. There are definitely some very notable items on the list, so I don't think this is cut-and-dry. I certainly wouldn't want to deminish an editor because they have a poor hit percentage.

The second point is a little bit less serious in my eyes. AfD isn't a vote, and if they don't provide any rationale, then it can be simply be overlooked. Is it great from an administrator to not supply reasons for voting in a AfD? Not at all. But, realistically, the issues would hopefully be overlooked by a competent closer.

The third point is the most serious. I suspect BOZ just doesn't really check the status of an articles history when creating, but it's very unlikely that these subjects will suddenly become more notable. INVOLVED is clear here, but I would suggest to BOZ to be a bit more careful when creating new content in the future that they aren't involved, and that the act of creating the article doesn't overstate a previous AfD. (non-admin comment) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Lee. I appreciate your comments here greatly, and will take all of that into consideration. I will definitely do my best in the future to avoid using my tools on articles where I have been involved in anything more than a cursory way. BOZ (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Having worked on some of these RPG articles, I think there is a problem with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The community's views on this kind of cruft are clear and patience wore thin a long time ago, but the "locals" keep going anyway, either because they don't know, or don't care.

As one example, look at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Boz mentions that this level of mind-boggling detail (a 300k list article for a specific aspect of a commercial product-line) lacks widespread support, referring to "the PROD treatment" and dismissively saying "and you will never satisfy those who only want deletion".

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters cites this obscure book over thirty times, mainly because it's the only secondary source anyone could find for most of the hundreds of entries in the list. I think most people on that talk page, including Boz, are sincere in trying to share useful information, but it's also hard not to see this as gaming the system.

These are commercial products which are being promoted by Wikipedia. This is not good scholarship, it's native advertising, and that's a serious problem. We have hundreds or thousands of examples of crufty articles for RPG books, or just RPG... concepts, like fictional places, fictional gods, fictional species of monsters... These keep getting created, and recreated, and AFD'd, and so on, and many never see a single usable source. Anyone who is sincerely paying attention will realize what the pattern is. It's not that "we only want deletion", we want reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Ehhhhh I'd hardly call it advertising. 2nd Ed became obsolete in 2000 with the release of 3rd, and we're up to 5E now. Nobody's making money off of obscure monsters and out-of-print splatbooks. This kind of content is more of a holdover from WP's early days, when we were largely populated by enthusiastic nerds who wanted to write about everything they loved (dragging myself here too) and didn't have anything like the sourcing-based notability standards that we have today. Not saying we should keep these, mind - just pointing out that calling it native advertising is not quite fair. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe "native advertising" is an exaggeration, but it's still functionally a form of promotion. It's not the individual products that are being marketed, it's lifestyle branding. Hasbro bought this property for a reason, and that reason includes decades of cruft like this. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• As a frequent AfD closer, I can confirm at least the problem with BOZ's argument-less AfD "Keep or merge to X" votes. I now routinely disregard them when closing, but they are disruptive. (There are, to be fair, also some editors I recognize as regular "delete" advocates, but they normally give reasons, if only a reference to WP:GNG.) Maybe we should think about whether BOZ should continue to contribute to AfDs. Sandstein 14:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, if it helps, I will try to always include at least one policy in my response to AFD going forward. I don't mean to be disruptive, and honestly did not think I was being disruptive, but I certainly do not want to leave that impression if I can help it. BOZ (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I'd like to second Sandstein's comments. Perhaps you may also want to explain why that policy/guideline justifies the course of action you propose. I used to routinely ignore AFDs with the "Keep or merge to X" !votes as they are unhelpfully vague. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't know, at this point I am going to give up on trying to make excuses for myself as I feel like I am only making myself look worse every time I say something, and so I will surrender to whatever decision the community wants to make regarding me. I have come to realize that I have a pretty sub-par record as an editor, stuck mentally in the better days of Wikipedia where people were not so concerned with deleting so-called "non-notable" content. There is nothing I can do to turn the tide on how the community has changed, and it only gets worse every day, and probably one day almost everything I ever created or helped create will be deleted. I will try to limit my editing until this thread is closed, so as not to dig my own hole any deeper than I already have. I doubt I will respond further to this thread, so whatever needs to happen to me is probably whatever needs to happen to me. This is stressing me out to no end, so further participation is not going to be good for my mental well-being. I do have some things I promised to clean up, so I better get to that while I am still allowed to do so. I will accept whatever decision the community makes regarding me here. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think changing "keep or merge" to "keep or merge per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD" shows that BOZ has really gotten the message, as this still doesn't address the AfD nominations or gives any actual reasons to keep the articles at all. Doing this simply every time[27][28][29][30] shows, well, I don't know if it is a lack of understanding of the problem, or simply disdain for the concerns raised here, but it sure doesn't look good. Fram (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that a "Merge per PRESERVE" !vote is just about as valid a policy consideration as there is on WP, and the fact that Fram doesn't recognize it as such (with a condescending I don't know if it is a lack of understanding of the problem, or simply disdain for the concerns raised here), when it conflicts with his priors, says a good deal more about Fram's competence and good will on this topic than that of BOZ. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fram, Sariel Xilo, Serial Number 54129, Lee Vilenski, Grayfell, Premeditated Chaos, Sandstein, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Shall we start discussion on whether or not to topic ban BOZ (who is an admin) for the greater good of the world, and whether or not BOZ should be desysopped? ミラP 17:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Given the above, I'd support a topic ban of BOZ from AfDs. Just adding "per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD" to a pure vote at AfD does not make it any less of a vote, because all it says is "don't delete because we shouldn't delete content". AfDs are not votes, but discussions based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. To contribute to such a discussion it is necessary to address why the specific article at issue fails or meets any of our accepted standards for inclusion such as WP:N or WP:NOT. BOZ is an administrator, and as such is expected to understand how AfDs work. Mechanically copy-pasting the same statement in all AfDs they participate in reflects either a serious lack of compentence or disruptive intent. Sandstein 17:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks for the ping Miraclepine; I support a Tban XfDs for BOZ per Sandstein, whose reasoning is complete. ——SN54129 17:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You're welcome Serial Number 54129. Should we start now? The sooner the better. ミラP 17:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks for the notification Miraclepine; If a ban is necessary, I would suggest a time limit. I've never been part of discussion like this so I don't know what is standard (6 months, a year, etc). I would also suggest limiting the ban to voting. If BOZ can contribute (finding/adding sources, etc) to the article under AfD, that seems fine and then they just won't be part of the AfD discussion itself for the duration of the ban. I also wouldn't want BOZ to be banned from discussing the existence of AfDs elsewhere. For example, back in November I asked for BOZ's help in running down some sources on a AfD and we kept that discussion on my talk page rather than the AfD because it was a bit off topic. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• As the context here is that BOZ is having an awful lot of his articles nominated for deletion, a flat tban on XfD at this time seems pretty harsh. That's not to say these !votes are up to snuff, but taken on their own they're not much different from what we see from a bunch of other users whom we've repeatedly declined to tban (and whose !votes are simply routinely ignored -- or should be). BOZ, arguing that something meets GNG is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps if you simply commit to making a serious case for GNG when you argue as such, we can avoid this tban business. e.g. a minimum of something like "Keep - passes WP:GNG as seen by [source 1] [source 2]". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have considered Boz's AFD behavior (blanket "Keep or merge" without rationale for (almost?) every single AFD nomination they partake in) and high output of stubs/substubs with 1-2 sources cited (forever thinking about that Mage: The Ascension or w/e RPG supplement article that said nothing beyond that the supplement "adds options for players") to be very problematic for an admin for a while now - the AFD behavior in particular comes across as disruptive or lacking in understanding of how the process works - but did not have the energy to start a thread like this on my own. I want to reiterate that this is not about me wanting to PROD everything, or that I will only be happy when all of Boz's work is removed from WP, or that I have a vendetta against them, or whatever - it's that I care about notability and sourcing, and about our administrators' understanding of the processes they partake in, and think something needs to change.--Alexandra^IDV 01:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Creating articles is not a crime. Arguing to keep those articles at AfD is not a crime either; it is to be expected. If the articles or arguments seem weak then that's not unusual either; the nominations and other votes at AfD are often weak too because WP:BEFORE is not followed and editors fail to research the topics in exhaustive detail due to constraints of time, access, understanding, &c. All these issues are the routine stuff of AfD and the inclusionist/deletionist divide. If mistakes are made, this to be expected too because our work is not perfect nor is it required to be.

Myself, I've seen BOZ in various AfDs and he's always seemed to be remarkably soft-spoken and well-behaved. Given the extent to which his work has been threatened with deletion, his good-natured behaviour seems quite commendable. Other editors create a lot more drama in such circumstances...

The issues in question seem mainly to be a matter of notability but WP:N is a guideline not a policy and its vagaries and inconsistencies are well-known. Resolving these is a work-in-progress, far from complete and is never likely to be an exact science. Punishing editors for work written 10 years ago seems outrageous in such circumstances – see ex post facto, nulla poena sine lege, &c.

So, while BOZ doesn't seem to be doing anything especially unusual or wrong, Fram's behaviour seems more serious. They were lately sanctioned and desysopped by Arbcom. Findings included issues of "harassment" and "following another editor's contributions". Fram had commented that "I obviously need to dial things back a few notches and rethink some of my approaches" but here we see them going back up to eleven again by intensely focussing on the work of another good-faith editor, tracking their contributions for years and attacking them. How is this behaviour any different from what has gone before? Perhaps Fram still has something to learn too.

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• This entire discussion is unnecessary. User:BOZ has created articles on details relating to topic areas that are, at their higher levels, clearly notable and of substantial interest to many people. Role-playing games and the entire fantasy genre, while easily dismissable by those whose interests are more focused on other topics, are important topics for coverage in an encyclopedia. How much influence has Dungeons & Dragons had specifically on popular conceptions of the mythical hero's journey, and on the idea of what various kinds of "monsters" look like and act like? I don't know if that can be quantified, but it remains the case that these are not purely frivolous topics, and some really are sufficiently notable and well-referenced. Many others really are suitable for merging into articles giving broader general coverage of the topic area. In my view, BOZ has done nothing actionable. BD2412 T 23:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Completely agree with Andrew and BD2412. Attempting to punish an editor for good faith actions, some of which are a decade old, in a total gang-up is exactly why this project bleeds editors. The totally needless hostility and hounding deserves to be ignored completely At the least, even possibly result in a WP:BOOMERANG as this is along the lines of uncivil behavior we've seen before that has lead to so much drama. All because BOZ doesn't toe the line of some individuals' vision of the project. No action should be taken. None. oknazevad (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• I want to add onto what I said in m y previous post and make it clear that 1) I do not have a vendetta against RPGs - I am personally interested in the topic, and play Vampire: The Masquerade on the regular, and am currently preparing for a Dusk City Outlaws campaign. I often hold back on creating articles on topics I would have liked to cover just because there is not enough RS coverage to justify it or to even support the content. 2) D&D being obviously notable does not mean that every RPG topic is. No one has any problems with the D&D article existing, and it is irrelevant to the minor RPG classes, creatures and supplements that are discussed 3) the AfD issue I have has nothing to do with whether Boz is well-mannered and soft-spoken, and all with how an admin copy-pastes the same non-argument to every AfD - which is not the same as making a weak argument) 5) This is not something that just happened 10 years ago, it still happens in every AfD Boz partakes in 6) I have absolutely no interest in "punishment", I just care about solutions to continuous problems. If "Boz, an admin, should explain why something is notable and not just copy-and-paste 'Keep' in every AfD" is the outcome of this, that's not a punishment by any means.--Alexandra^IDV 23:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Alexandra IDV seems to have participated in few AfD – just six, acccording to this tool. The only one in the last year was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis Mundi: The Book of Spirits. BOZ's !vote in that case doesn't seem to be a cut/paste as it addressed the state of sourcing for the bundle of articles in question. Nobody agreed with Alexandra's proposal to delete them all and so BOZ's position was the consensus. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Alexandra is very knowledgeable in policy, and very active in the content area, so please do not attempt to gloss over her points due to low AFD numbers. I 100% support her stances in her last two comments. I too have been long troubled by BOZ’s sloppy article creation and !votes at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• I see Boz as a good faith editor. And I do not see their actions as disruptive. I would not support any TBANS or blocks etc. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Despite what Bilby (talk · contribs) said above, posting AFD notifcations on the talk pages of these two is very clearly vote-stacking, and is highly unbecoming behaviour on the part of any experienced editor, let alone an admin. As can be seen to some extent in my !votes here, here and here, I am somewhat sympathetic to a number of the keep !voters in a lot of these types of AFDs, largely because of my own DnD and/or Forgotten Realms nostalgia, but I can see quite clearly that old-school gamers who understand and like these topics are divided on how Wikipedia should cover them, while a significant portion (most?) of the keep !voters seem to be career "keepists" with no interest in or knowledge of this topic area, who are using it to "one up" the deletionists they see on every corner. Wikipedia has changed over the last decade or so: heck, I was the original creator of the article BOZ !voted to keep here, but in 2020 I couldn't possibly support the argument BOZ made there and seems to still be making. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• I remember when D&D was new – many years before Hijiri88 was even born. In those days, the Internet and PCs did not exist and so the sources are now stacks of dusty magazines which take time and effort to go through. Young gamers may not appreciate the difficulty of documenting the early years of this field. Cue the four Yorkshiremen ... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I highly doubt you remember when DND was new: the phenomenon was extremely niche in the 1970s (only 4,000 copies of the original game were printed in its first two years) and became more popular (and controversial in some circles) in the 1980s, which is why virtually all of the third-party pop culture references date to more than half a decade after the game was first published. Do you mean that you "were alive in 1974"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Heck, I started playing in the (very late) 70s and went to GenCon in 1981, so yeah, that's not "the start" but pretty close. Hobit (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, it probably wasn't worth responding to Andrew in the first place; he has a tendency to pretend to be intimately familiar with the subject-matter of whatever article is at AFD; I have fairly eclectic scholarly and entertainment tastes, but I can't imagine anyone being an expert in all the things Andrew has claimed to be an expert in. This, plus the fact that he's proven himself time and again to be completely ignorant of the area I'm most familiar with (Japanese religious and literary history) while those who devote most of their editing efforts to Indian topics have told me that he is doing pretty much the same thing there, makes me extremely skeptical whenever he claims to have been into something since before I was born. But I figured it would be best to attempt to dispute him on the facts rather than his own thoroughly demonstrated editing patterns, and the fact that you consider yourself to be an OG with regard to DnD (and I wouldn't disputing that) while not having been there when it was "new" supports my initial assertion. (Also, Andrew did say when D&D was new – many years before Hijiri88 was even born -- emphasis added -- everyone knows I was even born in 1988, and while "many" is a bit vague I think most readers would be reluctant to interpret it as meaning "7 or 8" -- he clearly looked up the initial release date of the original set, over a decade before I was born, and claimed he "remembered" it, presumably because he remembers things like the 1974 FIFA World Cup, the Nixon resignation, and various events of the Troubles.)

There's also the fact that age and ability to remember pre-3E DnD isn't really relevant, nor is the fact that the original game predates the general availability of the worldwide web and so would likely be covered in early issues of Dragon and various fanzines better than in online sources, when most of the nominated articles actually relate exclusively to much more modern aspects of the games; of the eight articles listed here, only two relate to topics that date to 1993 or earlier, and of the eleven red links the only three relating to properties I recognize definitely could not have been produced earlier than 1993. (The fact that I only recognize 3/11 speaks less to my lack of familiarity with gaming culture in general than the relative obscurity of the properties, mind you.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I bought and played the first edition of D&D quite soon after it first appeared. Having been introduced to it at a UK convention, I picked up a copy for myself at the Games Centre, iirc – a specialist store in central London which opened around the same time. I'm very familiar with the history and personalities of those days and suppose I should do more to help BOZ document them, as I still have an extensive archive and library of offline material. Andrew🐉(talk) 02:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I have no way of verifying that. All I have to go on is the relative unlikelihood that someone who doesn't seem to ever edit Wikipedia articles on these topics except when they're at AFD would have been one of the 4,000 or so people worldwide who owned a copy in its first two years of publication, and the fact that I know you have in the past falsely claimed to be familiar with things like the origins of Yayoi culture in Japan and the relationship between western prosimetry and the Japanese uta monogatari in order to "win" AFD debates. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

To verify this, all Hijiri88 would have to do is visit a London Wikimeet where I could show some vintage sources from those early days. At the last Wikimeet, which is something of a book exchange, someone was passing on a book about haiku. I had a flip though it but went for Essex Schooldays instead, as it seemed to have nostalgic charm. Having first-hand knowledge of topics isn't much use on Wikipedia because that tends to be OR and POV. Last night, at the games club, I was comparing notes with other old-timers about where they picked up their first edition copies of D&D, back in the day. They had some good anecdotes but then we got on with our more recent game. It has an article on Wikipedia because it's easy to find reviews and commentary about it using the Internet. That topic doesn't need my help. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Not going to respond to the details except to say that "all Hijiri88 would have to do" is pay hundreds if not thousands of USD equivalent in airfare and accommodation, and disclose his real world identity including personal appearance and perhaps even name and contact details (home address?) to someone who has previously (on or around 10 March 2019) indicated an intention to pursue a vindictive agenda against me is an extremely onerous ask. (Also worth noting that on the same date Andrew actually, privately, indicated an unwillingness to disclose any form of evidence that he understood "Asian stuff" as much as he claimed in various AFDs, so his claiming now on-wiki that this is not the case is clearly disingenuous. I will forward the email, which admittedly came from FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs) rather than straight from the horse's mouth, to anyone who requests it.)

Also, haiku have nothing to do with waka, at least not any way that would be meaningful in the context in question.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't do that, Hijiri. It's not OK to pass around private communications willy-nilly. Save it for an ArbCom case, since the committee can usually be relied upon to respect private correspondence. That said, Colonel Davison absolutely is the kind of person to threaten someone IRL over WP disagreements. Reyk _YO! 03:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Reyk: I meant to say that I would pass on the email only if I was requested to provide evidence of what I was saying. The reason for that is that I am accusing another editor of foul play on AN and technically we are not supposed to do that without evidence, but I can't very well publish the full text of the email. It's not exactly a secret that the email exists and that the reason for it was something Andrew said. Given this context, I don't think it's appropriate for Andrew to be publicly calling me out and saying what effectively amounts to "Come on, Hijiri ... come and tell me your real name and contact details, and take a picture with me ...", and my pointing out in the same public forum why I find that inappropriate can hardly be considered a problem in itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Hijiri 88 I firmly disagree that BOZ discussing AfD on my talk page is “vote-stacking” for several reasons:

a) Even removing the AfD for an article I created from the 8 AfDs I participated in, you’ll see in the majority of AfD discussions I contribute additional sources & article improvements if I’m voting keep.

b) I subscribe on my watchlist to the following alerts so I do independently find & participate in AfDs: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Article alerts‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Article alerts‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article alerts‎

c) BOZ and I discuss all sorts of articles that need improvement on my talk page from drafts & AfC to AfD & PROD. Discussing whether or not I’ve been successful in finding sources for an article under AfD isn’t soliciting my !vote. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'll admit to not reading all the words above but:
  • Number 1, I have a COI here. I've worked with BOZ off and on for years and met him once in person.
  • I know of no other editor who is more dedicated to Wikipedia.
  • Yes, the !votes at AfD he gives do get old and I too largely ignore them (sorry BOZ). BOZ could stand to work on forming arguments for each AfD.
  • Restoring a redirect from a deleted article, without restoring the history, is not an admin action and is frankly almost always a good idea if the article has been around for a while. Our policies say that pretty clearly. Redirects are cheap.
  • Asking other editors for help with sourcing arcane (hah!) topics is fine. Doing so to vote stack is not. Given that folks he pings often do dig up hard to find sources and that I trust BOZ to do the right thing, I'm on the side that there is no issue here.

So yes, I agree there is some substance to the complaints and BOZ could learn from a lot of this. But he's a heck of a contributor and I'm thrilled to call him a wiki-friend. Hobit (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Your points all seem reasonable, and I have to say that I personally find BOZ a lot more tolerable than many of his defenders, and would probably get along well if I too met him in real life, but I must question whether Asking other editors for help with sourcing arcane (hah!) topics is fine. is the best reading of what happened here. Are the editors more likely to go to the nominated articles and improve them so they meet WP:HEY, or go to the AFDs and !vote, perhaps linking GBooks results without a careful analysis of whether they could be used to improve the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I guess you'd have to look at how often those pings result in new sources being found. I know that I've pinged WebWarlock, S Marshal, and BOZ on occasion for sources on gaming articles when I was fairly sure they'd have access to sources I lack. If BOZ regularly pings people who then proceed to !vote without providing sources, that would sound like a problem. If they are providing sources a fair bit, I'd say it's reasonable. And again, I've got a bias, but I find it really unlikely that BOZ would try to game the system. It's just not really something I think he'd do (perhaps AGF taken to an extreme), though if you had evidence that pings were resulting in !votes often and sources very rarely, I'd be willing to agree there was a problem. In general, I don't think we should be trying to prevent people from asking others to help with sourcing unless it's clear they are just trying to game the system. But I'm fairly far on the inclusion side and think that improving articles is much better than deleting them and so honest attempts to do so should be met with strong support. Hobit (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

In the last 24 hours, Boz has received 12 prods or AfDs on articles, and the number in the last week is much higher. To be honest, I don't see how Boz could hope to address those concerns, at that rate of nominations, without asking for at least some help on sourcing - even if you assume that Boz isn't going to contest a decent portion of those. I'm not sure I've seen someone get as many AfDs for old articles in such a short time before. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hobit:: "**Restoring a redirect from a deleted article, without restoring the history, is not an admin action and is frankly almost always a good idea if the article has been around for a while. Our policies say that pretty clearly. Redirects are cheap." This is not what the complaints above were about. BOZ did restore the history, often for articles they had created and/or voted keep at an AfD (i.e. violating involved), and in many cases also restoring history deleted for other, serious reasons like copyvios. As for the many nominations on his page, last year he created 60+ pages per month, many of them about non notable subjects. Cleaning out this mess has been avoided for way too long, and as far as I can tell he hasn't addressed any nomination by finding and adding a source. He is not obliged to do this, and in many cases there are no other sources in the first place, but the rate of nominations is frankly caused by the rate of poor creations. Fram (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a rather basic point, but AFAIK most of the deletions of Boz articles concern rather old content creations, and most of his new ones carry RS citationsand meet NBOOK and/or the GNG. The simple equation above, the rate of nominations is frankly caused by the rate of poor creations this appears to be fallacious, at least if the term "rate" implies some unit of time as a denominator. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: From what I can tell, this discussion is focused on his conduct relating to the deletion of said old content, not how good his new content is. No one who was actively editing before, say, 2009 can today be held accountable for the poor sourcing and notability standards throughout the project back in the bad old days, unless they are actively defending their old edits from those who are trying to bring them inline with what English Wikipedia has become. (See my "Evermeet" remark further up.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial and Hijiri88:, this is just as much about recent content. There are a number of ongoing AfDs for articles created in 2019 and 2020 and others have already been deleted. All of the following are (now deleted) creations from between 22 November 2019 and today: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized (2 articles), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Maps, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire: The Dark Ages Storytellers Screen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Rooms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desert Tracks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Magic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Horizon: Escape, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptic Campaigns, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossroads (role-playing game), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critter-Tek, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis: A Twisted Laugh at Life. That's 12 articles already deleted from that period, with others redirected (Citybook VI: Up Town, Star Trek: The Next Generation CCG Official Player's Guide, Southern Gondor: The Land). I doubt we have many established / autoreviewed editors with this kind of negative track record in their very recent creations. Fram (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

But Fram, you were talking about rates. How many articles did you say BOZ had created in "2019 or 2020"? Was it a three-digit or a four-digit number? You need a denominator to calculate a rate.

And there are some frankly crappy AfD contributions (and results) in the links you just gave, with lots of "Delete per nom" and no evidence of BEFORE. As has been noted by others, the reliable, secondary sources in this field through the 1990s were in dead tree magazines, which are not easy sources to find but are entirely valid RS when found.

In his recent contributions, BOZ has been assuming presumptive notability based on a single review. That isn't policy, but it also isn't so far off reality given that if you can find the Dragon review there is probably another RS review that you can't find and which - if the topic in question is a book - establishes NBOOK notability quite nicely. The fact that you have AfD !voters basing their !votes (against policy) on the sourcing in the articles isn't something to take out on BOZ.

BOZ creates non-book articles based on the same criterion as for books - with which I don't generally agree - and he isn't as prompt as I would be to merge articles about the books that made up a "game line" back in the day. However, these are nits to pick and don't undermine the fact that, whatever else he has dome, BOZ is engaged in creating sourced articles in the RPG space and is a clear net positive for the project. Newimpartial (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In every one of these AfDs, an online search for sources was done (general, and additionally specifically in books). This is explicitly included in the nominations. WP:BEFORE only applies to nominations, not to subsequent comments, and all noms followed WP:BEFORE. "The fact that you have AfD !voters basing their !votes (against policy) on the sourcing in the articles" doesn't match the reality of these AfDs. Furthermore, Boz asked two other editors to look for sources (which, including Boz themselves, would mean that three editors with knowledge of the field and an interest in keeping the article were looking for sources). The result in most cases was nothing, since these subjects have received very little attention when new, and none (from reliable sources) since then, unlike truly notable subjects. The reasoning that "if there is one review, there probably are others" is rather iffy of course. As for the rates, I didn't bring this up, Bilby did, I just responded. In any case, the 12 deletions + 3 redirects were from his last 100 creations. If more than 10% of recent creations get deleted, then there is a problem. Fram (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

So where in policy is this "10%" rule established, anyway? In the present climate, I think a content creator who retained over 80% if their creations in userspace after a year would be doing pretty well, frankly.

And in terms of the !votes, the most frequent case seems to me that you make the nomination, one other user checks your findings, Sirfurboy gives a "per nom" and bob's your uncle.

So in terms of the quality of your BEFORE, let's take the Dark Ages Storyteller's Screen (an AfD I didn't see at the time because nobody bothered to tag it to the relevant categories). I also note that of the delete results you linked, this one of only two to receive a (supposedly disruptive) BOZ !vote. Neither you nor your single supporter seem to have given any serious effort to finding the inevitable reviews that any such product generated at the time. Instead you describe it as having "sunk to oblivion since", which is a clear violation of NOTTEMPORARY.

Now I'm not saying the Screen needed its own article. The policy-compliant choice would have been to Merge it to the article on the game line, if only to preserve the reference. But instead we had a non-policy-conpliant SUPERVOTE and you are now smugly citing the delete result as evidence of another contributor's alleged incapacity. I can't see your actions in this case as making a positive contribution to the project; from here it looks like boundary maintenance for it's own sake, which by itself would be grounds for a BOOMERANG IMO. But I recognize that other factors are at play. Newimpartial (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you please drop the personal comments or start the WP:BOOMERANG section? That AfD was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article alerts. I searched for additional sources, just like I did for all of these, and found none. You claim, without any actual evidence, that my "before" search was clearly insufficient. So perhaps you can do the checks as explained in WP:BEFORE point D, and show us the results I should have gotten which clearly show notability for this subject? If not, then perhaps you should stop accusing people without evidence. Oh, and no, I doubt there are many experienced content creators who get 10% of their recent creations deleted. I have 1.3% deleted (but these turn out to be new pages created by someone else, which I moved to a correct title, thus creating a redirect, not an article: of my last 1000 actual articles, not a single one was deleted), Ipigott has one or two of the last 1000 deleted, GiantSnowman has 0% deleted (in his last 1000 articles, there are 5 deletions, but they all are G7 deletions without an AfD or Prod as far as I can see), Rosiestep (last 1000 articles: 0 deletions, only a few redirects got deleted)... But feel free to list those other experienced content creators with deletion rates over 10%, I presume you didn't make that statement without any evidence to back it up surely? Fram (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you intend, by goading me to create a BOOMERANG section, to make some kind of pivot from my analysis of these AfD's in terms of policy? If so, that seems like a novel approach. And you still haven't retracted your assertion of 10% deletion as a bright line for competence which you so boldly asserted above: If more than 10% of recent creations get deleted, then there is a problem. According to whom? Also, creators who purposely create articles on more obscure subjects (or those to whom the AfD community is hostile) will have higher deletion rates, inevitably, so there isn't even a correlation between deletion rate and content competence without controlling for subject area. And someone with thousands of creations on rarefied topics is going to encounter some borderline cases, if they are doing it right.

As to your other comments, inclusion of a page in a project listing is no substitute for thematic deletion listing, as you should be well aware. And the sources listed in BEFORE, point D - while I'm glad they are no longer being ignored at AfD - have never been sufficient for finding dead-tree RPG reviews, as I thought you were also aware. They don't even include the index of dead-tree (or paywalled) Pyramid reviews, FFS. Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"And you still haven't retracted your assertion of 10% deletion as a bright line for competence which you so boldly asserted above: If more than 10% of recent creations get deleted, then there is a problem. According to whom? " Coupled with the remainder of your comments (you are the one who started about a wp:boomerang, and apparently people shouldn't just follow wp:before, but what you believe to be minimum requirements) I'm done replying to you. Fram (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Fram: you said above Boz asked two other editors to look for sources (which, including Boz themselves, would mean that three editors with knowledge of the field and an interest in keeping the article were looking for sources). The result in most cases was nothing which is a pretty big assumption. As one of those editors, I can honestly say that I'm busy IRL and didn't look into most of what BOZ asked for help with. I tackled 2 articles (not under AfD) because I'm familiar with that specific game system & knew exactly where to go to find sources. I don't have time right now to familiarize myself with new game systems & where their typical sources live. That doesn't mean those sources don't exist. If I look into something and I don't find sources, I say something (either on my talk page or if relevant in the AfD discussion ). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Undeletions

I think it is time to take a different approach, because BOZ has now said things like I give up and has not been seen for days at this thread. BOZ, the first steps we need you to take are fairly simple. Some legitimate concerns have been raised about your undeletions. I provide you below with a table of those undeletions. Could you review each undeletion in light of the feedback received here and, for each one, report back whether you wish to rethink it or not?

Long table

Undeletions by BOZ in the last 36 months No. Article Undeleted (ago) Reason 1 Thermal Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-24 4 days [not provided] 2 Spoilsport (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-24 4 days [not provided] 3 Steel Reign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-24 4 days [not provided] 4 Dark Horse Miniatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-24 4 days [not provided] 5 Istishia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 6 Savras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 7 Tyr (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 8 Tymora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 9 Selvetarm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 10 Ilmater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 11 Akadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 12 Zann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 13 Angharradh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 14 Karsus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 15 Lathander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-23 5 days [not provided] 16 Iron cobra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-21 7 days [not provided] 17 Iron cobra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-21 7 days [not provided] 18 Adventurers of the North - Kalevala Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-10 18 days [not provided] 19 Kalmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-10 18 days [not provided] 20 Ancient Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-07 21 days [not provided] 21 Fey (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-06 22 days per request on my talk page; AFD was closed as redirect, not delete 22 1995 Origins Award winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2020-01-01 27 days [not provided] 23 Bloodtide (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-30 29 days [not provided] 24 Dragonrider (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-30 29 days [not provided] 25 Digital Web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-27 32 days moving the edit history 26 Istishia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 27 Lathander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 28 Leira (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 29 Karsus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 30 Valkur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 31 Shaundakul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 32 Auppenser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 33 Shiallia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 34 Angharradh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 35 Hoar (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 36 Siamorphe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 37 Uthgar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 38 Vataqatal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 39 Zann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 40 Najm (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 41 Jisan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 42 Jauhar (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 43 Haku (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 44 Hakiyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 45 Hajama (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 46 Sharindlar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 47 Zehir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 48 Ragarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 49 Drasek Riven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 50 Nobanion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 51 Savras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 52 Sharess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 53 Lurue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 54 Jergal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 55 Sess'Innek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 56 Garagos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 57 Milil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 58 Waukeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 59 Sune (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 60 Red Knight (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 61 Tempus (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 62 Eldath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 63 Mielikki (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 64 Bala (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 65 Kor (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 66 Ubtao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 67 Moander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 68 Selan (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 69 Tchazzar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 70 Gwaeron Windstrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 71 Talos (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 72 Malar (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 73 Loviatar (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 74 Kossuth (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 75 Lliira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 76 Tyr (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 77 Grumbar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 78 Akadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 79 Tymora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 80 Myrkul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 81 Ghaunadaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 82 Torm (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 83 Finder Wyvernspur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 84 Talona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 85 Selvetarm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 86 Kelemvor Lyonsbane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 87 Shar (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 88 Ulutiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 89 Bhaal (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 90 Mask (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 91 Bane (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 92 Lord Ao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 93 Cyric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 94 Velsharoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 95 Amaunator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 96 Auril (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 97 Azuth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 98 Beshaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 99 Chauntea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 100 Deneir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 101 Gargauth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 102 Eshowdow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 103 Gond (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 104 Iyachtu Xvim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 105 Ibrandul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 106 Ilmater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-26 33 days [not provided] 107 Baravar Cloakshadow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 108 Nebelun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 109 Callarduran Smoothhands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 110 Urdlen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 111 Baervan Wildwanderer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 112 Segojan Earthcaller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 113 Gaerdal Ironhand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 114 Flandal Steelskin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 115 Gelf Darkhearth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 116 The Glutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 117 Garl Glittergold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 118 Utgard-Loki (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-23 36 days [not provided] 119 Paladine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 120 Valthonis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 121 Chaos (Dragonlance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 122 Reorx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 123 Chemosh (Dragonlance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 124 Mishakal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 125 Gilean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 126 Nuitari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 127 Lunitari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 128 Chislev (Dragonlance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 129 Zivilyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 130 Night Sky of Krynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 131 Morgion (Dragonlance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 132 Habbakuk (Dragonlance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 133 Sargonnas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 134 Kiri-Jolith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 135 Solinari (Dragonlance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 136 Hiddukel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 137 Sirrion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 138 Branchala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 139 Zeboim (Dragonlance) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 140 Fizban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 141 Majere (god) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 142 Shinare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-18 41 days [not provided] 143 Corellon Larethian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-15 44 days [not provided] 144 Demiurge (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-14 45 days [not provided] 145 Tazza (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-13 46 days [not provided] 146 Xemu (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-13 46 days [not provided] 147 Oshtur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-10 49 days [not provided] 148 Hoggoth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-10 49 days [not provided] 149 Agamotto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-10 49 days [not provided] 150 Old Ones (Palladium Books) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-09 50 days [not provided] 151 Old Ones (Palladium Books) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-12-09 50 days [not provided] 152 Pipi & Bibi's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-15 74 days restored prior version, in case there is anything in the history and you might need  :) 153 Yagnoloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 154 Ultroloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 155 Nycaloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 156 Mezzoloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 157 Piscoloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 158 Dergholoth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 159 Hydroloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 160 Guardian daemon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 161 Marraenoloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-05 84 days [not provided] 162 Basilisk (fantasy role play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-04 85 days splitting the edit history 163 Basilisk (fantasy role play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-04 85 days splitting the edit history 164 Berbalang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-11-04 85 days moving the edit history 165 Achaierai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 166 Aranea (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 167 Alu-demon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 168 Kopru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 169 Thoul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 170 Ghoul (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 171 Medusa (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 172 Genie (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 173 Sphinx (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 174 Hydra (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 175 Homunculus (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 176 Lammasu (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 177 Su-monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 178 Giant frog (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 179 Pegasus (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 180 Shedu (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 181 Ghast (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 182 Violet fungus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-31 89 days [not provided] 183 Algoid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-23 97 days [not provided] 184 Algoid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-23 97 days [not provided] 185 Atropal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-10-09 111 days there are a couple of sources for this one, so it could be merged somewhere 186 The Fragile Path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-09-25 125 days moving the edit history 187 Outcast (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-09-18 132 days this seems like a perfectly plausible redirect, so not sure why it was deleted? 188 Knull (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-08-16 165 days restoring per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Banned user's creations 189 Absolute Carnage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-08-16 165 days restoring per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Banned user's creations 190 Official Formula One Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-08-05 176 days restore - I have a source to add! 191 Sled Storm PS1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-08-02 179 days [not provided] 192 Talos the Untamed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-07-11 201 days [not provided] 193 Chris S. Sims (game designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-07-02 210 days moving to draft; there was no significant opposition to draftifying in the AFD 194 Andro Dunos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-24 218 days [not provided] 195 Andy Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-24 218 days [not provided] 196 Shadow Slasher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-14 228 days [not provided] 197 Shadow Slasher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-14 228 days [not provided] 198 Felony 11-79 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-13 229 days [not provided] 199 Recoil (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-10 232 days [not provided] 200 Machines (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-10 232 days [not provided] 201 Street Sk8ter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-06-05 237 days [not provided] 202 Uprising X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-26 247 days restore - I have a source to add! 203 Halflife (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-23 250 days [not provided] 204 Emergency (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-21 252 days [not provided] 205 Death on the Reik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-21 252 days edit history under redirect 206 Superpower (board game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-19 254 days [not provided] 207 Team Losi RC Racer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-17 256 days restore - I have a source to add! 208 Warrior Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-09 264 days I have one review and will try to find more 209 Linkle Liver Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-08 265 days edit history restored, in case you find anything there you can use 210 Ultimate Race Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-05 268 days [not provided] 211 Star Trek Pinball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-05 268 days [not provided] 212 Forsaken (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-05-04 269 days [not provided] 213 Alien Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-04-29 274 days restore - I have a source to add 214 Dark Horse Miniatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-04-12 291 days restore - I have a source to add! 215 William Jones (game designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-29 305 days moving to Draft space 216 Steel Reign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-21 313 days restore - I have a source to add! 217 Rock & Roll Racing 2: Red Asphalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-21 313 days [not provided] 218 Courier Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-21 313 days restore - I have a source to add! 219 Battle-Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-17 317 days [not provided] 220 Battle Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-17 317 days I do have one source 221 Gridz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-13 321 days moving edit history 222 Charles Alexander Moffat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-06 328 days going to move this one to Drafts 223 Charles Moffat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-06 328 days [not provided] 224 Ree Soesbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-06 328 days [not provided] 225 Don Bassingthwaite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-05 329 days moving to draft 226 Fallen Haven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-03-05 329 days restore - I have a source to add! 227 Talos the Untamed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-02-26 336 days [not provided] 228 Spoilsport (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-02-12 350 days [not provided] 229 Dark Mother (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-02-12 350 days going to move for disambiguation purposes 230 Spoilsport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-02-12 350 days [not provided] 231 Spoilsport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-02-12 350 days splitting and moving the edit history 232 The Iceman Returneth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-02-09 353 days [not provided] 233 Thermal Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-02-03 359 days [not provided] 234 Jeff Morrow (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2019-01-10 383 days request on User talk:Jclemens granted by TPS  ;) 235 Riddle of the Sphinx (1982 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-31 393 days [not provided] 236 Alien Virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-24 400 days [not provided] 237 Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-14 410 days per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft 238 Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-14 410 days per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft 239 Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-14 410 days per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft 240 Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-14 410 days per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft 241 Spider-Man's powers and equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-14 410 days per request on article talk page, restoring and moving to draft 242 GURPS Humanx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-12-11 413 days [not provided] 243 Tokyo Highway Battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-11-25 429 days [not provided] 244 Alpine Surfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-11-21 433 days [not provided] 245 Gunblade NY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-11-16 438 days I have a source to add; let's give this a shot 246 Namco Museum Volume 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-11-16 438 days [not provided] 247 Jaguar Bomberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-11-06 448 days [not provided] 248 Solinari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-10-13 472 days [not provided] 249 Solinari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-10-13 472 days [not provided] 250 Dinotopia Adventure Game for PC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-23 492 days [not provided] 251 Shellshock (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-21 494 days [not provided] 252 Black Fire (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-15 500 days restore edit history under redirect 253 Black Fire (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-15 500 days [not provided] 254 Iron Soldier 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-11 504 days [not provided] 255 Iron Soldier 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-11 504 days [not provided] 256 Mighty Max (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-11 504 days [not provided] 257 Quipper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-09 506 days [not provided] 258 Quipper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-09-09 506 days [not provided] 259 Bres (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-28 518 days [not provided] 260 Kileak: The Blood 2: Reason in Madness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-25 521 days [not provided] 261 FireTeam (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-23 523 days [not provided] 262 Curse of Dragor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-19 527 days [not provided] 263 Brutal Sports Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-17 529 days in case you find anything useful here 264 Toukon Retsuden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-11 535 days [not provided] 265 Space Griffon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-11 535 days restore - I have a source 266 VR Troopers (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-09 537 days I have one source to add 267 The Raft (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-07 539 days [not provided] 268 Ryker's Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-07 539 days [not provided] 269 Cube (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-07 539 days [not provided] 270 Negative Zone Prison Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-07 539 days [not provided] 271 Ravencroft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-07 539 days [not provided] 272 Seagate Prison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-07 539 days [not provided] 273 Vincente Cimetta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-05 541 days nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed 274 Vincente Cimetta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-05 541 days nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed 275 Jude the Entropic Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-05 541 days nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed 276 Shatterstar (Kree) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-05 541 days nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed 277 Shadow Slasher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-05 541 days nothing about the AFD proscribed that a redirect was not allowed 278 Zweihänder (RPG) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-04 542 days just won a Gold ENnies award at Gen Con 279 Zweihänder (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-04 542 days [not provided] 280 ZWEIHÄNDER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-04 542 days just won a Gold ENnies award at Gen Con 281 Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-03 543 days [not provided] 282 Foreman for Real (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-02 544 days [not provided] 283 Dragon Ball Z: Ultimate Battle 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-08-01 545 days [not provided] 284 Shin Shinobi Den (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-26 551 days it's just a redirect... 285 Riverworld (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-21 556 days restoring to redirect 286 Web shooters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 287 Spider-Man's costumes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 288 Stark Armor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 289 Black suited spider man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 290 Man-Spider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 291 Spider sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 292 Spider-Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 293 Spidey-sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 294 Bombastic Bag Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 295 Web-shooters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 296 Man Spider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 297 Web shooter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 298 Manspider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 299 Spider tracer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 300 Spider-Suit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 301 Spider tracers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 302 Spider-senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 303 Spider-Senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 304 Spider-sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 305 Spidey-senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 306 Spider-Sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 307 Spidey Sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 308 Spidey senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 309 Spidey sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 310 Spider Senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 311 Spidey Senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 312 Spidey-Senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 313 Spider senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 314 Spider Sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 315 Spidey-Sense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 316 Spider-tracers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 317 Spider-tracer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 318 Spider-Man's powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 319 Powers and abilities of Spider-Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 320 Spider-Man's Belt-Camera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 321 Spider-Man's black costume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 322 Spider-man's powers, abilities, and equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-13 564 days [not provided] 323 Trek-80 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-12 565 days [not provided] 324 Trek-80 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-07-12 565 days splitting edit history; if the Judges Guild version is unrelated and mostly excised from the article, then let's do a split 325 Arcadia (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-28 579 days [not provided] 326 Barbican (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-28 579 days restore edit history under redirect 327 Anteus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-28 579 days restore edit history under redirect 328 Elysia (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-28 579 days restore edit history under redirect 329 Domina (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-28 579 days [not provided] 330 Kalamanthis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-26 581 days restore edit history under redirect 331 Cosmic Race (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-23 584 days restoring as redirect 332 Cosmic Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-23 584 days going to start over using the old edit history 333 Jabbertalky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-22 585 days moving edit history 334 Static III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-20 587 days [not provided] 335 Neo (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-20 587 days [not provided] 336 Skitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-20 587 days [not provided] 337 Skitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-20 587 days [not provided] 338 The Harpers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-18 589 days [not provided] 339 The Zhentarim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 340 Red Wizards (Dungeons and Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 341 Red Wizard of Thay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 342 Red Wizards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 343 Red Wizards (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 344 The Red Wizards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 345 Red Wizards of Thay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 346 Moonstar (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 347 The Moonstars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 348 The Kraken (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 349 The Kraken (D&D) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 350 The Kraken (Dungeons and Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 351 Harper (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 352 Cult of Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-14 593 days [not provided] 353 Hover Strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-12 595 days I've got one source; it's a good place to start, at least 354 The Watchmaker (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-07 600 days maybe some of this could be used to build an article one day, even if the original execution was poor 355 Santa Fe Mysteries: Sacred Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-06-05 602 days [not provided] 356 Alexandria Safe-Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-05-26 612 days restore edit history under redirect 357 Castle Darkhold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-05-04 634 days Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Darkhold was closed as merge, so that is what I'm a-gonna do 358 The Iron Throne (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-05-04 634 days Articles for deletion/The Iron Throne (Forgotten Realms) was closed as redirect, so that is what I'm a-gonna do 359 Motocross Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-04-24 644 days I've got one source; it's a good place to start, at least 360 Burning Soldier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-04-07 661 days wow, went to AFD after 7 minutes and died a quick death... I have one review, let me see what else I can do 361 Kung Fu 2100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-03-27 672 days [not provided] 362 Wilderlands of High Fantasy (old) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-03-16 683 days [not provided] 363 SORAG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-03-03 696 days moving edit history 364 Clacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-02-16 711 days [not provided] 365 Clacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-02-16 711 days [not provided] 366 Project Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-02-11 716 days [not provided] 367 Korred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-02-07 720 days [not provided] 368 Korred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-02-07 720 days [not provided] 369 Trump (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-02-01 726 days [not provided] 370 Trump (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-02-01 726 days [not provided] 371 Darklon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-01-27 731 days [not provided] 372 Darklon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-01-27 731 days moving all but the disambiguation edit 373 The Simpsons Trading Card Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-01-25 733 days previous version of article deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons Trading Card Game 374 Mark Poole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-01-12 746 days [not provided] 375 Star Sisterz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2018-01-07 751 days restore old version of this article

Can you also clarify why you are undeleting so many pages without giving a logged reason? AGK ■ 22:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The unexplained restoration of copyvio history & demonstrable misunderstandings about notability guidelines (i.e. I create articles based on the sources I have on hand... Sometimes those articles I find have only 1 source, sometimes 0, so I improve them to the best of my ability. If articles created by me or someone else do not get improved, they may deleted. I understand that well, and that is how notability works on Wikipedia.) are very concerning and should be grounds for de-sysopping. You would never accept an RfA with those policy/guideline failures. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  A demonstrated poor understanding of basic policies. Misuse of tools to undelete articles, overriding community consensus. Even without undeletion, this poor an understanding of notability should be reasons to worry, as admins are autopatrolled. To top it off, I see that an attempt was made to intimidate Fram bringing up the past, before others joined in to echo the concerns. This is very troubling. Short of a desysop, in addition to a tban on AfD, I think a tban on directly creating articles may be necessary. Not many people patrol autopatrolled articles from admins, a few who might, seem to be seen as harassing if they do so with any regularity on a single user's contributions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Even when a reason is given, "found a source/review, let's see what i can do"(paraphrasing) doesn't sound like a responsible reason especially when an "article is nominated within minutes and dies a quick death"(paraphrasing). I am getting the sense that admin tools are being used to further the inclusionism ideology, in essence viewing it as a power weapon in a war rather than a mop. I don't understand the silence. If it were an interpersonal conflict, silence would be a constructive approach to descalation. The issue is admin actions and adherence to policies, ADMINACCT requires them to address the concerns raised by the community. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Usedtobecool BOZ appears to be going through the table AGK made line by line here: User:BOZ/undeletions and responded to AGK here: User_talk:BOZ#AN. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• @BOZ:, can you please also indicate in your replies if you were in any way involved with the article prior to the undeletion? E.g. with Sharindlar (number 46 on the list), you had created the page initially, and had commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharindlar, and had commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Forgotten Realms deities (to which it by then was a redirect), and at its DRV. Reading your comments at User:BOZ/undeletions, you seem to think that the undeletion by you was fine here, but WP:INVOLVED is a rather bright line. Similar at Myrkul, which you extensively edited, commented at the AfD, but restored anyway, including a first version with the full text "you suck" which was correctly speedy deleted. This is #80 on the list, so one you already checked. Fram (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Just so that I understand you, Fram, are you suggesting that underlying to recover Talk page history or to move text out of article space to find new sources coubts as "acting ... in a dispute" per INVOLVED? Because as long as the versions involved are free of COPYVIO and personal attacks, I would think that PRESERVE applies, which is itself a core policy. I don't see such cases as participating in a dispute, unless I'm missing something. Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Content disputes are also disputes. "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." (emphasis mine) An AfD is a prime example of a dispute on a topic, i.e. whether it should be included in enwiki or not. If someone has created or significantly edited an article, and/or if someone has participated in an AfD or DRV or the like, then that person is involved in the sense as described by WP:INVOLVED. This is one of the rather clear rules for admins: either you edit and disuss an article, or you admin it. Only for blatant stuff (vandalism) is this generally ignored, but undeleting a page you have created or argued to keep is a bright line violation, even when done with good intentions, and even if uninvolved admins would have done the same if you asked them. Even ignoring this, if "the community" has decided that an article doesn't belong here, i.e. that the content is not appropriate for enwiki, then WP:PRESERVE wouldn't apply. Preserve means "Preserve appropriate content.", but an involved admin is not the right person to decide, against the community consensus process an AfD should be, that some content should not be deleted but preserved.

If you don't believe me and my lengthy explanation, you can read WP:TOOLMISUSE (which i just like "involved" also policy): "Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins." Additionally: "Reversing the actions of other administrators – Only in a manner that respects the admin whose action is involved, and (usually) after consultation." As far as I can tell, these reversions were usually done without such consultation.

This doesn't make BOZ in any way evil or less dedicated, but it should be made clear that all these policies apply to them, and that not even mentioning which restorations violated WP:INVOLVED gives the impression that they don't understand or care enough about this aspect. Fram (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, just so that I understand you - are you saying that the moment an admin has created or edited a page or participated in an AfD, they are ipso facto party to a content dispute and INVOLVED so that they cannot use the tools in any way either respect to a page? Because that isn't how I read INVOLVED (or TOOLMISUSE) at all, and it looks like a violation of NOTBURO.

As I understand it, the point of INVOLVED is that admin are not allowed to use the tools to "win" content (or conduct) disputes. Userification of deleted content does not in any way strike me as an abuse of the tools, and to say that PRESERVE does not apply, say, to the referencing of an article that was deleted for WP:N, PROMO or COPYVIO reasons seems to me to be an inversion of the meaning of all the related policies. If content is reliably sourced and can be preserved (without violating other policies like COPYVIO and BLP), then it ought to be preserved; once again, boundary maintenance by deleting sourced content we don't like is not WP policy, regardless of one's personal inclination. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Note - it appears that, rather than responding further here, BOZ has elected to document his undeletions here, as explained here and here. He is acknowledging and fixing his mistakes as he goes through the list: whatever the context of specific past misdeeds, I think we can all agree that this is how the tools are meant to be used. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• OK, I'm seeing one copyright issue, which when raised, BOZ fixed and apologized for. I agree that was a significant error. I'm finding an argument that creating articles that later get deleted is a sign of incompetence. That I'll disagree with. BOZ has certainly done some things wrong and it looks like he is taking the feedback seriously and addressing the issues. His AfD votes have also been addressed (need context and actual arguments). However, I can't blame him for not returning to this discussion to be further raked over the coals and instead working to fix the problems he has created (and hopefully not doing again). I think it's time to stop and see if the actual problems (and there are a few) continue from this point onward and drop the stick for now. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Watch out y'all

That jerk from Kentucky is back. Expect hits with obscene material in celebrity articles, between +100 and 300 bytes, from various IPs. I don't know if there's been efforts at rangeblocking; they were doing the same thing yesterday (see Jennifer Love Hewitt and follow the various IPs). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Checking... and so far I think I can do something here. With respect to Kingboyk, 1 week is not anywhere near long enough with this IP's history of abuse. I will be reblocking and measuring in years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• The following IPs are  Confirmed to each other, one person or two very closely connected people are performing the same vandalism from the same devices on these addresses, interspersed with WP:GHBH edits as obfuscation; no comment on possible connections to accounts:
  • 74.142.15.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 74.142.30.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 74.142.106.186 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 74.142.114.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 74.142.117.82 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 162.155.21.146 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 162.155.80.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 162.155.165.198 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 162.155.237.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Most have discrete blocks in their history already. There are a small number of unrelated contribs on both ranges, but they are also non-constructive. Partly due to the persistence and partly due to the severity of the vandalism I'm putting anonblocks on both ranges. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

sitelogo

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

---

We were not hacked, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#6,000,000th_article. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I wish it wasn't red. I feel like I'm constantly getting notices :/ 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 02:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It will only be up for 2-3 days. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

So right about when most regulars will likely have grown accustomed to the vibrancy. Leave the workers wanting more, they'll proudly belt out the next million that much sooner, eh? It's diabolical and simple, but I like it, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Money emoji: You won't have to worry. Once we hit lucky seven mill, we'll do green. ミラP 17:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Standard offer - Joseph2302

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

---

Joseph2302 (talk · contribs) was blocked last June by Ponyo (talk · contribs) for vandalism. Normally this would be a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" block except Joseph has done a lot of good work for the project, and just occasionally goes completely off the rails. Six months later, he has decided to take the standard offer. The unblock request reads as follows:

I know that I had an unblock declined about a month ago, but I have also seen that requests for unblock under the standard offer are often debated at AN. Would it be possible to start a discussion there to gain community consensus on whether I can be unblocked? If rejected, I promise not to make any more unblock requests for 6 months.

I understand the reasons why I was blocked: I have had a repeated history of making occasional spurious edits, and this is completely unacceptable. At the time when I was last blocked, I was dealing with off-wiki issues which were affecting my ability to edit constructively on-wiki. I would be happy to discuss the details in private, but don't want my personal life on view for the whole world to see. This off-wiki issue is no longer an issue for me, and so I fully believe that if unblocked, I would be a positive editor on Wikipedia again. I completely understand that thousands of positive edits do not justify a number of bad edits, and if unblocked, I would expect it to me on a tight leach. As mentioned before, if I were unblocked, I would recommence editing in the areas that I have been doing before: sports, Women in Red, as well as some London historical articles. And I will not engage with vandalism activities. I would ask you to consider my appeal, as I believe that I can be a positive contributor to this encyclopedia again. My edit contributions show that I can be a positive impact, I have multiple GAs and FLs, which shows my commitment to the encyclopedia. In the last 5 years, I have greatly enjoyed contributing to this fantastic encyclopedia, and I just hope that I will be given that opportunity once again. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Although I have never considered vandalising Wikipedia, I have been had similar off-wiki issues as Joseph, so I understand where he's coming from, though I don't consider it an excuse for his actions. I trust that Joseph feels the same, and therefore I am inclined to consider his standard offer request, with the strict stipulation that any further vandalism really will mean he has run out of rope. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Just as kind of a placeholder, I'd like to ask that this not be dismissed out of hand by block counting in the block log. I'm hoping to discuss a couple of things with Joseph, either on his talk page or by email, after which I might suggest some unblock conditions. I don't think he should just simply be unblocked, but I do think it would be possible to work on some conditions that might help. In general, I echo Ritchie's thoughts that (a) Joseph has done good work, and (b) the 7 previous blocks are a pattern that can't continue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Unblock. While the block log is long, the actual disruption associated with each instance is actually pretty minimal. After a brief offline discussion, I believe his assurances that the real life situation has changed, and his other significant content work shows that he is not here for the wrong reasons. I was going to suggest an alternative to "this is the very last chance", but reading below, I doubt that would gain consensus, so I'll stick to the "unblock, very last chance" consensus that seems to be forming. Self-requested blocks would be a good idea in the future, because WP can be a pretty unforgiving place, and I very much doubt another actual block would be undone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Well, obviously ^^^these discussions are important. But, yeah: it has been clear for some time that Joseph2302 has had occasional issues that come out of no-where and disappear as quickly. Of course, by then the damage has been done and the block-log lengthens. But for example, one minute he's trolling The Rambling Man, next they're working together on content. And these occurrences were sufficiently rare that—assuming that the cause(s) of these aberrations are now off the table, as J2302 says—his return should be a case of sliding into the water as opposed to a dive bomb that soaks everybody. Cheers, ——SN54129 15:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Question Joseph2302 has repeatedly promised to cease disruptive editing, and has repeatedly broken that promise. I asked back in December 2019 what was different this time. I don't need to know the specifics. If they were mental health issues, those can be challenging. If they were personal life issues, those can be challenging. My point is, Joseph has repeatedly promised this was it, he's done with disruptive edits, only to break the promise. What's different this time? This user has been given numerous previous opportunities and thrown them away. What's different this time? I can imagine a number of good reasons why this time is different, but really, Joseph needs to tell us what's different. He's an editor who makes constructive contributions and would be valuable for the project, but not at the cost of the punctuated significant disruption. I hope to see him back, I hope to see a good answer here. --Yamla (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Essentially, it's my interpretation of WP:BLOCKDETERRENT - to prevent imminent damage to the project and stop continuous and regular damage. Joseph is an unusual case in that he is only disruptive for very short periods of time, and (AFAIK) has always demonstrated remorse afterwards. Therefore, I would look for a sanction that allows Joseph continue his content contributions while minimising any damage caused by whatever trigger points get thrown up - short, time limited blocks. I've seen this happen on a forum elsewhere on the internet, where one guy actually asks to be blocked for 48 hours to rescue himself from doing something he'd regret. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd be far, far more comfortable if Joseph could ask to be blocked, rather than disrupting. I can imagine this may not be possible. I'd be quite happy endorsing an unblock if this was a viable path forward; self-requested blocks don't really cost anything. But, I weakly oppose unblocking if we are going to have to clean up multiple further instances of disruption. --Yamla (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In the case of the last block, the "clean up" amounted to a revert 37 minutes' later. While that shouldn't have been necessary, full stop, calling it "multiple further instances of disruption" is a little misleading. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think he says all the right things in his unblock request, his prior work has been a net positive, and I'm willing to extend a length of WP:ROPE to him. I endorse unblocking him at this time. We can always block him again later. --Jayron32 16:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock I remember when Joseph was indef'd, and it came as quite a surprise (in that it was needed). He's done a lot of great work on cricket-related articles, a subject area I'm very passionate about myself, and would like to see him return. He's def. a net positive, and the threat of WP:ROPE is always there if it all goes wrong. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock I think Joseph knows this will be his very last chance and while I have indeed been on the receiving end of some of his more erratic edits in the past, I'm keen to allow one best and final offer – no more chances. Don't let us down. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock + block requests are fine - the sheer list is a massive concern, but I feel the risk/reward set-up is such that I'm tempted to go with more rope. Quite a few admins are happy to grant requests for self-blocking, if he's concerned he might cause problems, requesting a 48hr block from a couple of online admins seems a possible step. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

We could sqaure the circle with this and just make him an admin, that way he could block himself. Save bothering other people. ——SN54129 19:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Look at that block log. Personal attacks and harassment, violations of the BLP policy, and they've even had their talk page access revoked on multiple occasions. ST47 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - he has already violated conditions of past unblocks so many times that it's hard to see this as anything but trying to play us for fools. His block log and examples of past incidents give the impression he can't help himself, and so it's only a matter of time before he disrupts again, on purpose and with intent, because he thinks it's funny. It's not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose- based on that block history it'll be about a month or two before he starts acting like a vandalous jerk again. I don't think unblocking would be a good idea. Reyk _YO! 23:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Changing to support- although I still think it won't be long before he starts acting up again I've been persuaded there'll be no actual lasting harm. And on the off chance I'm wrong, we get a productive editor back. Reyk _YO! 21:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock with conditions (including block requests). Miniapolis 23:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock User has a lot of beneficial contributions, give him another chance, it is not like he will do massive damage or be hard to reblock if he steps out of line again. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. An editor with that many blocks for serious misconduct is unlikely to change their ways. Sandstein 18:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. An editor Wikipedia can do without. Seems like madness to have him back. Nigej (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock. This is actually a no-lose situation. Joseph2302 has done good work on the encyclopedia in the past, and this time there won't need to be any waste-of-time discussions if he even steps slightly out of line - he'll just be indeffed again. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock - I've been to-ing and fro-ing over this for some time, In short as mentioned above (and not to speculate) but mental health could very well play a part here and although not a reason to Support it sort of plays a part in my support, Their block log is atrocious however given they've made excellent contributions in the past I sort of feel they should be given another shot but it should go without saying this would obviously be their only and final chance regardless of any cause, Support as a final chance and any repeats would lead to an immediate indef. –Davey2010^Talk 21:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblocking to give them the benefit of the doubt. If the previous behavior resumes (which I don't hope) they'd surely be reblocked in no time and likely for the last time. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Twinkle now supports partial blocks

You should now be able to apply partial blocks using Twinkle! There's a simple checkbox, off by default, that toggles the "partial" status for blocks and templates. It has some fancy menus to let you select namespaces and/or enter specific titles to block users from. There is, as of now, only one template for partial blocks, {{uw-pblock}} (made by QEDK). Any and all feedback welcome — this is obviously in flux given the rapid deployment, lack of policy, etc. — feel free to ping me and/or post at WT:TW, I'll do what I can over the next few days. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

All of you (and me) owe Amory some baklava. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• User:Doug Weller, FYI. You might need another excuse if you still want to avoid pblocks. :) --DBigXrayᗙ 18:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @DBigXray: lol. I'm not really avoiding them as I've made one and most of my recent blocks were for issues where a partial block wouldn't help, but it's nice to know there's something in Twinkle now!. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm avoiding them. Yet another pain to add to my butt. We add things that are not needed (in my view) and don't add things that are (CU-related stuff).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
      • {{User:Ivanvector/Nopartial}} Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• I didn't really follow the progress of the development of partial blocks(though I was aware it was coming). They way I see it, they seem more useful after an initial general block as a way to get someone unblocked who might have had issues in a particular area. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see a great many circumstances where one would start out with a partial block. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• I can understand (though don't necessarily agree) opposition to partial blocks on a specific user. But one use I hope we can all get behind - including starting out with them - is to block a range of IPs from particular articles, when that range would have an unacceptably high level of collateral damage if simple sitewide range blocks were used. It's still theoretically collatreal damage, but it's much less damaging to prevent innocent users sharing an IP from editing 2 articles, than to prevent them editing 6 million. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That does make sense to me. Thanks for the insight. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Rmharman redirecting his user and talk page to User:Auros

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

---

I noticed a weird case while on my usual new page patrol beat. User:Rmharman has completely taken over another account and redirects his user and talk page to that account. He even links User:Auros in his signature. I removed the redirect and tried to message him on talkpage but he reverted the edits with the edit summary "Changed username, associated with a legal name change". Razer(talk) 23:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

They're both the same person, me. Rmharman is older, I had switched to using Auros as the nickname took over my life (and eventually became my legal name), and recently I started making some contributions again but forgot I had converted the account, and the old user/pass was what I'd had stored in 1Password so it auto logged that in. Ideally what I'd like to do is entirely purge the old Rmharman identity and redirect any references / contribs to the new name. This is me. The nickname originated in college, gradually became what everyone calls me in real life, and I legally changed my name in 2017. --Auros (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Auros, I understand you point but using two accounts simultaneously is against wiki policies, Please see WP:MULTIPLE. Your editing patterns are frankly too confusing to follow. Just a example - I posted a edit notice on Rmharman talk page. You cut and pasted it to User talk:Auros and then you replied using the User:Rmharman account but signed it with "User:Auros" 2. Then you made another reply this time with the "Auros" account. Razer(talk) 15:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, You participated in the AFD discussion of "Josh Becker (politician)" and made a comment using your Rmharman account but signed it with "Auros" [31] at the same time you have been editing the article with both Rmharman and Auros account 2 .I would also like to point out that I dont appreciate you editing the content of my replies . Razer(talk) 16:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Rmharman could ask for a self-requested block of their account. This would remove the chance of making accidental edits using the old account but would carry no stigma. They would employ the User:Auros account for any future edits. Links from the old user pages to the new ones could stay in place. Unless this is done, continuing to edit with two accounts is against policy and will probably lead to indignant responses. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've fixed the settings in 1Pass, to avoid accidentally logging in the old account again, and edited the old User and User_talk pages to just be text indications of where to look, rather than redirects -- though honestly, I don't see what the harm would be in using the redirect. Suggestion: it would be useful if there were a link right next to the username, in Special:Preferences, that would take a user to WP:CHU (which EdJohnston kindly directed me to). Razer2115, regarding editing your replies, the version of your comment that I replied to is what you originally posted. It looks to me like most likely what happened is that I began composing my reply to that, then you edited your comment, then I posted my reply, and that inadvertently reverted your comment to its previous version. Perhaps you could consider the spirit of WP:AGF. I actually appreciated your original shift of my article on a local politician into the Draft space, which I had not been previously aware of (although now other users seem to be pushing the article back in the other direction). My understanding of Wikipedia as a project is that it should be possible for a user to dip in and out of contributing over time, without becoming an expert on administrative processes. The important thing is to provide factual information that meets basic principles (NPOV, good citations, and so on). The "long tail" of contributions from a very large number of infrequent users is valuable. Acting hostile toward folks, just because they haven't mastered intricacies of procedure, is harmful to the enterprise as a whole. --Auros (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Backlog at WP:RFPP

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

---

I counted 17 unanswered requests. An advance thank you to whoever helps out with it! Clovermoss (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Dealt with a few (feedback is welcome!) --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Cleaned out now, thanks @Ritchie333 and Ymblanter:! --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

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

I am requesting to say something on the talk page of an article

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

---

Lovely plumage-- Deepfriedokra

Sock-it-to-me-- Deepfriedokra

Dear Wikipedia administrators, Please visit the Talk:Ahmed Rajib Haider, whether the article Ahmed Rajib Haider should be redirected to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh or not, please consider; I have added some important excerpts from that article to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh, you can see. Thanks - Walter Saphron (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

1. This does not belong on AN
2. The user is misinterpreting the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider. He attempted to speedy Ahmed Rajib Haider and now is attempting to redirect the entire without a talk page discussion.
3. The user was created today, after the AFD was closed as keep. Meters (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

And now the OP has opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Rajib Haider (2nd nomination) just hourt after the first AFD closed as Keep, but is arguing to Keep the article. Meters (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I closed the AfD and left the user a note about discussing on the article talk page.-- Deepfriedokra 06:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I am requesting all other administrators to see the talk page (Talk:Ahmed Rajib Haider), Deepfriedokra please participate in the discussion of the talk page. Thanks - Walter Saphron (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you really want all the admins weighing in on this? This looks a lot like an example of WP:SPIDER. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D:, I am sorry, not all admins but some. Walter Saphron (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Walter Saphron is a sock.  Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

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

racistic deletion in Blond

as for me as for an Asian, these changes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blond&type=revision&diff=925821361&oldid=925815623 seems to be racistic (Idot (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC))

How can you tell there were racist facets to the removal? El_C 10:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

this racist deleted and illustrated referenced information that proves the fact that some Asian ethnic groups could have blond hair at child hood. I'm a Kazakh, and my my mother when she was a little girl use to have blond hair, that become black when she grow up, the same I have some seen for my cousin who is Kazakh too. so this deletion vandalism is really offensive and leads of racial stereotypes (Idot (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC))

Idot, you repeated a conclusory allegation without providing evidence. This is a content dispute, not an admin matter - unless you continue calling people racists without credible evidence, in which case you'll likely be shown the door. Guy (help!) 10:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

what evidence I have to show? (Idot (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC))

Howdy hello Idot! In terms of evidence, we usually request several edits that show a pattern, or a convincing explanation of a single edit (which has not been provided). It seems that the editor in question (who I note you did not notify of this discussion despite the big red box at the top of the page) had a legit reason to undo the change. Was it based on racist sentiments? Or was it merely lack of sources? I would suggest discussing it with an editor before making an accusation of racism. A quick note here: on Wikipedia we assume good faith. If you assume that the edits were made with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, you might realize why the edits were made. What I see here is a dispute over content, that needs discussion. Also, making a claim based on personal experience, while perhaps enlightening, can't be used as a source as that is original research. In this dispute, please find some reliable sources that backup whatever claim you're making. TLDR: AN is not the first place to run when there is trouble (unless its very serious). Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

how about vandalism? it was written:
Today, higher frequencies of light hair in Asia are prevalent among Pamiris, Kalash, Nuristani and Uyghur ethnic groups.< ref >{ { cite book
Hunan201p has changed it to
It has been said that blond hair is observed in approximately 10% of Iranian Pamiris.< ref >{ { cite book
do you see the difference?
Hunan201p - removed ethnic groups (Idot (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC))

Sorry, but it sounds like content dispute, which you should manage on the article talk page — and do so without casting aspersions on the nature and/or motivation of your opponents in this dispute. El_C 02:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Outage of wikipedia.org 26 Jan 2020

Service announcement

Wikipedia has announced in this tweet that there are been service outages across the xx.wikipedia.org domain, affecting multiple language versions. See also this informal reporting website, suggesting the problem has been ongoing since c.14:00 UTC today. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, the tweet doesn't mention North America but I can confirm there have been problems, as well as some reported to OTRS. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes and Sphilbrick: I think the reason of the outage was because so many people were visiting Kobe Bryant, a high-profile figure, after his death. Any similar incidents before? ミラP 01:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: Really? I didn't know we were that vulnerable. It'll be interesting to see the pageview stats tomorrow, then. I'd never actually heard of him until I reverted what I thought was a couple of uncited edits to a stadium suggesting it had the nickname 'the house that Kobe built' - then I learned who he was. (I cited a news source saying that one fan had called it that. Happy to be reverted if anyone knows it really is a genuine nickname!) Nick Moyes (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I'm trying not to get offtopic, but this RS confirms that nickname. ミラP 02:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: That was actually the source I cited as my rationale for reverting the edit! If you read the article, it says one fan used that phrase. Not a WP:RS in my view to support a nickname. But we are rather off topic here - sorry all. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This tweet by Katherine Maher confirms that it was a DDoS attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Huh - at Phabricator they say that it might have been an internal malfunction. I note that that Tweet by Katherine Maher is attached to a Tweetchain about a different incident last year. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: a better Tweet is probably this one [32] although yes a comment from someone on the tech side would be far more conclusive. The Phabricator doesn't really provide much info. It links it to phab:T243548, and although it probably made sense to consider it possibly related, and no one seems to have ruled it out, I find it unlikely. It sounds like the problems causing T243548 were rolled back a few days ago. And I don't see any sign it's been re-implemented. So it's probably unrelated. phab:T243725 as a contributor seems more likely. Although, and this is a point I've been trying to make at VPT maybe not very successfully, we have to be careful about proscribing one specific cause. Often these things involve a number of different issues which end up pushing things over the edge. In other words, there may very well have been an intentional DDoS, but other issues may have made the problems worse or been part of the reason there was observed problems. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, 9.5 million hits. A lot, to be sure, but not enough to cripple, I would think. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The outage was happening well before the Bryant story broke. It is to do with these kinds of articles: 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak‎? Britishfinance (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• It was Dmytro Firtash in the library with a lead pipe. Guy (help!) 11:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Overlapping new proposed merges/moves/splits of Death of Kobe Bryant

There are a lot of editor eyes already on this, but could some uninvolved admins keep an eye on this?

While a very active discussion for a proposed merge was underway (still ongoing and very active as of posting), a proposed move was opened for the article about 15 minutes later (with 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash one of the proposed targets) while that merge discussion was ongoing and later speedily closed.

A duplicate article was created by verbatim copying from Death of Kobe Bryant to 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash which was later fully protected by Zzyzx11 as a redirect due to edit warring and the already ongoing merge discussion.

Now there is a new proposal to split the article to 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash just a few hours later, while the merge discussion is still ongoing. The centralized merge discussion includes plenty of debate about renaming the article and/or partial merges elsewhere. Surely the concurrent overlapping discussions are unnecessary? — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• We are under no obligation to actually close discussions until at least a few days have passed, by which time many discussions that are basically editorial disputes will settle themselves. BD2412 T 04:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Certainly yes, there is no rush to close until a reasonable time has elapsed. My concern is that there are multiple concurrent overlapping ones, partially over a target that was fully protected over edit warring. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I was requested to open a discussion on splitting, I've would have waited as I am also concerned that editors might think these are two of the same discussions. They are in fact completely different. The original discussion was about merge Death of Kobe Bryant to Kobe Bryant, that discussion divulged into something completely different and is now apparently focused on renaming the article. It appears the merge discussion is now also about splitting. It quite confusing now. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Now there is a third concurrent requested move. This is getting a little ridiculous. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Only just noticed that the proposed merge was closed before the move request was opened. Ignore the above. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate article

A duplicate article was created by verbatim copying from Death of Kobe Bryant to 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash...

No!!!! It was not!!! I wrote the article from scratch, unaware of the existence of the Death of Kobe Bryant article. If anything, material from the article I wrote was copied verbatim into the death article. Not that you'd know from the talk page, as there is no attribution. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Apologies then. But the two articles were identical regardless (I suppose because of the common sources). See the first revision of "2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash" and the revision of "Death of Kobe Bryant" at the same time. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC) (oldid fixed 06:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC))

@MarkH21: I'm not seeing any similarity between the two at the time. That link to the aircrash article was actually the second edit, which added the helicopter image to the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I matched the time stamps correctly but copied the wrong oldid. The two articles have almost identical content, from the course of events described to the passengers and helicopter being a Sikorsky S-76. There are just minor wording differences. The two articles clearly are covering the same event with the same details based on the same sources. The only real difference are the times given, the firefighting detail, and the then-unreferenced registration number + operator — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I still say that there is no great similarity between the two. The article I created had a good structure and was moderately well categorised. Aircraft registration and operator were unreferenced at the time as I was working from this entry at the Aviation Safety Network Wikibase. I was trying to find better sources for that information when other editors came in and trashed the article with malformed redirects, undiscussed redirects etc and I was also getting multiple edit conflicts. The ASN Wikibase is considered by some as unreliable, as opposed to the ASN maid database. I consider it is usable if necessary, as content placed there is vetted by an editorial team, but prefer to find other sources if possible. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, maybe you don't see it, but the two articles were about the same event, described the same details, and used the same sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

At the time in question, the article I created had three sources, an the death article had two. Only one source was common to both articles. Mjroots (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It's extremely common that there is parallel article development when some highly notable event without an article happens. Most editors do their best to make sure they aren't creating a duplicate article, but it can be quite hard to find the existing article, especially if it's not linked from anywhere, so it's quite easy to accidentally create a parallel article. There does not seem to be any real consensus for having 2 articles on such highly related events, as I think most with experience here would expect. When things like this happen, there is no simple way to decide which one should be the main one. If one shows significantly more development, probably it's the better choice. But if both are similar, frankly it's a bit random. It can come down to which one is oldest, or which one has the better title or really just randomness based on what whoever first comes across the problem does. Frankly, the most important thing is not to choose the right target but to fix the problem quickly, to avoid further parallel development and confusing edit histories. Whatever article is chosen as the main one, assuming there is any content copied from the other one to the main one, attribution needs to be provided in accordance with the licence terms per WP:Copying within wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I completely agree. I didn’t mean to focus on the actual creation of the duplicate article, but point out the fact that we had a lot of duplication of discussions & articles. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

As usual, the root cause here is the attempt to document breaking news as it happens. That's not what we're supposed to do. Guy (help!) 11:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

NOTNEWS only applies when the news documented is insignificant enough as to receive no lasting coverage (per WP:LASTING). That is not the case here. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Even if it's major news, we're still not a news outlet and we should not be trying to document breaking news as it happens. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You cannot stop the masses without some draconian changes. In cases like these it's best IMO to let the article get written by whosoever feels interested and then come back months later and clean the articles in question. People might still care about the nature of the death in 6 months, but it won't be a madhouse to try to enforce the changes (just the regular-old WP:ARS keep-bombing at AFD...). --Izno (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

We all know that the main page has a section called "In the news" at the upper right corner and the death of Kobe Bryant is now the lead item. WP:NOTNEWS lists four specific types of things that we ought to exclude and none of them apply to this helicopter crash that killed nine people, one very famous. For 19 years, Wikipedia has developed articles in real time about major events of long term notability, and that will not be stopped by invoking "NOTNEWS". The worst thing about that policy language is that it directs people to the failed Wikinews project. Look at the garbage article they are now hosting about Kobe Bryant's death. That crappy failed website should be shut down. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No hate for Wikinews (rather unaware of its existence) but what Cullen328 says stands. Furthermore, coverage is mostly most reliable when news sources are actually looking into them, not 10 years later, I don't know what site other than Wikipedia should have documentation of real-life events that should definitely be documented (Encarta, anyone?). --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, coverage is mostly most reliable when news sources are actually looking into them, not 10 years later ... I very strongly believe the exact opposite is true. Historians are far more reliable than journalists. Levivich 17:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering how ABC News reported at first that all of Kobe Bryant's children were on the helicopter, I would agree. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence for your statement, historians are no more likely to be more reliable than journalists. As well as it possible to have historians that do their research and journalists who speculate, the reverse holds true as well. The big difference is that a journalist is more likely to be identified as wrong or speculating by their peers, and not historians, which is exactly how you now know that all of his children were not on the helicopter, but you have no way of knowing how accurate the research of your unknown historian is, especially since so less of them are out there to verify and crosscheck their research (and so much of their research is to try to know the unknown). --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Tell us how you really feel Cullen, don't hold back :-)

Pointer to an ongoing related discussion at WP:VPP#A valid criticism ... Levivich 17:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The main page, yes - don't get me started on what's wrong with that enormous timesink. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

From experience, it is much easier to write articles about events as they happen, rather than weeks or months down the line. This is especially true when sources are all, or nearly all, online. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Writing articles would be much easier if we didn't have to bother with pesky sources at all, wouldn't it? But hey, that's not what we are here for. There are less available "sources" if we wait to write it because all that's left is the secondary sources we really need to write a proper article. News accounts of an unfolding event are primary sources. If all I had to write a biography were a bunch of primary sources, that subject wouldn't be notable. Why should we treat an event differently? John from Idegon (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that writing articles about events as they happen leads to a lot of terrible articles structured like "On X, Y thing happened" repeated ad nauseum. Later sources are often more comprehensive and better structured, and that leads to better articles. I know I'm fighting a losing battle on suggesting restraint and not trying to regurgitate 40KB of breaking news with no evidence of lasting impact, but you certainly don't make good articles out of that formula. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Canadian open proxies

About the report linked in the title that goes back to last week, I'm reporting this new situation. A user registered a new account this morning, and 4 minuts later he used it to restore one of the edits made by the anonymous proxy-user. Here it is:

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

The fact he hasn't done any other edit made me think that he may be the same individual, the vandal who used to hide behind open proxies last week is now try hiding behind a throwaway username to deceive and mislead other users. A CU request can't be requested for this case because checkusers can't link accounts and IPs and because the IP of the open proxy has already been blocked so he can't be using it, but perhaps a checkuser might check the logs of the username and control if the IPs he used are from open proxies in order to block them, and besided this there should be behavioural evidence that the anonymous and the registered users are the same individual. Please use in the best way the information I've provided. --151.21.73.20 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Normally this sort of request is made by opening a sockpuppet investigation and setting the checkuser request flag. No matter, I've blocked the account as an obvious sock of the open-proxy-abusing user. I did not check the account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Assamese language topic ban appeal

Appeal

I recently made a request to editwarring noticeboard to look after a edit war. Warnings are not served to parties involved, rather a topic ban is initiated for possible policy violation. Below are grounds that ban is not justifiable for now:

• There is no possible violation, relevant edit was made according to general consensus in WP:DRN.

See relevant discussion at:

• User_talk:EdJohnston#Appeal_for_roll-backing_ban
• Edit_warring#User:Msasag_reported_by_User:Bhaskarbhagawati_(Result:_Filer_topic_banned). Thank you in advance.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• @EdJohnston: I think this concerns you. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The grounds for imposing the topic ban are explained in the two links already given above by Bhakarbhagawati, WP:AN3#User:Msasag reported by User:Bhaskarbhagawati (Result: Filer topic banned) and in my response at User talk:EdJohnston#Appeal for roll-backing ban. It would be hard to deny there is a dispute, when it has been running since 2012. It is hard to defend the reasonableness of Bhaskar's January 2020 edits at Early Assamese when the continuity of the Assamese language over the centuries is the very issue complained about in the April 2019 ANI). "Bhaskarbhagawati wishes the articles to reflect the unqualified claim that the former (a modern dialect of Assamese) is in actuality the same language as the latter (a 12th century language)." His new edits at Early Assamese cause it to be redirected to Assamese language. In other words, he denies that what is described in the Early Assamese page could be a separate language. His theory seems to be, 'I lost the previous argument, but I haven't reverted for a long time, so it's correct for me to come back and do more reverts'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Good ban A topic ban was the right move here. Filer was being disruptive, and seems to have a strong POV that they are incapable of extricating themselves from. I see no impropriety in applying the ban, and think that the filer needs some time to cool off and consider why they were banned. If they stay out of trouble and show understanding of why they were banned, I would support an unblock in 6 months to a year. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I am ready to comply, but i like to clear why "Early Assamese" was redirected. The Assamese language/Standard Assamese itself based on modern Eastern Assam dialect. As said above by EdJohnston, a modern dialect cannot be equal to a old language. Old Assamese language is long covered in Kamrupi Prakrit, thatswhy we don't have such article by name of Early Assamese till 2020, a content fork, nevertheless i am not going get my hands dirty on it and leaving the article for community conscience.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Bhaskarbhagawati: You are very lucky that you have been handed a very lenient topic ban for your misconduct. You should cease all these attempts to rehash your content dispute and instead focus somewhere else before community would seek a broader topic ban or a block for you. Orientls (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Name of a murderer removed, possible oversight issue?

I've removed the name of a murderer from an article here. It was mentioned in the lead, the body didn't use it (just initial). His name is also present on wikidata ((Redacted)) and is given by many media sources. I am not sure if oversight is required, but I trust someone here will know if further action is required? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I have deleted the linked revision pending a decision from an oversighter. Thank you for raising this concern, but in the future please email oversight concerns oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org rather than at AN as this is a high traffic page. See, e.g., Streissand effect. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I've handled the suppression, and would echo what Wugapodes has to say about not publicly requesting suppression in the future. Thanks for reporting it! I've also informed the Wikidata oversight team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: You moved it to Sisterproject queue, where unprivileged users can see the ticket contents. I found it and moved it to oversight::oversight-wikidata. — regards, Revi 15:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

And duly taken care of. — regards, Revi 15:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Grammarly article, and promotional editing

Recently an article about Grammarly has had a lot of promotional edits done to it, and the article itself is written like an advert, and 2 editors have constantly been edit warring (this thread is not about them, and please don't relate them to the article) may I get a warrant for deletion of the article, or instead get Extended Confirmed protection for the article? 96.230.240.122 (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Just adding this link Grammarly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to make it easier for those who might respond to this post. MarnetteD|Talk 01:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that justifies extended confirmed protection, and we cannot delete the page outside of the deletion process. The editors seem to be discussing the dispute on the talk page, and I would prefer to give the bold, revert, discuss cycle a chance before protecting the page. I've added it to my watchlist and if I notice things get worse I'll try to step in. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Wugapodes! 96.230.240.122 (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz appointed trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Dreamy Jazz (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Dreamy Jazz appointed trainee clerk

Spartan Race involved actions

A user who was banned in 2017 for (among other things) threatening to involve numerous Wikipedia editors in their real-life personal legal drama has returned to push their agenda at Spartan Race. I am one of those editors they've threatened, and have been involved with content at that article off and on, so technically I fail WP:INVOLVED when blocking two of their new IPs and semiprotecting the article for a good long time. These blocks are not checkuser blocks. Would uninvolved admins please review my actions and adjust as required? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I only see one block, that of *167, and it seems to be fine. As for the two month protection, it seems to be honest excessive to me: I would not give more than two weeks (though the very fact of the protection is reasonable).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I should have specified: the IPs I blocked are 201.170.166.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 2806:1000:8002:6b20::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), and the page is protected for 14 months. It has previously been protected for one and three months, but I don't see any pattern of the user waiting for protection to expire so maybe you're right that a long term is excessive. Feel free to modify. I'm not sure which 167 IP you mean. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I meant the first IP you mentioned, I did not realize the second is the rangeblock. Concerning the protection, let us wait for more opinions.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with annoying but infrequent disruption from the same person does raise puzzling questions. But if a one year block of the /64 is justified then I guess a 14-month semiprotection is OK. The article Spartan Race is not about a major topic that will require lots of updates all the time. So I would keep a semiprotection in place for at least six months. The original ban in 2017 was for an editor who made legal threats and promised to expose personal information, needing oversight. ("..if we find your identity, you will be sued for fraud.") EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

File spam

Spam is overwhelming (see WT:WikiProject Spam) so I'm asking here for opinions on how to handle the following new images. These are obviously intended to get a spam external link into Wikipedia after traditional methods of adding them to articles were reverted.

• File:A Poster showing benefits of Local SEO.png
• File:Equity mortage release.png
• File:Flekosteel Review.png
• File:Free Equity Release Calculator.png
• File:Save money while buying parkour shoes.png

Would it be too bold to delete these and indef the creator? I don't see an applicable speedy delete criterion for files. Is WP:G11 ok despite the wording not quite fitting? Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• WP:GCSD specifies that the general speedy criteria apply to all types of pages, explicitly including files. So IMO yes, these qualify for G11 and the creator should be blocked for spam. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, blocked, and taking care of the files. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Profane username

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

---

There is a user called Dick Pennis, the user has made NO edits in 4 YEARS, and is clearly not here to make an encyclopedia, could you please block this user, due to the profane username? 96.230.240.122 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Per the username policy, "Consider leaving well enough alone". The user hasn't ever edited, so the username isn't causing problems just sitting there. Even if they were making edits, it's possible that Richard Pennis is someone's name, and it would be very unfortunate to block them out of the blue simply for using their real name. This is why the username policy also recommends discussing the username with a user before seeking intervention. No disruption is occuring and and merely resembling the word "penis" isn't sufficient grounds for an immediate block without warning. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see, in that case sorry for the disruption I have made 96.230.240.122 (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't sweat it 96.230; it's a good faith report, but that's just how it is. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Move request

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

---

Please move User:CptViraj to User:CptViraj/alt without leaving a redirect. Thankyou. -- CptViraj (📧) 08:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Francisco Varcarcel

I have just deleted this article per WP:BLPDELETE. Essentially, it was entirely unsourced except for an external link to wbo-int.com (since replaced with a Wayback Machine archive) and an inline citation to The Sun. In my opinion, it is completely unacceptable to have a BLP in this state. As this is likely to be a controversial action since it is not covered by any of the speedy deletion criteria directly, I am bringing discussion here.

I will look at writing a properly BLP-compliant biography when I have looked through WP:BLPSOURCES compliant material and have time to assemble it; alternatively, if anyone who is knowledgeable about boxing managers, I will have no issue with you writing such an article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

While I'm not knowledgeable on boxing managers, here are a few sources. 1 is here, 2 is here and 3 is here. His nickname is "Paco": Thank you. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect @Ritchie333: here is another source here. Why didn't you mark the article for deletion? There is a Puerto Rico project that would have seen and addressed the lack of sources. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Nominating the article at AfD is not appropriate, because I would anticipate the result to be "keep" (at AfD we discuss if it's possible to write a satisfactory encyclopedia article, which it is). Rather, the point of this is to force a properly, reliably sourced version, not the version that would have been flagged up as a borderline WP:BLPPROD if created today as opposed to 15 years ago. For the minute, I have recreated the page as a redirect to World Boxing Organization, which seems pretty uncontroversial. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Reservation Number Spamming

We seem to be getting regular additions to airline articles from various IPs in the format "Reservation Number is 1-8XX-XXX-XXX" and similar, they appear to be at best spamming or at worst possibly some sort of scam, perhaps we should consider some form of filter to stop these edits ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: We do have a scam filter for this type of thing, already operating in several other areas. If you can pull together some numbers and some diffs, drop a note at WP:EFR. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Page move requests

Would an administrator please move 2005–2006 BAI Basket & 2007–2008 BAI Basket to 2005–06 BAI Basket & 2007–08 BAI Basket. My requests at the proper page, keeps getting deleted by RMCD bot. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please make your request at WP:RMTR. If you try adding things to WP:RMCD the bot will continue to delete your requests. That page is bot-generated and drives off of formal move requests that have been entered on talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk page abuse

There is a user, that has abused their talk page (here is the link), by writing something profane on it, could someone check it out?

P.S I think their username sounds a tad to profane, but I could be wrong, and their username could (hopefully) mean Cat Girl. 96.230.240.122 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's 9 years old. I fail to see the need of an ANI report. I blanked it. Praxidicae (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 96.230.240.122 (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)